US Open

[shewy]

the difference between greens in the morning and afternoon was shocking,today I expect that to be evened out.Then set up a bit fairer for the weekend

 

[OldMate]

This is my favourite major of the year because it always highlights more so than ever the different level these guys are on. The conditions are crazily tough but the leaders are still managing low 70s. Far better test of golf than watching darts fired at the pin, which is just a question of who has their wedges and putter dialled in best on the day.

A golf tournament is never going to be an equal test - different strengths will shine on different courses, and conditions will always vary from AM to PM - more often than not the guys in either the morning or afternoon get an advantage from the weather - this is not unique to the US Open. The camber is no different to the Open rota courses where balls bounce at right angles in the fairway.

Olympic is no Bethpage which was the only US Open course that was maybe excessively tough. Michael Thompson isn't the longest hitter out there and shot 66 so I disagree that it is all about being long and straight. He did have the advantage of playing the US amateur (lost in final) at olympic a few years ago so would know the layout better than others.

 

[Birchy]

Stupid set up imo. The fairways shouldnt be so ridiculous that it rolls off them all the time. If you hit a good shot with the shape intended you should be rewarded with at least a shot from the short grass for your next. The greens should be fast but not stupid where no matter where you hit it the ball just rolls off. Brutal rough i agree with and courses set up for pros should all have it and the bunkers should need ladders imo

Courses that dont reward players when they hit a good shot are surely just pointless? We all get a bad bounce now and again but theyve taken it a bit far with this imo.

 

[doc333]

garyinderry, like I said I have no problem with it being a tough test, because it should be and if a + score wins it, even better. However what I'm saying is that this course is not the same for everyone.

As an example there are a couple of holes at our place that have been *******ised because the low handicappers want a tougher test. Lets say you and I are playing one of these holes, which is a par 5 long and straight with rough left and right. The fairway slopes to the right for anything that doesn't carry 250 off the tee. The rough on the right in this area has always been cut to 2", but recently its been allowed to grow huge. We'll say that I'm playing off 28 but can bomb it and you're a straight hitting 12 handicapper who doesn't hit so long. I gaurantee to beat you on this hole because your very good straight, accurate drive kicked into the cabbage, whereas my long not so accurate drive finished up in the first cut but on the flat. I have chance of reaching in 2, you'll be lucky to reach in 4 now ..... You're a better player but you can't touch me on this hole as you've been punished severley for hitting a good shot.

 

[JustOne]

It's the US OPEN, these guys are all brilliant golfers. Fast cars don't win on curved tracks and slow cars don't win on straight tracks... it's a bit of everything and the best player over 4 days will win (Tiger Woods of course! ) - that's all there is to it.

I thought the course looked pretty fair.... it's even got several short par4's for the little hitters

 

[garyinderry]

garyinderry, like I said I have no problem with it being a tough test, because it should be and if a + score wins it, even better. However what I'm saying is that this course is not the same for everyone.

As an example there are a couple of holes at our place that have been *******ised because the low handicappers want a tougher test. Lets say you and I are playing one of these holes, which is a par 5 long and straight with rough left and right. The fairway slopes to the right for anything that doesn't carry 250 off the tee. The rough on the right in this area has always been cut to 2", but recently its been allowed to grow huge. We'll say that I'm playing off 28 but can bomb it and you're a straight hitting 12 handicapper who doesn't hit so long. I gaurantee to beat you on this hole because your very good straight, accurate drive kicked into the cabbage, whereas my long not so accurate drive finished up in the first cut but on the flat. I have chance of reaching in 2, you'll be lucky to reach in 4 now ..... You're a better player but you can't touch me on this hole as you've been punished severley for hitting a good shot.

its not really a good comparison as all the pros can find a safe spot easily if they play it right. was you have described is an impossible shot.

 

[jp5]

I disagree about this being an unfair test - they're all playing the same course so how can anyone have an advantage?

I think the best player will win after 72 holes, and it's refreshing to see a tournament where the pros really have to use their imagination, much like the Open, unlike the standard PGA tour target golf.

Take Tiger's second shot on the par 4 5th yesterday I think it was. What a stunning shot. Yes he was unlucky to not hold the fairway, but he recognised that being in the rough he had to run the ball up to hole and hit an incredible low slinging right-left stinger.

A true test of golf and it is fun to watch.

 

[OldMate]

garyinderry, like I said I have no problem with it being a tough test, because it should be and if a + score wins it, even better. However what I'm saying is that this course is not the same for everyone.

