U.S. Open at Oakmont, June 16-19, 2016

[~^~]

Oakmont is rated between the third and fifth hardest course in the U.S. Do you like seeing the pros struggle to beat a tough course? Should a less than perfect approach be punished, rolling off the green? Should a drive offline land in 8-inch rough? Do you like seeing greens with a stimp of 12 or 13?

 

Or do you like seeing scores of 65, four-day totals of -24, which looked possible at the 2016 Players? Do you like to see lots of birdies, and a crowded leaderboard where making birdies is necessary to compete and win?

 

Do you think golf is hard, and should be hard for pros, too? Let us hear your unvarnished opinion.

 

From Wikipedia:

Quotes from notable golfers:

USGA Sr. Director of Rules and Competitions Mike Davis: "There's a reason [the U.S. Open is] coming back to Oakmont. This really is the gold standard for championship golf. It doesn't get any better than Oakmont."

Lee Trevino: “There's only one course in the country where you could step out right now — right now — and play the U.S. Open, and that's Oakmont.”

Phil Mickelson: "It's really a neat, special place."

Johnny Miller: "It's probably the best course in the world . . . This is the greatest course I've ever played."

 

On Oakmont's greens:

 

Tiger Woods:"That golf course is going to be one of the toughest tests that we've ever played in a U.S. Open, especially if it's dry, it will be unreal because those greens are so severe."

Arnold Palmer: "You can hit 72 greens [in regulation] in the Open at Oakmont and not come close to winning."

Rocco Mediate said of the greens that they are "almost impossible".

Sam Snead once commented that he tried to mark his ball on one of Oakmont's greens but the coin slid off.

Lee Trevino claimed every time he two-putted at Oakmont he knew he was passing somebody on the leader board.

Johnny Miller said that Oakmont's are the greatest set of greens for testing a player's ability to putt.

USGA Sr. Director Mike Davis: "[Oakmont's greens are the] scariest in golf."

 

Stimpmeter

The stimpmeter, a device for measuring the speed of greens, was developed by Edward Stimpson (1904–1985), an accomplished amateur player from Massachusetts, shortly after attending the 1935 U.S. Open at Oakmont.

[sp0rtsfan86]

US Open is the one day the course beats up a golfer. I personally like that about the Open. Oakmont is a great course, fair but very tough. It'll be interesting to see who will come out a victor. 

[Kanoito]

I must say I've never witnessed the Open at Oakmont. Really look forward to it. And LOL at those quotes

[Jmikecpa]

I like the Open and making the course play difficult as long as they don't get to the edge of unfair. There have been a few in the past that the course got away from the USGA and Shinnecock comes to mind immediately. Oakmont is just an awesome course and it is true that they could play the Open there on a week's notice. I played there several times in high school and college and it is a brutal track before the USGA gets turned loose.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[PlaidJacket]

From Oakmont's website: Oakmont remains perhaps the most difficult course in North America, with 210 deep bunkers (personified by the Church Pews), hard and slick greens that slope away from the player, and tight fairways requiring the utmost precision.

 

Makes me wonder what the members handicaps must be.

[revkev]

@ Plaid Oakmont is a player's club - it has more single digit handicappers than anywhere.  Remember if the course rating is 75 - shooting in the low 80's regularly is going to make you a 4 just as shooting in the mid 70's is going to make you a 4 at a course with a rating of 69. 

 

My average score has gone up 3 strokes over the past year from 77 to 80 - my current handicap index is 4.9 so it's actually dropped a bit over that same period of time.

 

It's all relative.

 

The US Open is what it is - if you don't like it there are plenty of tournaments where guys shoot 20 under - personally I don't like those because they are putting contests only.  I like the winning score between 5-10 under because those courses tend to test the entire game.  The US Open tests driving accuracy, course management including all mental aspects of the game, and sometimes putting (when the greens don't get out of control.)

 

Each tournament has its own personality -that the US Open and its not changing. 

[fozcycle]

 

The US Open is what it is - if you don't like it there are plenty of tournaments where guys shoot 20 under - personally I don't like those because they are putting contests only.  I like the winning score between 5-10 under because those courses tend to test the entire game.  The US Open tests driving accuracy, course management including all mental aspects of the game, and sometimes putting (when the greens don't get out of control.)

