2017 U.S. Open Discussion Topic

[Apoc81]

I want to play this course as it is so badly.

[oregongolfguy]

It looks like alot of fun to me too...From up tee's obviously but to me it comes off as really nice visually.

[ChrisP]

11 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yes it does. Categorically untrue statement. If this course was 6700 yards, the scoring average would be much lower.

There's more to scoring than the ONE factor you're talking about here. You know this.

My point was just making a course almost 8,000 yards long doesn't mean it's going to make a course super difficult and over par is automatically going to win. I remember hearing the same argument at Chambers Bay where before the tournament everyone was freaking out and saying well over par is going to be the winning score. These guys today are too with an iron in the middle of the fairway. Obviously, there are a lot of other difficult components....some which can't be controlled (weather conditions), some which can (width of fairways, length of rough). What makes a course like Oakmont so tough is even with softer conditions like last year, guys were still having problems breaking par.

Edited June 16, 2017 by ChrisP

[Chilli Dipper]

Hideki Matsuyama is well on his way to a very special round this afternoon.

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

My point was just making a course almost 8,000 yards long doesn't mean it's going to make a course super difficult and over par is automatically going to win.

Then, @ChrisP, say what you mean, because that's not at all what you said.

Length does make a course tougher. Every time. Other things just have a bigger effect, like softer greens with wider, firmer fairways and no wind.

Erin Hills, like Chambers Bay, needs some wind. They're not getting much. The flags are pretty limp.

FWIW I could have assumed that you knew all of this, because to not know it would be pretty dumb, but I try not to assume things.

[Shindig]

Poor Koepka.  Share of the lead, finds a rare lateral hazard. 

Edited June 16, 2017 by Shindig
Spelling of Koepka

[Aflighter]

1 hour ago, ChrisP said:

Goes to show you length doesn't add difficulty to a course. This course is the longest major ever and there's 40 guys under par. Merion was one of the shortest U.S. Open venues we've seen since 2000, and it even played soft, and the winning score was +1. Congressional was also a monster of a course and that saw record low scores in 2011.

That length is lil misleading.I see lots of downslopes giving them huge rolls on drives. Dont know what altitude is and if its helping. That 7800 is probably only playing to 7400-7500 playing distance.

[zipazoid]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Mike Davis was just on TV talking about how that's never really been a concern of his, and they've never discussed it in his 20-some years of setting up the golf courses.

 

Yet their actions say differently. 2004 Open 7th green comes to mind among others.

So do you think they'll just let the winning score be double digits under par?

[jamo]

1 hour ago, ChrisP said:

My point was just making a course almost 8,000 yards long doesn't mean it's going to make a course super difficult and over par is automatically going to win. I remember hearing the same argument at Chambers Bay where before the tournament everyone was freaking out and saying well over par is going to be the winning score. These guys today are too with an iron in the middle of the fairway. Obviously, there are a lot of other difficult components....some which can't be controlled (weather conditions), some which can (width of fairways, length of rough). What makes a course like Oakmont so tough is even with softer conditions like last year, guys were still having problems breaking par.

Then say that.

[Aflighter]

37 minutes ago, zipazoid said:

Yet their actions say differently. 2004 Open 7th green comes to mind among others.

So do you think they'll just let the winning score be double digits under par?

I got a feeling the golfers near top will come back.I feel -5 might be the score.That first page has guys that I wouldnt have much faith in.Fleetwood I dont know much about but Matsuyama, Speith, Garcia and Kaymer are ones to watch out for.

[zipazoid]

8 minutes ago, Aflighter said:

I got a feeling the golfers near top will come back.I feel -5 might be the score.That first page has guys that I wouldnt have much faith in.Fleetwood I dont know much about but Matsuyama, Speith, Garcia and Kaymer are ones to watch out for.

Could happen, and if it does, I'd be willing to bet that the USGA crew will breathe a sigh of relief that they don't have to intervene to "correct" the low scoring. I don't care what Mike Davis says publicly...they're not gonna let their crown jewel event get overrun like it's the Quad Cities Open. They will act to toughen it up. And further, they're amateurs, meaning, they run a handful of events every year. They sometimes make decisions which are, simply, amateurish. 

Ask Dustin Johnson about that one-shot penalty last year he wasn't sure he incurred until after the round was done & how he was approached on the 8th tee being told he "might" have done something wrong but we're not really sure but we will let you know later...good luck. Davis even admitted afterwards it was handled wrong & beg forgiveness of him. 

