US Open......fair or not?

[VinnyRM]

I watched the worlds best gofers humbled by a course that was set up with what appears to be the sole intention of resisting any flamboyance or any creativity at all.
Now don,t get me wrong, young Webb Simpson bossed the course best, and deserved his win, however can anyone here actually say it was exciting! I for one watched out of a sense of loyalty, and also to get my money's worth from my over exorbitant Sky subs!
I'm not a big fan of stroke play at the best of times, but there are courses and set ups that at least make it interesting and allow the daring players to "have a go" , in my view Olympic totally failed on that front.
When you have players talking about dead greens, no chance from 40yards etc etc it makes for a VERY boring viewing spectacle, yes Simpson won it, but it was a case of he made more routine pars than anyone daring to take it on.
These guys get a kings ransom, and no doubt enjoy their jobs, but I'm sure they would feel more fulfilled knowing they could dare to try a miracle shot...rather than accepting a bogey, because they know they can't go for spectacular!
Last year Mc Ilroy tore it up on a slightly softer, more forgiving course, and does ago e disagree, that was way way more fun to see.
Only my opinion, and quite prepared for someone to argue just as vehemently for that kind of setup.
Let's hope our "Olympic" set up is more fun!!

 

[macca64]

No argument here,like stoke play though,

 

[CMAC]

I enjoyed it.

I thought it was exciting

and I thought it was fair (same for everyone = fair)

 

[fundy]

The opposite for me, really enjoyed watching them have to plot and grind their way around rather than it being target golf and a putting comp, as far too many US based tourneys are these days

"yes Simpson won it, but it was a case of he made more routine pars than anyone daring to take it on" you obviously missed the 4 birdies in 5 holes then?

 

[VinnyRM]

Fundy, I think truthfully that was when I fell asleep! I know he did, but the entire 4 days for me personally was underwhelming..... ESPECIALLY when Woods burst and cost me my £25!!!!!!!

 

[Region3]

In a way I enjoyed seeing them have to fight to make their pars and use their imagination to get close rather than just fire at pins.
It made them think about what they were doing as a bad miss around the green would cost them. Normally they can fire at pins knowing they've a great chance of saving par if it goes wrong.

You could also tell how much they feared missing in the wrong place when they would lay up their approach instead of risking the 1 in 5 shot to make the green, because they have a better chance of making par from 80yds out rather than greenside in the rough or sand.

A lesson for us all.

It was a different kind of exciting. Seeing who could hold on to what they had instead of having to go on a mad birdie run to get close.

I wouldn't want it all the time, but every now and then is good.

 

[speagle]

We hear all the time of how the PGA and R&A are trying to limit progression of equipment to try to "help" courses which are being taken apart by the pros. Maybe after this weekend at Olympic they will look at it in a different light. All they need do is harden up the greens and grow the rough a wee bit. The pros are so used to target golf onto soft greens week in week out, they were lost at Olympic. I for thought it was pretty refreshing to see how they coped. Perhaps this set up is the way ahead!

 

[Evesdad]

I personally like watching the us open as it usually bites the pros back. Apart from Rory last year you don't normally get silly under par scores etc it makes them work and think of the consequences if the shot doesn't work. As said above its a different sort of entertaining!

It also makes them look more like us on our courses lol missing greens and out of rough etc

 

[andycap]

I think the season needs a few tournaments like this , it needs to be a stern test of every element of your game ,and no one course can be set up for that . Players this weekend were having to be very accurate in order to stand a chance , it was the same for all and i think the only ones complaining were those that missed the cut.
As long as it not tricked up and made impossible then fine, some of the pin positions yesterday were very difficult to attack and a miss to the wrong area could make the next shot equally hard . For most of them , the best miss was in the bunker, the accuracy the pros have from most bunker lies is fantastic.

 

[alnecosse]

Got to say i thought it was brilliant seeing them all having to work there socks off for a par, whole differant game even for the pros when the course is set up tight, with rough they might even get a bad lie in, makes a refreshing change from the norm when they have to think there way round the course and anyone can win, as theres an 8 waiting round every dog leg i thouroghly enjoyed it.

 

[JustOne]

Reminds me of most courses we play week in week out..... knee high rough within 20ft of the fairways and rock hard greens. They have it easy most of the year so it's nice to see them NOT having perfectly manicured rough, not having dart boards for targets, not having fairways that are just 'smack it and you'll find it'. Was surprised to see such a tough test considering there were no fairway bunkers.... we have those too just for good measure :thup:

Just to add to the test they shouldn't cut the greens so they become bobbly and they should leave the pins in the same place for all 4 days so they become as crowned as the ones we have to put up with most of the time

 

[USER1999]

I found it dull and tedious. There was no risk / reward, just punishment, often of good shots. It got the champion it deserved.

