Uihlein Wins U.S. Amateur

[boogielicious]

I liked everything but the train. The greens were evil and if you missed by mere feet, you ended up 40 yards away. Classic. The US Open is supposted to be hard, and this course will prove to be great for finess, accurate players.

The train made took it too industrial. I know it was an old gravel pit, but I think they will have to have a lot of security too keep fans from getting hit. Of course, now sponsers can paint the trains for adverstising! Look the 4:13 Titleist PRO V1 train is right on time.

[nevets88]

I love the train, but I'm biased as I played some British courses where commuter trains ran along the hole and closer than what you see in Chambers Bay. It's fun watching the people in the train, the people in the train watching you.

I know Pebble Beach is held in high esteem and looks great on TV and in real life, but I find the more subdued backdrop of Puget Sound just as compelling.

[golfro]

  iacas said:

Wow. I disagree with virtually every ounce of my fiber... wow.

Erik, you just let me know when and I'll pick you up from the airport to play a around at Chambers.

[iacas]

  Bigtank said:

If you think our "resort" designs are nothing more than "hit it to a yardage", I challange you to jump on Pinehurst No. 2, Beth Page Black, Sawgrass...etc. and see how you and your range finder fare. It is a different beast and the best in the world have proved over and over that it not just so simple!

Sawgrass is perhaps the definition of target golf, and I've played the other courses, and they're very much about "here's your yardage, hit it that far on this line." They're lock, stock, and barrel "American golf." There's no playing the ball around those courses. Heck, only Pinehurst gives you options, but they're all inside of about 50 yards and often inside of 10 or 15 only.

  Bigtank said:

In your defenition of amatuer, there are no "real" amateurs left.

Nah, virtually everyone in the mid-am is a true amateur, and almost all of the older guys in the amateur qualify, don't you think?

  Acropo said:

(iacas - I would have thought that Pebble qualified as links? Haven't played it but it seems to be in the right place - between the fertile inland fields and the salty pastures of the silver darlings?)

Nah, wrong soil and grasses and there wasn't a whole lot of using the ground there either. Little meaning none in this case, I suppose.

  golfro said:

Erik, you just let me know when and I'll pick you up from the airport to play a around at Chambers.

WOOOOO!!!

[Chris223]

  iacas said:

Wow. I disagree with virtually every ounce of my fiber... wow.

Well you may be able to disagree with some of what I said but most of it was just plain fact. There WERE a LOT of bad looking spots on the course... perfect square patches of grass that was OBVIOUSLY being repaired. Including all over several greens. If I were organizing the US Open... I wouldn't expect the course to have patches like that all over it, it should be in tip top, near perfect shape. Ground that needed to be fixed should have ALREADY been fixed. I just thought I saw way to many area of ground that had clearly been fixed recently, I also wouldn't expect that for a 3 year old course. And there were I couple fairways that that the grass simply looked dead. I understand a lot of links courses don't have your perfectly lush green velvet fairways and greens... but this one particular fairway looked the type of brown my backyard is right now due to a summer of little rain and 90* heat every day. That's how it looked to me. That's not how a US Open course should look, imo.

[iacas]

  Chris223 said:

Well you may be able to disagree with some of what I said but most of it was just plain fact. There WERE a LOT of bad looking spots on the course... perfect square patches of grass that was OBVIOUSLY being repaired.

"Bad" is not a "fact." The "spots" you think looked bad

played just fine. I didn't hear a single comment about "ooh, bad break there, he's got to putt over that square that's slightly differently colored." It's not a big deal. Furthermore, BROWN IS FINE. Brown is better for golf. It saves water and it leads to firm conditions. Clubs trying to achieve the Augusta National look has been a detriment to the game.

  Chris223 said:

Ground that needed to be fixed should have ALREADY been fixed.

It was. That ground did not need fixed... You're confusing how it looked with how it played.

  Chris223 said:

And there were I couple fairways that that the grass simply looked dead.

See above. I among the many who liked the brown look. Dormant isn't the same as dead.

  Chris223 said:

That's not how a US Open course should look, imo.

Well, then I'm glad you're not in charge of making the decision.

[Chris223]

  iacas said:

"Bad" is not a "fact." The "spots" you think looked bad

Tell ya what, how it plays is all fine and dandy. Work in the television industry though, it's all about how something LOOKS my friend. I'm not saying it has to be a lush green like Augusta National, but I expect the golf courses I play on to be at least some shade of green. I don't want to play on a brown golf course, dead, dormant, who gives a shit, it's brown, and ugly, it's not appealing to the "casual fan" who, sorry to inform you... make the PGA, television stations and course a LOT of $$$... more than people like you and me do, serious golf fans.