That's the random element of the US Open - it's run by the USGA. Amateurs. 

 

[nevets88]

Wonder if laying back isn't the best option for 15

[iacas]

1 hour ago, zipazoid said:

Yet their actions say differently. 2004 Open 7th green comes to mind among others.

So do you think they'll just let the winning score be double digits under par?

That was an aberration.

And sure, if they get s good winner, that'll be fine by them.

They don't want the Bob Hope or whatever it's called now, but they don't care if the winning score is 5 to 12 under par.

[Chilli Dipper]

11 minutes ago, iacas said:

That was an aberration.

And sure, if they get s good winner, that'll be fine by them.

They don't want the Bob Hope or whatever it's called now, but they don't care if the winning score is 5 to 12 under par.

The 36-hole lead is at 7-under. If par was 70 instead of 72, the lead would be 3-under, and no one would be panicking about low scoring.

[Shindig]

1 minute ago, Chilli Dipper said:

The 36-hole lead is at 7-under. If par was 70 instead of 72, the lead would be 3-under, and no one would be panicking about low scoring.

Par's a silly concept at these anyway.  If that 515-yard par-4 were called a par 5, would it change any players' strategies?  I doubt it.

I forget if Congressional actually did this, but I remember them debating a while back playing one hole as a par-5 some days and par-4 other days in their Open.

[zipazoid]

3 minutes ago, Shindig said:

Par's a silly concept at these anyway.  If that 515-yard par-4 were called a par 5, would it change any players' strategies?  I doubt it.

I forget if Congressional actually did this, but I remember them debating a while back playing one hole as a par-5 some days and par-4 other days in their Open.

Well yes, par is a somewhat silly concept. In your instance, if those 515y holes were par 5's, we'd be at double-digits "under par" leading after two rounds.

It appears that some leveling happened in the 2nd round - it started with Fowler starting to run away but he had 3 straight bogeys. Four at 7 under lead...which was the leading score after day one. In other words, the course toughened up on its own - no USGA trickery needed. So I'm pretty sure they'll let it play out as is without their interference.

BUT...two players (Fowler day 1, Matsuyama day 2) tied the Open record for lowest score in relation to, yes, "par" with 7 under scores. I cannot believe the USGA is thrilled about that.

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, zipazoid said:

BUT...two players (Fowler day 1, Matsuyama day 2) tied the Open record for lowest score in relation to, yes, "par" with 7 under scores. I cannot believe the USGA is thrilled about that.

You keep saying that, but they've given no indication they're unhappy. Mike Davis specifically said otherwise.

They set courses up to test players. That often results in a score around par, because courses where the winning score is too high OR too low tend to produce freaky winners (like, say, Steve Jones).

The last few U.S. Open winners under Mike Davis…

Dustin Johnson
Jordan Spieth
Martin Kaymer
Justin Rose
Webb Simpson
Rory McIlroy
Graeme McDowell
Lucas Glover
Tiger Woods
Angel Cabrera
Geoff Ogilvy
Michael Campbell*
Retief Goosen
Jim Furyk
Tiger Woods
Retief Goosen
Tiger Woods
Payne Stewart

I put an asterisk by the only one I'd consider a bit of a fluke-ish winner. Maybe Webb a little bit, but Furyk threw up all over himself on that one.

They don't care about the actual score - but they tend to produce setups that produce a score around par.

Phil's finished second six times in U.S. Opens under Mike Davis's setup, IIRC.

[zipazoid]

Well, they'd be pretty stupid to publicly state this displeasure, no? So, yes, I am sure that they're not publicly giving any inference of displeasure. 

So yeah. I keep "saying that" since I have evidence of it. Remember the 1998 18th hole pin position? I know, not Mike Davis. But it's still the USGA. They have a history of going medieval every now & then just because they can. 1974 Winged Foot was ridiculous & a direct response to Johnny Miller shooting 63 the year before.

Maybe they've changed their ways, but I haven't really seen evidence of it. Hey, it's their tournament & they can run it however they see fit. But they're still amateurs, and sometimes it shows. The R&A just lets their courses do the weeding out, but the USGA seems to think they have to insert themselves at times.

 

Edited June 17, 2017 by zipazoid