 

Each tournament has its own personality -that the US Open and its not changing. 

 

 

I Like It!

[Undershooter]

I like a bit of everything. I like the US Open where par is a good number and also I like other events such as the PGA when the scoring is higher. I honestly don't care as long as its fair for the Players and exciting to watch.

 

Also Plaid, the members play the golf course as a par 72 and the US Open will play it as a par 70. Most people don't think very much about 2 strokes but over the course of the tournament, 2 shots is a hell of a lot. Imagine shooting even par at the open compared to -8 at their club championship for the same score. 8 shots relative to par is huge.  

 

When one of my home courses holds the Monday qualifier for our local tour even they play it at a par 70 vs 72 as it normally plays.

 

Also to Rev's point, the course rating if I played the tips would be 77.5 and that means all I need to do is break 80 pretty regularly to keep a cap close to mine. 

[Undershooter]

Also I was looking back and Johnny Miller's FINALL ROUND 63 has to be one of the greatest in history. I don't like the man much but this is impressive. Heck he even left a few out there if he had putted better. Keep in mind the scoring average for the day was 75.45, which means he lapped the field by over 12 shots!

 

Hole Yards Par Club selections Score Result To par 1 469 4 Driver, 3-iron to 5 feet 3 birdie –1 2 343 4 Driver, 9-iron to 1 foot 3 birdie –2 3 425 4 Driver, 5-iron to 25 feet 3 birdie –3 4 549 5 Driver, 3-wood, bunker shot to 6 inches 4 birdie –4 5 379 4 Driver, 6-iron to 25 feet, 2 putts 4 par –4 6 195 3 3-iron to 25 feet, 2 putts 3 par –4 7 395 4 Driver, 9-iron to 6 feet, 2 putts 4 par –4 8 244 3 4-wood to 30 feet, 3 putts 4 bogey –3 9 480 5 Driver, 2-iron to 40 feet, 2 putts 4 birdie –4 Out 3,479 36   32   –4 10 462 4 Driver, 5-iron to 25 feet, 2 putts 3 par –4 11 371 4 Driver, wedge to 14 feet 4 birdie –5 12 603 5 Driver, 7-iron, 4-iron to 15 feet 4 birdie –6 13 185 3 4-iron to 5 feet 2 birdie –7 14 360 4 Driver, wedge to 12 feet, 2 putts 4 par –7 15 453 4 Driver, 4-iron to 10 feet 3 birdie –8 16 230 3 2-iron to 45 feet, 2 putts 3 par –8 17 322 4 1-iron, wedge to 10 feet, 2 putts 4 par –8 18 456 4 Driver, 5-iron to 20 feet, 2 putts 4 par –8 In 3,442 35   31   –4 Total 6,921 71   63   –8

[The Dansome]

Don't worry, when low score first 2 days is +1 they'll dry out those greens on the weekend for sure.

[Joey East Coast]

Oakmont has removed some 7,000 trees leading up to this Open. As I have a certain distaste for the Masters, I always get excited for the other 3 majors and the different courses they rotate through. To date, Merion has been my favorite US Open, but I have high hopes for Oakmont. Also, honorable mention to Chambers Bay last year.

[~^~]

@ Plaid Oakmont is a player's club - it has more single digit handicappers than anywhere. Remember if the course rating is 75 - shooting in the low 80's regularly is going to make you a 4 just as shooting in the mid 70's is going to make you a 4 at a course with a rating of 69.

 

My average score has gone up 3 strokes over the past year from 77 to 80 - my current handicap index is 4.9 so it's actually dropped a bit over that same period of time.

 

It's all relative.

 

The US Open is what it is - if you don't like it there are plenty of tournaments where guys shoot 20 under - personally I don't like those because they are putting contests only. I like the winning score between 5-10 under because those courses tend to test the entire game. The US Open tests driving accuracy, course management including all mental aspects of the game, and sometimes putting (when the greens don't get out of control.)

 

Each tournament has its own personality -that the US Open and its not changing.

 

A Shootout of 20 under is not necessarily a putting contest. If you play precise iron shots to tap in distance, a la Johnny Miller, then low scores can be a golf shot contest. Of course, the last shot is always a putt.