[iacas]

  Chris223 said:

Tell ya what, how it plays is all fine and dandy.

That's the only important thing. The course can be green, tan, brown, orange, or purple for all I care.

  Chris223 said:

Work in the television industry though, it's all about how something LOOKS my friend.

And the USGA was concerned because earlier in the week the course looked "too green." They made some tweaks to make sure the course looked at least close to as brown as it was in reality.

  Chris223 said:

I expect the golf courses I play on to be at least some shade of green.

You're not playing on the golf course. You're watching others play it.

  Chris223 said:

I don't want to play on a brown golf course, dead, dormant, who gives a shit, it's brown, and ugly, it's not appealing to the "casual fan" who, sorry to inform you... make the PGA, television stations and course a LOT of $$$... more than people like you and me do, serious golf fans.

That's not true at all, actually. They've done studies and there are numbers out there - the casual golf fan doesn't watch golf.

The golf viewing audience is a small - although sought after, given the demographic - market. Heck, that's a big part of what made the 2008 U.S. Open playoff so big - it actually managed to draw the "casual golf fan" in. What's the PGA have to do with anything? The USGA will make plenty of money. The U.S. Open is their only event that does, so they get what they can from it... Television stations will make money (via their ad packages) and will have viewers based not on the course but who's near the lead on Saturday and Sunday. The course will make a ton of money - it's a municipal course like Bethpage Black, and tee times are already hard to come by. Clearly we're going to disagree on what we personally like to see, but don't start making things up to support your personal opinion, please. And I'll make you a deal - I'll watch the U.S. Open in 2015 and try like heck to get there to play the course before then, and you, you won't watch in 2015. Deal? P.S. Brown is better for golf, the environment, golfers, the cost of golf... if the few "casual golfers" that tune in can be educated (and they will be as a big part of the TV coverage) as to why this is the case, that's a good thing. Your attitude towards "brown" is a bad attitude because it's bad for golf - the over-fertilization, over-use of chemicals and water, and over-green nature of the modern golf course has kept costs up and kept people out of the game. The USGA is trying to stress that "brown" is good for the game, and Chambers Bay is a part of that effort.

[jamo]

  iacas said:

Ditto what I said above. Cripes, people, what's the problem? This is the ONLY "links" course we might see the U.S. Open played on. Whistling Straits didn't count - that just LOOKED like a links course.

Shinnecock?

[Chris223]

  iacas said:

That's the only important thing. The course can be green, tan, brown, orange, or purple for all I care.

I'll always watch the US Open. But I'm standing by my opinion that the course did not look like it was in the shape to host a US Open, RIGHT NOW. I'm sure in 2015 it will be.

[Savnuts1]

What it looks like on tv and what it looks and plays like in person are very different. I have played it this year and I can tell you first hand that it is in great shape. Speaking with the guy who buses you down to the first tee, he stated that they would be ready for the US Open next year if need be. I played in the rain and wind and had my umbrella up for 17 holes but I loved every minute of it. Play it if you get the chance.

[Harmonious]

  Chris223 said:

Tell ya what, how it plays is all fine and dandy. Work in the television industry though, it's all about how something LOOKS my friend. I'm not saying it has to be a lush green like Augusta National, but I expect the golf courses I play on to be at least some shade of green. I don't want to play on a brown golf course, dead, dormant, who gives a shit, it's brown, and ugly, it's not appealing to the "casual fan" who, sorry to inform you... make the PGA, television stations and course a LOT of $$$... more than people like you and me do, serious golf fans.

So, to sort of quote that great TV personality, Fernando (remember to use the Latin accent): "It's better to

look good than to be good, my friend". If they softened up the fairways by watering them in the weeks before the Open, the course would not play the way it was designed and intended to be played. Those creative rolling, bumping shots would not be possible. It would be us, the viewers, who would be denied the opportunity to see the best in the game be challenged to play their very best. But, as you say, it is far more important to have green grass. Maybe they can do like they used to do (and maybe still do) for big TV football games and PAINT THE FRICKIN' COURSE GREEN!

[iacas]

  Harmonious said:

Maybe they can do like they used to do (and maybe still do) for big TV football games and PAINT THE FRICKIN' COURSE GREEN!

