In respect of the majors.

[Scotsclaff]

I don't know if this merits a poll or not,probably not.

Do you prefer seeing the players rip the course apart or is it better that the course shows it's teeth and makes a fool of the players now and again?

Bear in mind,throughout the year we see the players shooting well under par on both European and us tours.

I loved it when they called Carnoustie ,"Carnasty".

[Aflighter]

Id prefer seeing the course chew up the players and see who is best on a brutally tough course.These guys tore up Whistling straits.It had sum tough spots but cmon.Couple par 4s were playing short.

[Kenny Lee]

Yep. I want a very difficult course.

Like the '99 British Open, after Jean Van De Velde choked on #18, three guys were tied at +6 after 72 holes.

-20 under par is like Xbox golf. Maybe these guys are just too damn good these days?

[Ernest Jones]

Damn, my preference isn't an option in the poll! I like it when the course bares its teeth and someone tears it up anyway! But I guess that doesn't happen all that often so, unless someone adds to the poll I'll have to sit on the fence because while I love a hard course that really puts the pressure on the pros, I also love the historical significance of seeing records getting smashed. Probably why I prefer Rory to Jordon. No doubt Jordon's the real deal but 2 of Rory's majors were won with an 8 stroke lead :bugout:

[Patch]

I like to see the USO set up hard. The other three I don't really care how they are set. The Open itself has it's own built in aggressive nature towards the players. The masters is just good looking golf course that is tough to play in it's own right with the greens being so slicked up. The PGA I couldn't care less about.

I am ok with what they have now . I just don't want to see a 5th major just for the benefit of the pro players. Not with all the WGC events they have now.

[Rogin]

Van de Velde didn't "choke" in 99, he hit a bad shot that bounced off a grandstand into an impossible position. If it had bounced literally anywhere else he'd have had a drop and been Open champion. The only one who truly "choked" in '99 was Justin Leonard, who stuffed it into the water on the 18th from the middle of the fairway in the playoff and allowed Paul Lawrie to win.

But you don't remember that.

[David in FL]

I prefer to see the best players play well, on very hard courses....

[jbishop15]

I like to see a strong test of skill, and see those taking it on beating it into submission. I love low scores, especially when they come in bunches; defensive golf is great golf, but it isn't necessarily exciting.

[Rogin]

And as far as scores to par are concerned nowadays, who gives a shit? The equipment and the technology already means that it's meaningless to compare St. Andrews, or Pebble Beach, now when Trevino or Nicklaus were playing them; let alone Hogan or Snead.

[teeitup22]

How about something in between, like the Masters? That's what I prefer. Hard courses, but not that hard. I think a good final score is about -10.

[acetoolguy]

It should fall between the two choices IMHO. I want to see great players hitting shots. However playing a par 5 driver-wedge is not how the course was designed. They need to make fewer straight par 5's I think. I think they also need to force players to shape the shots more on most 4's.

[Scotsclaff]

I think the final score in a major should be somewhere between +2 and -2.

[ChrisP]

I don't mind good scoring, but this was a bit over the top.

[Fourputt]

I picked the second option, but in reality I prefer seeing a tough challenge which keeps the leaders near par, but not necessarily a course that tries to embarrass them.  Only the very best shots should be rewarded, and too often that isn't the case.  Yesterday Matt Jones nearly put one in the lake, yet his second shot appeared to be a routine shot to the middle of the green for a two putt par.  That isn't indicative of how I feel that a major championship course should play.  A shot 40 yards off the fairway should be punished, or at least tested, in some way.

All respect to Jason Day, but a major championship with 20 under par for the win and more than a dozen players at -10 or better isn't up to major caliber.  I watched all of about 10 minutes of this one, yet I was glued to the TV for the last 3 majors.  Even venerable St. Andrews under soft conditions had more teeth than Whistling Straits.

[RJH999]

I LOVE Carnasty.

[newtogolf]

I like when the winning score is around -10 or lower, it shows who the better golfer is but isn't a dart throwing competition.  I liked Whistling Straits, I just wish there was more wind (but not as much as the Open) to protect the course all four days.  You'd never guess the course was 7500 yards long given the way they were hitting the ball and the clubs they used on their 2nd shots on Par 4's and some Par 5's.

[saevel25]

I like when the winning score is around -10 or lower, it shows who the better golfer is but isn't a dart throwing competition.  I liked Whistling Straits, I just wish there was more wind (but not as much as the Open) to protect the course all four days.  You'd never guess the course was 7500 yards long given the way they were hitting the ball and the clubs they used on their 2nd shots on Par 4's and some Par 5's.

That is the double edge sword of having firm fairways. You can effectively tighten the course with firmer fairways. You also effectively shorten the course as well.

That particular major doesn't really care about lower scoring. I would prefer the scoring to be in the mid-teens, but Day played outstanding.

[David in FL]

What people are losing sight of is just how freaking good these guys are. The top players....whoever they may be on any given week in a Major are so good, and on form that the only way to "make fools of them" is to trick the course up to the ragged edge of being unplayable. The course needs to be HARD, with mediocrity punished. But, great play should still be rewarded.