2015 U.S. Open at Chambers Bay Discussion Thread

[jsgolfer]

The photos in the USGA US Open magazine show it to be stunning in my opinion.

The photo's and video are stunning, so how can you go from that to the travesty that they played on for the greens and the course, US Open setup not withstanding.   I even heard one of the caddies remark that there were two blades of grass on one of the greens and they weren't even close together.

Hopefully they get it turned around when Golfindad gets to play it and it turns back to the perfect pictures that they show on their website.

Certainly by not judging it by how the US Open sets it up.

I would expect the US open setup to be tough, but not brown out the course so much that it looked like a dirt track with some grass patches all over the place.  And then you have to put paint dots to outline the greens.  I'm flabbergasted that people would think that the course looked spectacular this weekend.  The only thing this place was missing were the clown mouths and windmills.  Again, great drama and I enjoyed watching the tournament, but the course looked terrible.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

The photos in the USGA US Open magazine show it to be stunning in my opinion.

The photo's and video are stunning, so how can you go from that to the travesty that they played on for the greens and the course, US Open setup not withstanding.   I even heard one of the caddies remark that there were two blades of grass on one of the greens and they weren't even close together.

Hopefully they get it turned around when Golfindad gets to play it and it turns back to the perfect pictures that they show on their website.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

Certainly by not judging it by how the US Open sets it up.

I would expect the US open setup to be tough, but not brown out the course so much that it looked like a dirt track with some grass patches all over the place.  And then you have to put paint dots to outline the greens.  I'm flabbergasted that people would think that the course looked spectacular this weekend.  The only thing this place was missing were the clown mouths and windmills.  Again, great drama and I enjoyed watching the tournament, but the course looked terrible.

There were a couple of posters who said it looked much better in person than it did on TV.  So maybe Fox was playing with the video to improve finding the ball or something.  I know I'm much better looking in person!

[nevets88]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsgolfer

How else would you expect to review the course without going there.  That's my impression from watching it on TV for 4 days (not sure it makes me an idiot, opinions vary on that account), but you go pay $299 to play and let me know how it is.  If you think the course looked great.....not even going to go there.

Certainly by not judging it by how the US Open sets it up.

How about these reviews,

#1 public golf course on this list, http://cascadegolfer.com/washingtons-10-best-public-golf-courses/2/

nearly 5 starts on Golf Link, http://www.golflink.com/golf-courses/course.aspx?course=2046756

4.3 out of 5 on Golf Now, http://www.golfnow.com/course-directory/washington-golf-courses/university-place-golf-courses/chambers-bay

#2 best course in Washington by Golf digest, http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-courses/washington

Seems to be that besides what you saw on TV as the most extreme golfing conditions for the course, it has gotten very good reviews.

Is it worth $299 dollars, that's pushing it for me since I have to fly out there. I Maybe if it was packaged with some other courses to make it a better deal. I don't know if I'd fly out there to play that course alone. I'd make a trip out of it with a few buddies.

That puts it right in competition w/Bandon Dunes from my perspective. If I were making a cross country trip there and I had limited time, despite the USO having been played @ CB, I'd still lean heavily towards BD because it has a bunch of good courses. Also CB still doesn't have a clubhouse but not a huge deal.

Also, the CB site doesn't post its off season rates. Why is that? It doesn't seem to be doing a good job of selling the course in a sense or maybe it doesn't have to. Off season should be more reasonable if you look at BD's off season rates.

[onthehunt526]

If you don't like a 4 hole playoff, I don't see how 3 or 6 holes would be that much different.

It's just a weird number Mike... Though I guess it's the way the course is set up

[iacas]

Originally Posted by jsgolfer

I would expect the US open setup to be tough, but not brown out the course so much that it looked like a dirt track with some grass patches all over the place.

Brown grass is not necessarily dead grass.

And then you have to put paint dots to outline the greens.

They're cut to similar height and the same kind of grass, so it's tough to tell where the line would be. Since it matters, they used dots.

I'm flabbergasted that people would think that the course looked spectacular this weekend.

