2014 U.S. Opens (Plural!) at Pinehurst #2 Discussion Thread

[Golfingdad]

No, but we're almost all born with "the peer pressure gene," if you know what I mean…

In other sports peer pressure encourages you to skirt the rules, and in golf, very nearly the opposite.

Agreed.  And most of the on-field stuff in those sports (phantom tags, acting like you caught a ball you know you trapped, flopping for foul calls, trying to rip open a cut on your face to get those extra 2 penalty minutes, etc, etc) would fall under that category.  However, there are still a lot of bad apples that go the next step (corking bats, steroids**, trying to injure QBs, undercutting jump shooters [I'm talking to you Bruce Bowen ], etc) that I wouldn't put in the category of "peer pressure."

I'm simply saying that there is no reason to think that there aren't a few guys like that out there that also happen to be great golfers.

**I'd concede that you could make an argument for steroids in baseball to fall under the "peer pressure" category from 1998 through 2004 or whatever it was.

[BallStriker]

People will invariably say this is a shining example of what sets golf apart, and they're right to a certain degree, but I can't help but wonder in these kinds of situations… what took the guy so long?

June 2 was Monday. He DQed himself on Saturday. He saw a small indentation and felt something.  It's not something that requires five days of thought.

This is actually the first thing I thought of too -- why does it take five days to come clean?   That said, I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt here and believe that he really doesn't know whether he violated a rule -- unless I am mistaken (and I very well could be), there is nothing in the Rules of Golf that requires a golfer to call a penalty on themselves simply due to the fact that they are not 100% sure they did not commit a violation -- is that correct?

Ultimately, the indent could have already been there and he just second-guessed himself once he saw it and then thought he caused the indent -- maybe that led him to believe he "felt" something when he really didn't.

The fact is -- and I believe this -- that more than 50% of people in the same situation would have never said anythign and would be teeing it up at the US Open.  Like it or not, I believe that to be true.

[colin007]

Let's face it, Tiger would've won this if he was healthy... I'm hoping for tough but fair conditions, and someone who plays well overall, not just someone who putts out of their mind...

[ChrisP]

Let's face it, Tiger would've won this if he was healthy...

He was healthy last year...and the year before that....and in 2009 and in 2010. How'd he do?

This is 2014, not 2006. Tiger doesn't just show up and win majors anymore. Actually, it's quite the opposite. No disrespect to him because he's one of the best...if not the best....ever, but he's not the same Tiger.

[iacas]

He was healthy last year...and the year before that....and in 2009 and in 2010. How'd he do?

I think that depends on your definition of "healthy."

But I agree with the sentiment. He'd be the favorite, but that doesn't guarantee anything.

[colin007]

But I agree with the sentiment. He'd be the favorite, but that doesn't guarantee anything.

It does if I say it does, dammit!! :-D Sniff...I miss Tigs...It's just not the same without him...

[ChrisP]

Sniff...I miss Tigs...It's just not the same without him...

That goes without saying. Just look at the ratings for the tournaments this year. Been kinda snoozeville without him.

[chasm]

That goes without saying. Just look at the ratings for the tournaments this year. Been kinda snoozeville without him.

I've never understood this. To me, it was his dominance in his prime that was dull. I'm much more entertained by there being a large number of realistic contenders.

[Crim]

I've never understood this. To me, it was his dominance in his prime that was dull. I'm much more entertained by there being a large number of realistic contenders.

To each his own. I very much enjoy watching record setting dominance in any sport.

[ChrisP]

I've never understood this. To me, it was his dominance in his prime that was dull. I'm much more entertained by there being a large number of realistic contenders.

I disagree. Golf and tennis are two sports that I think really thrive on having a dominant figure in the game. I think you need one. I think there's much more excitement and a ton more interest. You can either root for that one player or root against them. How exciting was it in 2000 when you had a superstar in Tiger Woods going up against a cinderella story in Bob May? That was one of the best majors in our lifetime. Same when Tiger went up against Rocco or Tiger vs. Yang. Those were much more exciting than watching a showdown between Retief Goosen and Mark Brooks in 2001.

Phil and Tiger are great for the game. They've really helped the interest and excitement of the game over the last 17 years. Bob Harig, who I think is an excellent golf writer for ESPN, was on the radio the other echoing pretty much the same thing.

[Golfingdad]

I disagree. Golf and tennis are two sports that I think really thrive on having a dominant figure in the game. I think you need one. I think there's much more excitement and a ton more interest. You can either root for that one player or root against them. How exciting was it in 2000 when you had a superstar in Tiger Woods going up against a cinderella story in Bob May? That was one of the best majors in our lifetime. Same when Tiger went up against Rocco or Tiger vs. Yang. Those were much more exciting than watching a showdown between Retief Goosen and Mark Brooks in 2001.