 

The problem is, the US Open often has greens slicker than whale snot, so a nice approach shot lands close to the pin, then starts rolling, gathers speed, and ends up off the green. Now you're watching a chip AND putt contest. That's unfair to players who can control their distance, and an advantage to scramble-types.

 

Yes, the Open should test all aspects of golf, but is it really necessary to have every hole approached twice, once by iron shot, and again by chipping? I find it frustrating to see a good approach shot punished. For four days. And the winner is the one who got a lucky break. Just my opinion, but I don't enjoy watching people suffer.

[Undershooter]

Shootout 20 under is not necessarily a putting contest. If you play precise iron shots to tap in distance, a la Johnny W, then low scores can be a golf shot contest. Of course, the last shot is always a putt.

 

The problem is, the US Open often has greens slicker than whale snot, so a nice approach shot lands close to the pin, then starts rolling, gathers speed, and ends up off the green. Now you're watching a chip AND putt contest. That's unfair to players who can control their distance, and an advantage to scramble-types.

 

Yes, the Open should test all aspects of golf, but is it really necessary to have every hole approached twice, once by iron shot, and again by chipping? I find it frustrating to see a good approach shot punished. For four days. And the winner is the one who got a lucky break. Just my opinion, but I don't enjoy watching people suffer.

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of the open. I do agree that some good shots aren't always fairly rewarded more so than all the other events. But I definitely don't see the US open as a scramblers venue. Sure you have to scramble at times but most of the time US Opens are won by ball strikers. Guys who hit it in or close to the fairway and then hit greens. They may have to scramble on occasion but for the most part they are hitting the ball well all week. I see the British Open as the scramblers Open. Less emphasis put on fairways hit and more emphasis on getting up and down from a trash can.  

 

List of US Open winners: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Open_(golf)_champions

Most of these guys are ball strikers in my opinion. 

[~^~]

I won't argue that any past US Open champion was not a good ball striker; of course they were. Never mind about scrambling. My point is that the greens are too fast at the US Open, and THAT is a putting contest, and boringly painful to watch.

[The Dansome]

I like my US Open with a winner in the -4ish range. This is the one tournament I don't need a -20 shootout, mainly because I grew up knowing it this way so it's tradition for me. -4 still means tons of great shots and many can still vie for the title.

 

Don't know what to expect this year, geez Cabrera won with +5 last time in 2007! That's just silly.

[revkev]

US Opens are about fairways, greens and perservetance. Get the ball in the fairway, leave an uphill puut, hit it twice and move on. The more boring you make it the better chance you have to win.

 

I wouldn't want that every week but it's the way the US Open works. Each Major is unique it's what makes players who won different majors special and all four extremely rare.

 

Sent from my VS986 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[Undershooter]

I won't argue that any past US Open champion was not a good ball striker; of course they were. Never mind about scrambling. My point is that the greens are too fast at the US Open, and THAT is a putting contest, and boringly painful to watch.

You obviously didn't read through Miller's 63. Most of them were kick ins bc he hit it so well. True the greens are stupid fast and possibly too much so. Bottom line is that you have to put yourself below the hole and play perfect golf. The US Open is a game of don't miss.

[revkev]

Pros know when they've missed even when we don't. Shots that look good but bound to bad spots are rarely shocking to them in their heart of hearts. The US Open as do the Maste/s and Open expose those shots.

 

This is an unabashed tribute to Jack's greatness. In his 20's and 30's he was Tiger, loner, straighter and a better putter than anyone else most of the time. He won 15 majors playing that way. Check out his record in majors from the mid 60's to the mid 70's sometime. It is obscene. He was every bit as dominant as Tiger.

 

The in his 40's he was no loner the longest plaers, not even close. But he still forged out a Hall of Fame resume after thage of 40 despites the injuries and distance loss. He won three more majors, a US Open at Baltasrol, a PGA in Rochester and a Masters for the ages. They were won in historic fashion. He was a ball striking machine and he holed his putts.

 

That's what true championship golf is about. You adapt and you do what it takes. No one got that or gets it better than Jack.

 

BTW as a ball striker Jason Day is like Jack, high, straight and long.

