The 2006 US Open.

[Chris L The Golf Dude]

The true test of golf.

Sure hell wasn't the Open Championship or the current PGA Championship...

The US Open was the TRUE test of golf.

I don't know about you folks, but this is just insane... a Major shouldn't be this easy as of 18 under par wins the Open or the current score of the PGA championship.

The winning scores of 4 majors this year:

Masters -7

US Open +5

Open Champ: -18.

PGA: ???


Therefore, the US Open may be the only true test of major championship in 2006.


Unless you have a PGA at Pine Valley....

[pauliewalnuts]

the r&a and pga failed this year to test the best players in the world at their respective tournaments. hopefully scores will be lower next year with the open at carnouistie and the pga at southern hills.

[DemolitionMan]

Silly...does every major have to produce a final score of even par to be considered a true test of golf?

 

Did Tiger not look tested today? There were a ton of names near the top, if any of them fire a 63 or 64, then TW is pushed. But he can't wait for that to happen so knowing par's will not win the tournament, he fires at pins when he needs to and makes the putts. Seems like a test to me.

 

And to say the Open was not a test of golf is absurd. How did PM do? Els? Or the US Open champion Ogilvy? They got thrashed by a guy who relied on accurate long irons - that's not a test?

 

The four majors offer a different test, enjoy them for what they are.

[samm980]

I really don't understand how you say Winged Foot was the only true test. Just because par was beat up at the last 2 majors should not take away from the event. Actually I think that Royal Liverpool was a GREAT course to play the Open on. Medinah is a very good golf course also that got unlucky on some conditions that made it play easier.

 

I hate when people complain about courses that events are played on, who cares as long as everybody is playing the same track?

[Teetogreen86]

Chris L I respectfully disagree. All majors are played at great venues with the best players in the world competing. As long as they play the same course, who cares what the score is?

 

But if you want to look at difficulty, this week was tough for Medinah to show it's teeth. No wind with the exception of a breeze today. The fairways and greens were extremely soft and receptive. Not to mention it was overcast the first 3 days of the tournament. If it had been 85°, sunny, and windy this week, that -18 turns into a -10 easily, IMO. Just tough luck on the weather this week :help: .

[sergizmo]

I was pretty dissapointed by Medinah. Flat, soft greens. It was especially bad on Saturday, everyone was sticking it close. Most regular tour events had firmer greens than Medinah's on Saturday.

 

British Open courses for the most part depend on the weather to defend themselves. Not a lot of wind = low scores. That should change next near with Carnoustie being the venue. This course plays super hard, wind or no wind.

 

The Master's scoring is fine. What's so bad about 7 under?

 

The US Open is my favourite as well. A stern test for all aspects of the players game, regardless of weather.

[samm980]

It's funny most people were whining about Winged Foot when par was never even sniffed.

[Jer-Jer]

They were only soft and recpetive because of the weather sergizmo.

[sergizmo]

They were only soft and recpetive because of the weather sergizmo.

 

Would cutting them shorter and rolling them more have any difference? It wasn't just the softness, they were flat. No where near the break you should have at a major.

[DemolitionMan]

They were only soft and recpetive because of the weather sergizmo.

 

Would cutting them shorter and rolling them more have any difference? It wasn't just the softness, they were flat. No where near the break you should have at a major.

 

You should look into putting stats for the week and compare to other PGA venues and then try and claim the greens are too flat.

 

What are you comparing too anyway? Augusta? Pinehurst #2?

[docbarnes]

U.S Open is my favorite tournament to watch them make bogeys and others. The Masters is just plain beautiful and can always be exciting.

 

I just really dont understand this year why they did not have the greens faster. There was a comment made by Clampett that said they were slow compared to tour standards.

 

Bottom line: Tiger when he is on is the best in the game and he makes these tournaments boring to watch because he doesn't make mistakes and everyone else crumbles. IF TIGER DOES NOT PLAY IT IS AN EXCITING TOURNEY!!!

[nikemike]

Sure hell wasn't the Open Championship or the current PGA Championship...

 

The US Open was the TRUE test of golf.

 

I don't know about you folks, but this is just insane... a Major shouldn't be this easy as of 18 under par wins the Open or the current score of the PGA championship.

 

The winning scores of 4 majors this year:

 

Masters -7

 

US Open +5

 

Open Champ: -18.

 

PGA: ???

 

 

Therefore, the US Open may be the only true test of major championship in 2006.

 

 

Unless you have a PGA at Pine Valley....

 

So maybe they should have Ian McAllister setting up golf courses?

[sergizmo]

They were only soft and recpetive because of the weather sergizmo.

 

Would cutting them shorter and rolling them more have any difference? It wasn't just the softness, they were flat. No where near the break you should have at a major.

 

You should look into putting stats for the week and compare to other PGA venues and then try and claim the greens are too flat.

 

What are you comparing too anyway? Augusta? Pinehurst #2?

