2023 U.S. Open (Los Angeles Country Club)

[Rick Graham]

8 minutes ago, klineka said:

Over the last 10 years (Including 2023) the average winning score is 272.6. 

This year it was 270. So only slightly easier than average over the last decade of US Opens

 

Final Rounds of US Opens

2022 - A -5 and two -4s

2021 - Three -4s

2020 - One -3

2019 - Two -5s and four -4s

2018 - A -7, a -5 and a -4 (On a much harder golf course where the winning score was 281)

2017 - A -6, a -5, and two -4s

These players are so freaking good that no matter how difficult the course, at least a couple guys are capable of going fairly low any given round. 

Just because there was a -7 and two -5s on the last day doesn't mean the course isn't worthy of hosting a US Open. 

Based on your own logic then you should also think that Shinnecock isn't worth of hosting a US Open because there was a -7, a -5, and a -4 in the final round, right? The winning score there was 11 strokes higher than in 2023 yet someone went just as low in the final round there as they did in 2023. (Ironically enough it was Tommy Fleetwood both times)

Basing whether or not a course is fit to host a US Open based on the tournament score and final round score is a quite poor way to base it IMO. I think the course should be judged on how well it identified the best golfer that week, and how fine the line was between really good shots/golf and mediocre or poor shots/golf. Really good golf made LACC scoreable, and average/below average golf got punished. 

 

That's a horrible way to determine the best golfer IMO. Rough around the greens brings the field closer together because the penalty for missing the green isn't nearly as severe as when there is short grass and the ball rolls and rolls further from the green and the next shot is off a tight lie to a super firm green.

When there are super firm greens and super thick rough surrounding the greens a ball that airmails the green by a couple yards is going to end up in the same exact spot as a ball that lands middle to back of the green and takes a big hop into the back rough. two quite different quality of shots yet they ended up in the same spot. 

I dont know, Nicklaus, Stewart,,Watson,Els, Palmer, Strange, Woods all won Opens with those conditions.  Not a bad list of players.

[Vinsk]

When you make a course ridiculously difficult…luck becomes too much of factor. I agree with @klineka that a course should identify the best golfer. 

[Rick Graham]

On 6/28/2023 at 10:18 AM, iacas said:

Then don’t watch.

I’d love to see what you shoot at the course. The final round began with four really really good players in contention. I think the course identified who was playing the best.

I think the US Open should test every part of the players game, i dont think LA Country Club tested the players off the tee as the fairways were so wide.  There has been a thought that the USGA has tried to make the fairways wider to make the player find the right angles coming into the greens.

[iacas]

5 hours ago, jxdama said:

Winning score  of  -10 is too low. It would  have been lower except  the  3 top finishers  got tight. A  -7 and  2 -5's were shot  on the  last  day.

Uhhhh, but it wasn’t lower.

And the low scores were shot by players in the soft morning conditions who had nothing to lose.

4 hours ago, Rick Graham said:

I dont know, Nicklaus, Stewart,,Watson,Els, Palmer, Strange, Woods all won Opens with those conditions.  Not a bad list of players.

There are a lot of fluky winners from that era. A lot.

2 hours ago, Rick Graham said:

I think the US Open should test every part of the players game, i dont think LA Country Club tested the players off the tee as the fairways were so wide.  There has been a thought that the USGA has tried to make the fairways wider to make the player find the right angles coming into the greens.

Maybe you should have watched it. Then your opinion might have some weight.

---

It was two weeks ago boys. Move on. They dialed up conditions as the days went on. It was their first time there.

[snapfade]