Yeah, let's paint the thing so Chris can have something "pretty" to look at. Then we can hear players discussing the effect of break, grain, AND the paint on their putts. Wow! Compelling TV!

[kafka01]

  Chris223 said:

I'll always watch the US Open. But I'm standing by my opinion that the course did not look like it was in the shape to host a US Open, RIGHT NOW. I'm sure in 2015 it will be.

They read your concerns and hired me to do the paintjob - i hope i finish by 2015. What colour do you want the water to be, what goes best with your TV?

[Dad-2-3]

I only watched a bit on Saturday, but thought the course looked great and most importantly played tough. I think you want a course that is a true test and brings the imaginative and talented to the top when it comes to The US Open or the US Amateur. Looking green on TV is probably one of the least priorities for the set up.

I grew up on the other side of Washington and dislike Seattle (cities in general), but I would give my right nut to play Sahalee and Chambers Bay. My wife keeps them in her purse so they aren't doing me any good anyway. http://www.cybergolf.com/golf_news/w..._happened_here A quote from the article linked above.

  None said:

The reason Chambers Bay was selected so early in its lifespan is because it is quite unlike most championship venues. When the county sent out request for proposals to interested golf course architects, over 50 responded. The ultimate selectee, Robert Trent Jones II's firm, convinced officials that a big-shouldered links course - with only 18 holes, not the 27 or 36 originally considered for the 900-plus-acre site - was the way to go. In hindsight, Jones, along with associates Bruce Charlton and Jay Blasi, had the perfect plan for the $20 million, walking-only track, reshaping millions of yards of sandy soils into heaving manmade "dunes" separating fairways that radiate in all directions, allowing the winds off the Sound to be a primary hole-by-hole consideration. While television viewers were probably trying to figure out where was the 2010 U.S. Amateur, won by Peter Uihlein, the contestants were enthralled with this unusual test. Said semifinalist Patrick Cantlay of Chambers Bay: "I had seen places like this that resemble it a little bit. But this place is completely different than any golf course I've ever seen. Just the slopes and the shots you have to hit. Just the feel you get when you're out there. So I like it. I think it definitely rewards good shots. You know, sometimes it penalizes mediocre ones. So it's a very good test of golf." Added Mike Davis, the USGA's Senior Director of Rules and Competition who sets up the organization's championships: "It showcases a different kind of golf in America. Most of our events entail hitting a ball to a spot. It doesn't matter how you get there - high, low, draw, cut - if the ball stops. Here you have to think your way around, hit it one place and know it will end up somewhere else. So it does, indeed, matter how you hit the shot." Chambers Bay is also being viewed widely as a new type of golf course, one that goes without irrigation - thanks to its sandy base that drains freely and allows retention of all storm water on-site, fertilizers or chemicals. In the August 30, 2010, issue of Time magazine, Jones told reporter Tim Newcomb: "So much of perception is based off television, and that leads to courses trying to look perfect. In reality, golf started along the sea with grasses that were gray, purple, green and brown." Added Jim Hyler, president of the USGA, in that same article: "We need to understand how brown can become the new green." On the Monday following the Amateur and, after much experimentation on water management for such a well-draining course during championship week, Hyler told Seattle Times reporter Scott Hanson: "We really enjoyed being here and thought the golf course worked really well."

[Acropo]

  iacas said:

P.S. Brown is better for... the environment... if the few "casual golfers" that tune in can be educated (and they will be as a big part of the TV coverage) as to why this is the case, that's a good thing. ... the over-fertilization, over-use of chemicals and water, and over-green nature of the modern golf course has kept costs up and kept people out of the game.

Couldn't agree more. The Deepwater Horizon blowout has drawn attention to other aspects of mistreatment of the Gulf and one of the issues highlighted was a huge fan of water and ecosystem beyond the Mississippi Delta affected by fertilisers and runoffs carried by the river from the MidWest to the sea. Among the culprits mentioned - just after intensive farming - was golf courses. Better use of native grasses AND, almost above all, acceptance that courses don't have to look like Augusta (which colours its ponds, I understand) all the time, would be very helpful.

The English Golf Union has been doing a lot of work on this subject. I've had conversations with the head greenkeeper at our course over the past few years about what is being done. He's cut water consumption enormously, reduced the use of chemicals and fertilisers - off the greens especially - and allowed more distant rough to grow. It's not just better for the environment, it saves huge amounts of money.