 

You don't really need stats to see how flat the greens were. Anyone watching the coverage could see how little break their was.

 

I'm not suggesting they have the countours that Augusta has, but the green complexes this week were pushovers by major standards. (aside from the rough)

 

It seemed as though the entire field tore up the course on Thurs-Sat, despite the length and rough. The reason? The green complexes were cupcakes by major standards. It was target golf. Take away 200 yards, cut the rough and we are watching the Greater Milwakee Open.

 

Has anyone here played the course before and after the Rees Jones re-design? That way we can get an objective view of how soft/contoured the greens really are. To me, they looked very extremely soft even considering the rain and very flat. Am I right or wrong on this?

 

I think IlliniKyle went to the event. What do you think Kyle?

[Chris L The Golf Dude]

Guys,

 

Thanks for the debate and respectfully disagreeing with me....

 

I am not saying the Open and the PGA are bad majors at all; just wish they would make it a bit tougher for the best players in the world....

 

Yes, the Open relies on Wind sometimes; The PGA is like a small US Open.

 

The Masters is on it's own.

 

The US Open; all would agree, is the toughest test in all of golf.

[DemolitionMan]

They were only soft and recpetive because of the weather sergizmo.

 

Would cutting them shorter and rolling them more have any difference? It wasn't just the softness, they were flat. No where near the break you should have at a major.

 

You should look into putting stats for the week and compare to other PGA venues and then try and claim the greens are too flat.

 

What are you comparing too anyway? Augusta? Pinehurst #2?

 

You don't really need stats to see how flat the greens were. Anyone watching the coverage could see how little break their was.

 

I'm not suggesting they have the countours that Augusta has, but the green complexes this week were pushovers by major standards. (aside from the rough)

 

It seemed as though the entire field tore up the course on Thurs-Sat, despite the length and rough. The reason? The green complexes were cupcakes by major standards. It was target golf. Take away 200 yards, cut the rough and we are watching the Greater Milwakee Open.

 

Has anyone here played the course before and after the Rees Jones re-design? That way we can get an objective view of how soft/contoured the greens really are. To me, they looked very extremely soft even considering the rain and very flat. Am I right or wrong on this?

 

I think IlliniKyle went to the event. What do you think Kyle?

 

You got it all wrong. The course is tough due to length, # of trees lining the fairways, and fast greens. But thanks to the weather, we didn't get to see fast greens. Today was a glimpse of how the quickness of the greens can get more bogeys. If it had been sunny all week, you would have seen a lot more missed putts with the small breaks and speed around the holes wrecking havoc.

 

You obviously were paying some attention, but you missed what was going on. Pushover green complexes were not producing low scores, it was the softness and slowness of the greens allowing for players to take dead aim at pins even though they were four paces off the edge. And the softer greens meant putts held their lines more.

 

I think the people at the PGA know just a little more than those hanging out here when it comes to selecting the venue for the championship and getting that venue prepared. They can't control the weather, so really there is little reason for people to be capping on Medinah, the setup, or the results.

 

It was a great tournament to watch. It's not too often in a major when the potential was there for a dozen players to go out and grab the title. It just so happenned again, only one player went out and grabbed it. It does not make the PGA any less enjoyable of a major.

[HipCheck]

They were only soft and recpetive because of the weather sergizmo.

 

Would cutting them shorter and rolling them more have any difference? It wasn't just the softness, they were flat. No where near the break you should have at a major.

 

Rees Jones was on the TNT coverage earlier in the week. He said that with severely sloped greens, you can only max out the stimpmeter at about 10-11. At Medinah, where he did the redesign, the contours on the greens were made much more subtle, so they could allow them to roll at 12+. That was the plan. More subtle breaks, but much faster. However, the weather did not cooperate with the plan.

 

Unfortunately this will happen sometimes. All courses can't be Shinnecock and rely on artificial watering (or lack thereof) to create more difficult putting & approach shots.

 

Ultimately, everyone is on the same playing field. Tiger has won in all kinds of conditions. Easy, hard, cold, windy, hot, blah blah blah. It doesn't seem to matter anymore.

[canadian_mike]

I hate watching the US Open simply for the fact that the best in the world look like hacks sometimes. Ok, maybe hack was a little extreme but you get the point. I like watching guys being able to go out there and try to win. It was there for the taking today, nobody took it. Tiger just played solid, made the birdies he needed.

 

The course was great. You were punished for not hitting the fairway as we saw with phil on one of the par 5's not sure which one. I don't like how the US Open is set up. Look at Augusta, the courses greens are extremely fast, and the fairways run out, yet the winning sscore was -7. But the US Open has to be almost impossible to putt on, hit the fairway get out of the rough and whatever else you can name.

 

I only really watch 3 majors; The PGA, The Masters and The Open. To win those you have to go out there and take it. The US Open you can sit back and wait for people to make bogeys and screw up and all you have to do is make less bogeys and double bogeys then they do and you win.

[sergizmo]

They were only soft and recpetive because of the weather sergizmo.