 

[Imurg]

What's wrong with having awinning score of -6 or -5....?
Why does the USGA think that the best golfer will win when what you have to do to win a US Open is to make fewer mistakes than everyone else, not necessarily play better.

 

[chrisd]

If I want to watch golf where everyone struggles to hit their drives on a fairway, play iron shots, chip and putt then I can wander round my own course any day of the week. Now don't get me wrong, the US Open shouldn't be won on 25 under par, but, the USPGA always want to trick the course up so only the winner is likely to break par.

I personally dont want to watch hour after tedious hour watching top pro's looking like 10 handicappers.Luckily they saved me that paricular problem by playing it in a part of the States where the leaders would tee off at 11pm in the evening - I managed an hour of watching the front runners, clearly the Americans don't care whether Europe gets to actually watch a Major!

 

[Ethan]

I enjoyed it.

I thought it was exciting

and I thought it was fair (same for everyone = fair)

Same for everyone is only one aspect of 'fair' - equity.

The other main aspect of fairness is whether something is arbitrary - whether it has too large an element of chance. If the flag on the 18th was on the point of a pyramid with 45 degree slopes down each face, it would be the same for everyone, but would be a lottery and very arbitrary, hence unfair.

The problem with the US Open in the 70s and 80s was that it was played on a course with 20 yard wide fairways and hideous rough, so a par playing plodder won it. I can happily live without seeing any more courses that identify players like Hale Irwin and Andy North as their champion. That wasn't the best player, that was the best at hitting a 2 iron off a tee.

The USGA have had some recent scares with US Open venues. The 1998 US Open at Olympic had the famous incident on the 18th where Payne Stewart putted up to the edge of the hole, then his ball rolled 25 feet away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgpL_M6wlNg&feature=related Starts at about 21 seconds in.

The US Open at Shinnecock which Goosen won almost had to be stopped in the final round when a short par-3 became almost unplayable due to the hardness and the pin position. You may remember greenskeepers watering the green between groups. This years event did not have the same specific problem, although the 18th was a bit questionable, but overall it just became a war of attrition, and ended up with a rather dull God-botherer winning. The USGA knew Olympic had the potential for problems, and I don't they were entirely successful in preventing them.

 

[CMAC]

Same for everyone is only one aspect of 'fair' - equity.

The other main aspect of fairness is whether something is arbitrary - whether it has too large an element of chance. If the flag on the 18th was on the point of a pyramid with 45 degree slopes down each face, it would be the same for everyone, but would be a lottery and very arbitrary, hence unfair.

.

now you're just being pedantic! the winner shot under par last 2 rounds, it was fair for everyone so why not just enjoy it for the exciting major it was and enough moaning

 

[Hobbit]

I enjoyed it, and thought it was very fair. It wasn't bomb it off the tee without any worries, and it wasn't bomb it into the greens without any worries. There was a premium on every shot, not half of them like you get in most comps. Good shots were rewarded, not mediocre shots. Good recovery shots were also rewarded in a similar fashion. There were birdies and eagles, and some horror shows in between.

I'd rather see 3 out 4 comps a month like that.

 

[brendy]

The US Open is renowned for being a tough test. When you sign up, you know what you are in for. If you dont think it is fair, dont play in it. There were thousands of regular pros all trying to qualify for it so there must be some redeeming features?

 

[Ethan]

now you're just being pedantic! the winner shot under par last 2 rounds, it was fair for everyone so why not just enjoy it for the exciting major it was and enough moaning

Not just being pedantic. Semantic, perhaps?

The fact the winner shot under par for the last 2 rounds does't show that it was fair. Nor does the fact that many pros try to qualify for it.

This issue of the US Open being on the edge has been a theme for most of the past number of years, so that should prove there is a consistent underlying issue. The USGA have admitted that there have been problems in past Opens, and also that the set-up assumes certain weather conditions, and if the weather is different, there can also be problems. They have also acknowledged that there is a point when tough becomes unfair. They call it 'the line' and sometimes they press conditions too close to the line, especially on courses that are a bit shorter than most, such as Olympic. Their intent is to differentiate between good shots and bad shots, and if good shots get punished the same as bad shots, then they have failed and it unfair and will not identify the best player.

 

[CMAC]

The fact the winner shot under par for the last 2 rounds does't show that it was fair. Nor does the fact that many pros try to qualify for it.

This issue of the US Open being on the edge has been a theme for most of the past number of years, so that should prove there is a consistent underlying issue.

issue? this is HOW they WANT it done, anyway, I and many others like it over the 20 under par dart fest the other US tournaments have.