Good Article On Problems W/ USGA Set Ups

[HDPM]

Link HERE

[Six_of_One]

Interesting article, but I don't agree. The U.S. Open is all about carnage...in that way it's different from any other event on tour. I think it would be a mistake to lose that difference.

Birdies in the U.S. Open piss me off. I don't want birdies, I can see them any other week of the year. I want thick rough, hard greens, narrow fairways...if Carnoustie had been a U.S. Open, it would have been perfect.

I hear the argument sometimes that the U.S. Open set-up is unfair because it punishes good shots. Well, I don't think that's true -- if the green is too hard to hold a shot, then landing the ball on the green is not likely to be a good shot. The players will continue to whine endlessly, but I hope the USGA never makes things easier for them.

[on_thg]

Interesting, although I have to say I don't agree with it.

It seems to me that the U.S. Open setups have just as many risk-reward opportunities, it is just that they tend to be more with the approach shot rather than the drive. The setup rewards straight drivers to be certain, but the real test is finding the right spot on the green, or even in some cases the right place to miss the green. I see nothing wrong with having a different type of challenge.

The U.S. Open winners this year may have been relative unknowns, but that's hardly the case most years.

[HDPM]

in response to the current 2 replies, I think shackelford sees it as a problem to ruin good golf courses. His perspective is tied to architecture. He likes to see strategy and believes that the current equipment ruins a lot. Check out his other writings.

I tend to agree with him on this one. I too like to see the US Open as a tough test. But Donald Ross was a better golf course architect than the USGA people. It bothered me that some bunkers were in the rough. Seems to me the bunker was there for a reason. Maybe because of a risk-reward scenario for the ideal angle to a hole location. I don't think shackelford wants a soft open, just a more intelligent one.

I also think a mix is appropriate. You want penal aspects to the course, but not every single hole or shot should have that as the goal. A strategically placed nasty bunker can do wonders, where fairways that are so narrow everybody hits them about the same are dumbed down.

[JTrout]

Very good article.

One thing I miss is players hitting med./long irons into par 4s.

One of the old marks of great major champions was good long iron play. Now, no matter how long the hole, wedges and short irons are the norm.

Watching the event at Congressional a few weeks back really brought it to focus.
The 17th, where Els laced a 5 iron into the water-guarded green, and Lehman found the drink with a 5 iron.
This year I saw wedges landing in the back fringe and sucking back. Ugh.

18th at Pinehurst. Goosen finished off his awful round with Driver/SW.

The fairways are so brick hard, that you either Drive it into the rough (where you hack out), or 340 yds, where you wedge on.
The precious "Par" that the USGA is so found of is gained mostly by tricked up greens and hole locations. Sad.

Augusta saw the need for more demanding 2nd shots, and adjusted well.

[HDPM]

read an article today about Vijay's practice round at Baltusrol. Sounds like the PGA agrees with you. They have made Baltusrol really long. A 248 yard par 3, and some par 4's pushing 500 as has become the thing in majors. I know I am not a pro and am not playing these couses from the tips, but I can say that 495 yard par 4's are not my forte. LOL.

[andyfox]

Before Campbell, every U.S. Open (mens) winner since 1990 has won at least 8 tournaments, with the exception of Goosen, who has won only 5, but also has 17 international wins. He's certainly a world class player. Steve Jones and Lee Janzen seem the only "weak" players to have won, but they've both won 8 tournaments, so their winning was hardly a fluke. Furyk, Stewart, Els, Kite, Woods, Pavin, Goosen, Irwin--it's a pretty impressive list. The cream generally rises to the top no matter the layout.

The author makes a good point though, I think, when he says the older courses have been rendered outdated to some extent by the new players and the new equipment. I mean didn't Tiger hit an iron for his second shot into a 600 yard hole?

While I'm not a Fuzzy fan, I like what he said a few years back when everyone was complaining about the course being unfair and too difficult: "Somebody's going to win, right?"

[JTrout]

[ QUOTE ]
"Somebody's going to win, right?"

[/ QUOTE ]

So crowning a champion makes everything all right?
Rubbish.
You might feel a little different if you were the last group to play #6 last year before they began watering.

Heck, why don't they just play the WSOP this year with everyone standing on one leg the duration?
Somebody's going to win, right?

[Blackjack]

Wah wah wah I don't hit the ball far enough wah wah wah

Blackjack

[andyfox]

It's golf, not the war in Iraq. Fuzzy's point, about hte bitching and moaning, was that what does it matter if the winner shoots even par or 32 under? The trick is to shoot a lower score than anyone else. The course is hard, the greens are too fast, good shots are punished, yada yada. Play. Whoever plays the best will win.