 

Would cutting them shorter and rolling them more have any difference? It wasn't just the softness, they were flat. No where near the break you should have at a major.

 

Rees Jones was on the TNT coverage earlier in the week. He said that with severely sloped greens, you can only max out the stimpmeter at about 10-11. At Medinah, where he did the redesign, the contours on the greens were made much more subtle, so they could allow them to roll at 12+. That was the plan. More subtle breaks, but much faster. However, the weather did not cooperate with the plan.

 

Unfortunately this will happen sometimes. All courses can't be Shinnecock and rely on artificial watering (or lack thereof) to create more difficult putting & approach shots.

 

Ultimately, everyone is on the same playing field. Tiger has won in all kinds of conditions. Easy, hard, cold, windy, hot, blah blah blah. It doesn't seem to matter anymore.

 

Thanks Hipcheck. Good to have some info direct from the designer.

 

I don't dispute the result in any way. Tiger was the best player this week, and he won. As you say he can adapt to pretty much anything.

[sergizmo]

They were only soft and recpetive because of the weather sergizmo.

 

Would cutting them shorter and rolling them more have any difference? It wasn't just the softness, they were flat. No where near the break you should have at a major.

 

You should look into putting stats for the week and compare to other PGA venues and then try and claim the greens are too flat.

 

What are you comparing too anyway? Augusta? Pinehurst #2?

 

You don't really need stats to see how flat the greens were. Anyone watching the coverage could see how little break their was.

 

I'm not suggesting they have the countours that Augusta has, but the green complexes this week were pushovers by major standards. (aside from the rough)

 

It seemed as though the entire field tore up the course on Thurs-Sat, despite the length and rough. The reason? The green complexes were cupcakes by major standards. It was target golf. Take away 200 yards, cut the rough and we are watching the Greater Milwakee Open.

 

Has anyone here played the course before and after the Rees Jones re-design? That way we can get an objective view of how soft/contoured the greens really are. To me, they looked very extremely soft even considering the rain and very flat. Am I right or wrong on this?

 

I think IlliniKyle went to the event. What do you think Kyle?

 

You got it all wrong. The course is tough due to length, # of trees lining the fairways, and fast greens. But thanks to the weather, we didn't get to see fast greens. Today was a glimpse of how the quickness of the greens can get more bogeys. If it had been sunny all week, you would have seen a lot more missed putts with the small breaks and speed around the holes wrecking havoc.

 

You obviously were paying some attention, but you missed what was going on. Pushover green complexes were not producing low scores, it was the softness and slowness of the greens allowing for players to take dead aim at pins even though they were four paces off the edge. And the softer greens meant putts held their lines more.

 

I think the people at the PGA know just a little more than those hanging out here when it comes to selecting the venue for the championship and getting that venue prepared. They can't control the weather, so really there is little reason for people to be capping on Medinah, the setup, or the results.

 

It was a great tournament to watch. It's not too often in a major when the potential was there for a dozen players to go out and grab the title. It just so happenned again, only one player went out and grabbed it. It does not make the PGA any less enjoyable of a major.

 

So the rough plays no factor in the difficulty of the course?

 

I don't think I made myself clear. Yes Demo, I realize the soft greens were allowing them to score. Hence the "target golf" reference. What I meant by "green complexes" was not only the surface, but the design as well. They are almost all sloped back to front, flat, and none of them were crowned etc... Sorry I didn't make it more clear earlier. I was also curious if the softness was due exclusively to the rain and not the design or maintenance of the greens themselves.

 

Even if it had been drier, fast greens are nothing new to these guys. A combination of speed and contour produce the real difficulty for players of this caliber.

 

It was great, for the first three rounds. Tiger had all but wrapped up after 6. Mike Weir started out strong but then started to miss fairways and that was the end of him. Luke Donald didn't do anything all day. Geoff Olgilvy took himself out on 3 with that 4 putt. The fear of Tiger is back in a big way. Some players who started out a little further back and had no chance at winning shot some great scores: Adam Scott, Shaun Micheel, and Sean O'Hair.

[Ducky]

I think it is bad from a spectators perspective if the professionals are struggling around the golf course. I would rather see a final score of -20 as opposed to +10. In my opinion, the rough appeared to be quite difficult at Medinah. If the professionals are able to keep it in play or recover well, then they deserve to shoot low scores.

[ryanpgm]

First I would like to say that this tournament was an absolute joy to watch. It is nice watching a major where it takes birdies to win it. Where the notion that par is the magic number that should win all majors, I am not entirely sure; however I would firmly disagree with it. Watching the best players in the world struggle because of 8" rough, 8,200 yard courses, and greens that run a 16 on the stimpmeter, is not my idea of good television. I don't think that it's good for the game. The players today are very good, that cannot be debated, but how much better are they than in previous years? Take a look at this link and you will see that just as many scoring records from the Masters came from players 10 - 40 years ago than as of late. Masters Scoring