I liked how it looked, but then again, I'm partial to playing a more Scottish style of golf. I think the "air game" we tend to see in the U.S. is over-favored. Golf along the ground is, to me, far more interesting.

[jsgolfer]

Brown grass is not necessarily dead grass.

They're cut to similar height and the same kind of grass, so it's tough to tell where the line would be. Since it matters, they used dots.

I liked how it looked, but then again, I'm partial to playing a more Scottish style of golf. I think the "air game" we tend to see in the U.S. is over-favored. Golf along the ground is, to me, far more interesting.

True, just not eye appealing for a US Open.  I guess if I went to watch the Open Championship and the course was a tree lined magnum opus, it wouldn't be the same.

[Jeremie Boop]

Is it worth $299 dollars

I can't say that I'd pay that to play any course, ever. I mean, basically $300 for one round of golf somewhere? Yeah, I love golf, but I could get multiple rounds of golf in at some very nice places for that.

However, if I were independently wealthy and money was no object I'd play anywhere and everywhere I pleased for whatever price. I just don't see that ever being the case for me.

[rehmwa]

I liked how it looked, but then again, I'm partial to playing a more Scottish style of golf. I think the "air game" we tend to see in the U.S. is over-favored. Golf along the ground is, to me, far more interesting.

seeing how the ball had to be sent through the right mounds and figuring out the travel path, or if it was sent high that it had to land in the right place with the right spin, etc etc etc and then some of the putting to figure out -  was...to me....

IMHO

FREAKIN' AMAZING

[iacas]

True, just not eye appealing for a US Open.  I guess if I went to watch the Open Championship and the course was a tree lined magnum opus, it wouldn't be the same.

Why make the distinction? Sure, we have expectations for Augusta National, but…

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2014/0609/20140609__usopen~p1.jpg

And that comes from a page with the title "Pinehurst anything but 'pristine' for this US Open". It seems pointless to me to constrict high-level golf to always be played on a specific type of course just because it has been in the past.

[jsgolfer]

Why make the distinction? Sure, we have expectations for Augusta National, but…

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2014/0609/20140609__usopen~p1.jpg

And that comes from a page with the title "Pinehurst anything but 'pristine' for this US Open". It seems pointless to me to constrict high-level golf to always be played on a specific type of course just because it has been in the past.

I guess I'm on an island (with Gary Player), seems everyone else here loved this course.  It's all yours.

http://www.sbnation.com/golf/2015/6/20/8818415/gary-player-rips-chambers-bay-video-us-open-2015

[iacas]

I guess I'm on an island, seems everyone else here loved this course.  It's all yours.

I asked why make the distinction? I'm curious. Why do you require that the U.S. Open always be contested on the same type of course? You get to disagree, I'm just asking because I'm curious.

[Rick Martin]

Quality individual who learned how to be a great golfer and not being a complete ass to others like TW........way to go Jordan. Keep it real.

[nevets88]

Blame the USGA for Fox's U.S. Open debacle [USA Today]

Quote:

How much is bad publicity, critical reviews and ratings worth? What price can you put on becoming a laughingstock because of a television partner that was so awful and inexperienced that its mere presence sunk one of the most thrilling golf championships of the past few decades?

Thirteen million dollars, that’s what. That’s the difference between what Fox offered per year to the USGA for rights to the U.S. Open ($93 million) than longtime partner NBC ($80 million). Was the extra money worth it? Was turning its back on NBC the right call?

...

Sure, the USGA might care about evolving and bold approaches to the game, but that’s not why they went with Fox. It was a cash grab, plain and simple. That’s fine, as long the one whose cash is being grabbed is up to the appointed task. Fox wasn’t. Fox isn’t. The USGA sold its soul for $13 million per year, while still holding $392 million in assets, according to its 2014 annual report.

...

After its self-inflicting damage to the U.S. Open brand, maybe the question isn’t whether the USGA made the wrong cash grab, but whether Fox overpaid for a brand it had to know it would tarnish?

A bit hyperbolic? It's not that bad. $13m/year over 12 years, that's not as trivial as writer makes it out to be.