Phil and Tiger are great for the game. They've really helped the interest and excitement of the game over the last 17 years. Bob Harig, who I think is an excellent golf writer for ESPN, was on the radio the other echoing pretty much the same thing.

Kind of agree.  I would prefer a handful of dominant figures though.  Watching Federer win everything in sight was better than watching Joe club pro, but it's more exciting to me when it's Federer and Nadal and Djokovic and Murray and a couple on the next level like Del Potro and Ferrer and Roddick and Monfiels, etc.  (Trying to sound like I follow tennis a little more than I actually do. ;)  How'd I do?)

Same with golf.  Tiger winning everything is better than what we've been having, but not better than Tiger, A. Scott, Rory, Bubba, Phil, Rose all in contention.

[ChrisP]

Kind of agree.  I would prefer a handful of dominant figures though.  Watching Federer win everything in sight was better than watching Joe club pro, but it's more exciting to me when it's Federer and Nadal and Djokovic and Murray and a couple on the next level like Del Potro and Ferrer and Roddick and Monfiels, etc.  (Trying to sound like I follow tennis a little more than I actually do. ;)  How'd I do?)

Same with golf.  Tiger winning everything is better than what we've been having, but not better than Tiger, A. Scott, Rory, Bubba, Phil, Rose all in contention.

Agree. A handful of dominant figures is good. However, right now there are no dominant figures in golf without Tiger, which is why I disagree'd with the poster that what we have now is good for the game. It's not.

I'm not a big tennis fan, but I love watching Nadal vs. Djokovic battle it out every major, or back a few years ago Nadal vs. Federer. Women's tennis is unwatchable (unless Sharapova or Bouchard is playing), but was popular when you had Martina vs. Evert back in the day. That's dominance. That's what I wish golf had.

[3putter]

Kind of agree.  I would prefer a handful of dominant figures though.  Watching Federer win everything in sight was better than watching Joe club pro, but it's more exciting to me when it's Federer and Nadal and Djokovic and Murray and a couple on the next level like Del Potro and Ferrer and Roddick and Monfiels, etc.  (Trying to sound like I follow tennis a little more than I actually do. ;)  How'd I do?)

Same with golf.  Tiger winning everything is better than what we've been having, but not better than Tiger, A. Scott, Rory, Bubba, Phil, Rose all in contention.

Ha! You did great. As a diehard Federer fan, I still have to agree with you that it's an exciting time in tennis when you have so many legit contenders (at least when it's not played on clay).

Alright back to golf. I rate the season so far a C+

[Spitfisher]

Agree. A handful of dominant figures is good. However, right now there are no dominant figures in golf without Tiger, which is why I disagree'd with the poster that what we have now is good for the game. It's not. I'm not a big tennis fan, but I love watching Nadal vs. Djokovic battle it out every major, or back a few years ago Nadal vs. Federer. Women's tennis is unwatchable (unless Sharapova or Bouchard is playing), but was popular when you had Martina vs. Evert back in the day. That's dominance. That's what I wish golf had.

Bjorn Borg vs MacEnroe's or in some instances Borg vs Conners, were great matches. in some respects I feel Tiger was very much like Borg! methodical, no emotion and when they needed a great shot! they just made it look routine. But I digress. I am looking forward to the Open, I was lucky enough to play it after a majority of the restoration was done. I am very light in the wallet as a result. I try to play an open course every year, its on my bucket list where its practical. Some of the greens I hit, I was reasonably certain the ball was either tight or inside of 18 feet.......but no, the ball would just roll right off the green and be 65 to 75 feet away. Even while trying to spin it. Crazy!

[Golfingdad]

.......but no, the ball would just roll right off the green and be 65 to 75 feet away. Even while trying to spin it. Crazy!

Never played there but hope to someday, yet I think I can safely say that me and the "turtleback" style greens would not get along very well.

[chasm]

I am looking forward to the Open, I was lucky enough to play it after a majority of the restoration was done. I am very light in the wallet as a result. I try to play an open course every year, its on my bucket list where its practical. Some of the greens I hit, I was reasonably certain the ball was either tight or inside of 18 feet.......but no, the ball would just roll right off the green and be 65 to 75 feet away. Even while trying to spin it. Crazy!

Wasn't it Pinehurst #2 that Johnny Miller said was like trying to putt on the roof of a VW Beetle?

[ChrisP]

Yeah, looking at it on TGC now and it looks a lot different. A lot of sand and waste areas around the course. Also very brown. This is the "brownest" US Open course I've ever seen. Has a little Whistling Straits look to it with all the sand with a little Muirfield to it from last year with all the brown.

Not sure I like the wider fairways, but we'll see how it pans out this week.

[Metzexpress4]

Anyone know what putter Brandt Snedeker switched to? Golf Channel video did not mention what he switched to and I can't find much online. Interested to see what it is given he has used his Odyssey White Hot XG Rossie for the past 8 years.