As an example there are a couple of holes at our place that have been *******ised because the low handicappers want a tougher test. Lets say you and I are playing one of these holes, which is a par 5 long and straight with rough left and right. The fairway slopes to the right for anything that doesn't carry 250 off the tee. The rough on the right in this area has always been cut to 2", but recently its been allowed to grow huge. We'll say that I'm playing off 28 but can bomb it and you're a straight hitting 12 handicapper who doesn't hit so long. I gaurantee to beat you on this hole because your very good straight, accurate drive kicked into the cabbage, whereas my long not so accurate drive finished up in the first cut but on the flat. I have chance of reaching in 2, you'll be lucky to reach in 4 now ..... You're a better player but you can't touch me on this hole as you've been punished severley for hitting a good shot.

Get your point Doc and my course also has a couple of holes like you describe which punish good shots, but in your example I wouldn't back a 28 handicapper to hit a par 5 in 2 and it would have to be one hell of a hole for a 12 handicapper to struggle to reach in 4 even if they have a tough lie for their second. If a 28 HC can hit a par 5 in 2 then they deserve to win the hole regardless.

I like Olympic, ultimately they are all playing the same course and I've seen enough manufactured rather than lucky birdies so far to believe that the best man will still win it.

 

[OldMate]

It's the US OPEN, these guys are all brilliant golfers. Fast cars don't win on curved tracks and slow cars don't win on straight tracks... it's a bit of everything and the best player over 4 days will win (Tiger Woods of course! ) - that's all there is to it.

I thought the course looked pretty fair.... it's even got several short par4's for the little hitters

Agree - very early to call it, but the way tiger is playing and the way the course is set up I can't see him not winning it.

 

[SyR]

I've been watching the US coverage as currently in the US. The US commentators had already given the title to Tiger while he was finishing his first round. They have been very negative of the 'top three' in the world but begrudgingly had to admit that Westwood held it together on the back 9. I'm hoping Poulter will grind out a good score over the next few days. The limited coverage of him yesterday showed he's keeping it tidy and his putter is working. It would be good if he can ruin the Tiger-fest that is going on at the moment with the US media.

 

[JustOne]

Wouldn't mind Westy winning, Tiger might collapse, it only takes the putter to go cold (he wasn't hot yesterday though).

Only want Tiger to win to put all the anti-Tiger brigade on the back foot :thup: that and the fact that he's the best player that ever lived

 

[coolhand]

It looks like Rory will join Luke and get the weekend off - he'd need to score well on the easier back nine and he hasn't so far.

I think Westy might be on a bit of a roll - the comeback will give him a boost.

 

[JustOne]

Lowest person on the course is currently 1 under par for their 2nd round, Westy is one of them (1 under through 4 holes, currently at +2)

 

[Neddy]

Personally think it's nice to see the pros suffer once in a while. If I want to see a birdiefest I will tune in every other week of the year.

Was this "It's not fair" talk present during last years Open?

 

[JustOne]

Soren Kjeldsen qualified at Walton Heath - shot +15 yesterday
Michael Campbell qualified at Walton Heath - shot +10 yesterday
Simon Dyson didn't do too bad at +6...... I guess

 

[Foxholer]

Michael Campbell qualified at Walton Heath - shot +10 yesterday

That was in 2005 - the year he won it!

At 'only' 10 over, probably one of Cambo's better rounds of the year! :mmm:

 

[Yer Maw]

I like the fact it is tough but do think great appraoches should be rewarded and bad drives heavily penalised. It's like a 430yd Par 4 for us mere mortals, a great buzz if you hit a great drive, then another great 3iron or 5 wood onto the green and 2 putt awesome. Though on a 430 yd for them its a wedge or 9 iron at most!

 

[Imurg]

There's a World of difference between a birdie-fest that results in a winning score a couple of dozen under par and a tough test that means 5 or 6 under will win.
Anyone want to predict the winning score?



Oh and anyone else think Paul Lawrie made the right choice..?

 

[pbrown7582]

There's a World of difference between a birdie-fest that results in a winning score a couple of dozen under par and a tough test that means 5 or 6 under will win.
Anyone want to predict the winning score?

Oh and anyone else think Paul Lawrie made the right choice..?

Anyone level or +1 after 4 rounds is going to be in with a great shout.

Paul Lawrie is being proved right, read a quick interview with him today and you can fully understand his reasoning behind the decision.

 

[Neddy]

There's a World of difference between a birdie-fest that results in a winning score a couple of dozen under par and a tough test that means 5 or 6 under will win.
Anyone want to predict the winning score?



Oh and anyone else think Paul Lawrie made the right choice..?

Around level.

And No