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/06/u-s-open-fox-coverage-blame-the-usga

[ChrisP]

Blame the USGA for Fox's U.S. Open debacle [USA Today]

They went for the money, plain and simple. I was disappointed and surprised they left NBC because I think NBC did an amazing job with the Open and always got great reviews for their coverage. Fox did okay for their first go around, but they have a long way to go to match NBC's coverage of golf and the Open.  And it's on the USGA more than Fox. They bought into them despite the fact they had no experience whatsoever and won't be covering much golf year to year.

[Wally Fairway]

Blame the USGA for Fox's U.S. Open debacle [USA Today]

A bit hyperbolic? It's not that bad. $13m/year over 12 years, that's not as trivial as writer makes it out to be.

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/06/u-s-open-fox-coverage-blame-the-usga

I agree, $156 million is not a trivial difference.

Take the other perspective, how would you justify not taking $156 million to keep the broadcast on NBC

[newtogolf]

Blame the USGA for Fox's U.S. Open debacle [USA Today]

A bit hyperbolic? It's not that bad. $13m/year over 12 years, that's not as trivial as writer makes it out to be.

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/06/u-s-open-fox-coverage-blame-the-usga

FOX will improve, they didn't get football right the first year either and do a very good job with it now.  I'm guessing they wanted to blaze their own way of broadcasting golf and some of the things they did this year will stick while others will change.

• Too much time spent with talking heads when golf could have been shown.
• Lack of broadcast experience for Gulbis and other "analysts" who added little insight to the shots and sounded very uncomfortable.
• Norman needs to improve his speech clarity and Joe Buck needs to develop a golf persona that is a bit more toned down from his NFL one.
• Holly needs to be better utilized, put her and her guests in directors chairs, use lapel or boom microphones so she and her guests don't look stupid holding them and give her a remote control to play video.  She knows golf so don't utilize her to ask stupid questions any non-golf hottie could ask.
• Have your cameramen practice following a golf ball.

[saevel25]

FOX will improve, they didn't get football right the first year either and do a very good job with it now.  I'm guessing they wanted to blaze their own way of broadcasting golf and some of the things they did this year will stick while others will change

I think they need to get rid of interviewing the players in front of that TV screen showing their shots. Some of the golfers seemed a bit put off about it.

I do like the pro-tracer for shots. Their online broadcast was good. It ran smoothly and the commentary wasn't terrible.

[Golfingdad]

Blame the USGA for Fox's U.S. Open debacle [USA Today]

A bit hyperbolic? It's not that bad. $13m/year over 12 years, that's not as trivial as writer makes it out to be.

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/06/u-s-open-fox-coverage-blame-the-usga

Yeah, quite hyperbolic.  For all of our complaints, I suspect that they will be addressed by next year and forgotten very quickly.

FOX will improve, they didn't get football right the first year either and do a very good job with it now.  I'm guessing they wanted to blaze their own way of broadcasting golf and some of the things they did this year will stick while others will change.

Too much time spent with talking heads when golf could have been shown.

Lack of broadcast experience for Gulbis and other "analysts" who added little insight to the shots and sounded very uncomfortable.

Norman needs to improve his speech clarity and Joe Buck needs to develop a golf persona that is a bit more toned down from his NFL one.

Holly needs to be better utilized, put her and her guests in directors chairs, use lapel or boom microphones so she and her guests don't look stupid holding them and give her a remote control to play video.  She knows golf so don't utilize her to ask stupid questions any non-golf hottie could ask.

Have your cameramen practice following a golf ball.

I actually like the IDEA of having them in front of the video, that way I can be reminded of "the shot I hit on 13" without having to try and rack my brain.  But, yeah, they went about it awkwardly.

And regarding the "ball following," I will reiterate what I heard, which was it sounds like that was more of a course issue than a Fox issue.  Somebody told me that the same problem occurred on the 2010 USAM broadcast at Chambers, which was on NBC.  So, for now I'm chalking it up to the course hues and sky haze, and not Fox's incompetence.

Even if it was Fox though, I agree with you, and fully expect them to improve a ton by Oakmont.