I Hate The US Open

[Golf10]

8 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Do you think the rough in ‘74 was deeper? I don’t think so. The players today are just more adept at playing from it in general.

 

Equipment has made the game much easier for pros.  Hell I average 300 yards and I'm a 5.

[Shilgy]

12 minutes ago, Golf10 said:

 

Equipment has made the game much easier for pros.  Hell I average 300 yards and I'm a 5.

Happy for you. My post was not about distance though. Or do you think modern equipment makes it easier to play from long rough as well?

 

This is not directed at just you but....why do so many want to only credit equipment for the player improvement? Is everyone so protective of the heroes of the past that they cannot admit it might be because the players are, gasp(!) actually better today? Better instruction, better diet, better fitness and so on.  Couple that with every great player today gets together for the majors. Just look at the leaderboards of 50 years ago. A lot of “who he” entries and vastly predominantly American. The rest of the world has caught up and plays every week.  That is not to say there are fewer great Americans playing today.  But there has never been greater competition in the world of golf.  This is a pro golf in general question. The Americans acquitted themselves quite nicely this week.

[sbjinx]

55 minutes ago, tgoodspe1991 said:

I loved it because DeChambeau won it. He played a phenomenal final round and was the only player in the entire field who shot under par in the final round and the entire tournament.

 

That's some pretty crazy stuff.

Yeah as much as I can’t stand his antics at times he was unbelievable - especially today. Was hoping to see someone at E make a run but he was the only one going in the right direction. 

[Obee]

I very much appreciate his golf game. I couldn't stand his "damaging my brand" comment. That was just beyond the pale to me. Be a human being for god sake.

[Tiptx1122]

I enjoyed it as it was nice to see a new Major Champion. I don't like seeing someone win wire to wire or someone shooting -30 and blowing everyone else away. It is nice when it comes down to the very last  hole and a person has to make the putt in order to win but that doesn't always happen. This is one Major that is designed to be extremely tough as no body likes a walk in the park victory even if DeChambeau made it look easier than everyone else. That man truly deserved it as I don't care how far anyone can drive the ball. They still have an approach shot a chip and putt to make. No body else had there A game on like DeChambeau. 

[Golf10]

1 hour ago, Shilgy said:

Happy for you. My post was not about distance though. Or do you think modern equipment makes it easier to play from long rough as well?

 

This is not directed at just you but....why do so many want to only credit equipment for the player improvement? Is everyone so protective of the heroes of the past that they cannot admit it might be because the players are, gasp(!) actually better today? Better instruction, better diet, better fitness and so on.  Couple that with every great player today gets together for the majors. Just look at the leaderboards of 50 years ago. A lot of “who he” entries and vastly predominantly American. The rest of the world has caught up and plays every week.  That is not to say there are fewer great Americans playing today.  But there has never been greater competition in the world of golf.  This is a pro golf in general question. The Americans acquitted themselves quite nicely this week.

 

Not disagreeing with you that the players are better now.  For the most part they are.  

 

If a tour pro hits a wedge instead of a 5 iron from the rough then yes it's a huge advantage.  Why do they now have this advantage?  Equipment.  It's the same reason I picked up 30 yards after taking 5 years away from golf.  The ball / shafts / driver heads are way too far advanced.  Yes I want to see players have to flight and work their ball.  You know who was best at that?  Eldrick.  Nobody does that anymore because they don't have to.  Yes I want to see a 15% rollback to bring skill back into the game.

 

There's no reason a golf course has to be over 7,000 yards.  Only because equipment has not been regulated is it so out of wack.  Golf should not take more than 3:30 to play.  It's bad for the environment to have such long courses.  It's expensive.  This is my opinion and if you disagree no worries.  Cheers

[dlygrisse]

The more I watched this year the more I loved it. Great course, great setup. Bryson was the most prepared and on his game.  It tested every aspect of the game, driving, irons, short game, putting, mental toughness, patience, stamina, focus etc. it’s the best US Open course along with Oakmont. 

[Hookasaurus Rex]

I like it.  I don’t have a problem with the US Open.  The rough makes for good entertainment.  It’s not my favorite major though.

 

My two favorite majors by far are The Open Championship- Love watching St Andrews, Royal Troon, Carnoustie, etc... and The Masters.  Then I like the US Open. Then a big gap to the PGA.  That one just. Seems boring to me.  I mean it’s good entertainment, but not on the same level for me.

[chillybilly]

At the risk of being pedantic, I'm uncertain that a strict 'no rough' edict came from Bobby Jones (or perhaps Clifford Roberts) but that's obviously what developed.  Ironically, the second cut ie the world's tamest version of rough was part of the Tigerproofing.  What might Brysonproofing involve, given that ANGC has been on a land-buying spree?  Jack Nicklaus said 'If they move the first tee back any farther we'll be teeing off from downtown Augusta.'  Perhaps the 'Bryson Tees' will be on a scaffold across Washington Road.

 

Downtown Augusta, by the way, is actually quite charming.  A bit of a time warp with the storefronts and tree-lined main street.  Played a music gig there and was pleasantly surprised after hearing numerous critical remarks about the place.

 

If we accept the apocryphal origins of golf as a diversion for shepherds then it's easier to believe that fairways were the areas where the sheep had grazed and rough was where they hadn't.  In other words, rough was the naturally-grown area.  Of course, the rough gets as much attention as the fairway at Open venues but you get the point.

 

 

Edited September 21, 2020 by chillybilly

[MUNIGRIT]

Has anyone mentioned that as tough as Winged Foot is it seems you can have poor driving accuracy and do well there. Phil was driving it horrible in 2006 when he should have won.

 

I love USO. It is a great test especially if they do it on the older classic courses.

Edited September 21, 2020 by MUNIGRIT

[Shilgy]

3 hours ago, MUNIGRIT said:

Has anyone mentioned that as tough as Winged Foot is it seems you can have poor driving accuracy and do well there. Phil was driving it horrible in 2006 when he should have won.

 

I love USO. It is a great test especially if they do it on the older classic courses.

If you think about it it makes sense in hindsight. Narrow the fairways that much and make the rough that long and what is going to happen? Everyone will miss a lot of fairways which plays right into the longer stronger players game.

The worst rough has arguably recently been at:

Winged Foot. Bryson and Ogilvy(perhaps the exception but he was longer than the average in 2006)

Oakmont DJ and Cabrera and Els

Merion. Rose

Torrey. Tiger

Bethpage Tiger