US Open - dull or farcical? discuss

Unfortunately I didn't get to see very much of this year's US Open, but just looking at the numbers the USGA's obsession with making the course as difficult as possible to ensure that noone shoots a low score has some adverse effects.

Firstly, the golf seems to become incredibly dull. Congratulations to Michael Campbell for playing extremely composed and steady golf but rounds of +1,-1,+1,-1 is hardly inspirational watching is it? The mantra of "hit the fairway, hit the green" to avoid rough so onerous that it almost guarantees a bogey (or worse) results in extremely conservative golf.

Worse still is that it can become a little embarrassing to see the best players in the world really struggling. Athird place finish of +5 just seems wrong to me. For me, a fair par for the best field of players in the world would be where the cut is made as this implies that the average player in the field shot even par. Ok, so this might mean that the winner shoots -15 or so but surely this is a better indication of who played the best golf over the four rounds as there's at least a chance of recovering from a couple of bad holes if the course yields a few birdies.

I'd be interested to hear all your views.

Paul

Paul,

I have to agree, I stayed up last night to watch the finish and thought exactly the same.

No-one likes to see anyone continually making bogies and double bogies, not to mention making them look stupid.......I think this would be the only time I could walk of the course and say its a joke.

I would much prefer to see 25 under at the lead with three players shooting 59s how much more fun would that be both for players and viewers.


Another professional open set up by amatures........


Ian.

I also agree. But -15 is to low I'd like to see -8 winning the tournaments.

I've played on courses where it is impossible to shoot for the pin and it gets very frustrating.
We want to be impressed with fantastic shots not scrambling to make par.

My personal opinion is that the score (+5, -18 or whatever) is largely irrelavent, the biggest issue i had was that the course was making the top players in the world look like amatuers.

It looks like they had a patch of about 3 foot square to land the ball on, or it would end up rolling off of one of the edges of the green. Good shots should not be penalised by being 2 inches off line from 170 yds!

I agree with most of previous comments. For me the most surprising thing, the number of relatively unknown pros who keep on winning The Open and the US open. Is it because they lack imagination and as plodders ideally suited no matter how tough the course. Just athought.

I think how the course was is great. It provides a true challenge and is a grueling four day test for all. It shows that a three shot lead going into the last round does not secure anything and that the person with the most consistent accuracy wins. If you can go routine at pinehurst #2 then you will end up shooting well. You will make a lot of one putts and even if you have a 70% gir you should still be able to get up and down quite a few out of the 30% missed.

To me the course was fair. Everyone experienced the same enviroment. That being said I could only imagine what the scores would be if the wind blew a little. Everyone in my opinion had to deal with the same sort of circumstances. The X factor being several things
A) aggressive vs. non-aggressive play
b) driving accuracy and putting
c) creativity
The #1 golfer in the world has uncanny creativity and course management. But his putting was suspect. Had he put well he would have won.
It was refeshing to see Gore and some other amatuers up there for the first three days. And what about Nick Price! Look for him to light it up at this years brittish. Good to see hensby play well as well.....I was suprised Mike Weir didnt play well.
Personally, it was a good showing and I am glad to see M. Campbell win. Although not a golfer unknown he has slipped off the charts over the years. And yes I am an american and yes I watch other tours and watch other events.
Speaking of being an american I boycotted the US Gand Prix after I went the first year. When the winner (shcumacher) says he fell asleep because the race was boring then I ask why was I there? I saw one pass the whole race. SCrew F-1...they dont care about their fans and although I have the upmost respect for safety I do beleive that racing is a dangerous sport. Two me the fans are the sport. If the tires were the issue than proper tires should have been given to the guys to facilitate the race. I have been to over 15 indycar races and 7 nascar events. I remember in indycar races where an engine was sold from one team to another just so the team could field a race car. What happened here in indianapolis was not a competition...it was a mockery.......F-1 is good for this city it brings in alot of money. But I'd rather have a convention of lepers than have another F-1 race here again in this town. They dont care about their fans, they dont care about the sport..all they care about is the money. I am not saying american sports are perfect. But at least they try to say the right things instead of bash you in the nose.
ed

Gota agree with bonzi here.

If the pros hit the fairway then they could spin the ball easily. The course wasnt rediculously long so you could hit 3 wood n stuff to get on the short grass. Once they had it on the fairway, they could stop it on the green, the slopes aint in play (unless they just plane play a bad shot)and they could make birdies etc. Tiger done it when he hit fairways. And if he missed he couldnt get the control..as it should be.

I think some people can be hipicritical saying it was too harsh a set up because people also say length is ruinin the game and they want an imperitive on hitting fairways...then wen you really HAVE to hit the fairway to control the spin, then courses are too hard for pros? I understand where some come from with taking 3, 4 chips to get the ball on the green, but thats jus how it goes..if they eventualy get it in the hole then it was never imposible.

__________________
B.I.G

Maybe one can say the course was ****py, but one definitely can't say it's not fair. So at the end of the day, may the best man win, right? If it takes boring shots to win, then the pros should just damn well play the boring shots Afterall, they are there to win, right?

the best thing that I liked was that score made the pros seem human. You see Tiger time after time make some real tough shots, but then on this course you see them where it's like the average Joe going to play golf. Misread putts, rough that was really rough. John Daly even made the cut for this round so it couldn't have been so bad. I also liked that the people in contention were virtually no namers. Tiger hung around in case Mike Campbell screwed up. It was nice to see the galleries cheering Jason Gore.

Maybe it's because I'm Canadian but for some reason I always cheer for the underdog and it's nice to see these new names (to me anyways) in golf. Sean O'Hair (although I didn't see him in the open), Jason Gore, Mike Campbell... Hopefully we will hear more from them.

__________________
Have you ever thought that people buy expensive golf clubs to hit the ball less??? HHHHMMMMM

Yeah, I think that's a nice change... And why not, right? As long as it is fair to everyone, I think it makes watching it more interesting!

Too bad I missed it... Not sure if it's available anywhere?

I actually like seeing the course present a challenge and the players struggle to break par. I think it's boring when players are 20+ under par making tap in birdies.