[Undershooter]

Pros know when they've missed even when we don't. Shots that look good but bound to bad spots are rarely shocking to them in their heart of hearts. The US Open as do the Maste/s and Open expose those shots.

This is an unabashed tribute to Jack's greatness. In his 20's and 30's he was Tiger, loner, straighter and a better putter than anyone else most of the time. He won 15 majors playing that way. Check out his record in majors from the mid 60's to the mid 70's sometime. It is obscene. He was every bit as dominant as Tiger.

The in his 40's he was no loner the longest plaers, not even close. But he still forged out a Hall of Fame resume after thage of 40 despites the injuries and distance loss. He won three more majors, a US Open at Baltasrol, a PGA in Rochester and a Masters for the ages. They were won in historic fashion. He was a ball striking machine and he holed his putts.

That's what true championship golf is about. You adapt and you do what it takes. No one got that or gets it better than Jack.

BTW as a ball striker Jason Day is like Jack, high, straight and long.

Wow someone make note, I'm actually disagreeing with Rev for once. Everything is spot on in your post except I don't think anyone was as dominant was over his prime as Tiger. Jack had a better career no doubt but for about 10 or so years Tiger was untouchable. The experts would come on before the tournament and pick tiger vs the field and most would go Tiger. That's just insane dominance.

[Kanoito]

Wow someone make note, I'm actually disagreeing with Rev for once. Everything is spot on in your post except I don't think anyone was as dominant was over his prime. Jack had a better career no doubt but for about 10 or so years Tiger was untouchable. The experts would come on before the tournament and pick tiger vs the field and most would go Tiger. That's just insane dominance.

 

I guess for us, we see Tiger as pure domination because we lived his era. Jack had a great career and accomplishments, but they are just numbers on a piece of paper (or computer screen) for me.

 

For the older guys who actually got to see Jack play and dominate, they probably can do a better comparison.

 

Don't get me wrong, I would still pick Tiger over Jack

[sp0rtsfan86]

I know I'm probably in the minority but I love a +5 winning score. Maybe closer to even would be a bit better IMO but i rather see that than a 15 under winner. Just like to see pros tested to the limit rather than overpowering a course.

[revkev]

Back to Jack in the Majors is the key phrase look at his record in the majors for that ten year period.

 

Sent from my VS986 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[Kenny B]

Back to Jack in the Majors is the key phrase look at his record in the majors for that ten year period.

 

Sent from my VS986 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

Agree!  

 

Having watched both, I would say that Jack had a lot of good competition day in and day out... the Big Three + a few others, and he just won, a lot!  Tiger showed up and the field was fairly even with not many standouts.  He dominated and intimidated and no one could push him until his injuries showed up and the skill level of younger players increased because of him.

[revkev]

You guys be the judge. Tiger's career was essentially 12 years. If you carve Jack's best 12 year stretch out rather than the ridiculous decade where he was only outside the top 10 three times in the majors here's what you get:

 

Nicklaus 44 starts, 10 wins, 38 top 10's, 1 MC

Tiger. 42 starts. 13 wins, 23 top tens, 1 MC. ( He missed 2 majors because of leg surgery)

 

As Kenny said Jack had significantly more competition at the top. Player and Trevino were winning their majors during this time. Phil's came towards the end of and then after Tiger's run. Ray Floyd and Tom Watson would have been Jack's Phil. They started winning their majors right at the end of his run.

 

Both were amazing and I would understand taking Tiger's 13 wins over Jack's consistency. Tiger was clearly better in regular events during his prime. Jack used them primarily as tune ups for the Majors. I just want everyone to understand what a machine Jack was in the Majors. Even or 15 under it didn't matter to him, he found his way into contention and closed his share.

[Undershooter]

You guys be the judge. Tiger's career was essentially 12 years. If you carve Jack's best 12 year stretch out rather than the ridiculous decade where he was only outside the top 10 three times in the majors here's what you get:

 

Nicklaus 44 starts, 10 wins, 38 top 10's, 1 MC

Tiger. 42 starts. 13 wins, 23 top tens, 1 MC. ( He missed 2 majors because of leg surgery)

 

As Kenny said Jack had significantly more competition at the top. Player and Trevino were winning their majors during this time. Phil's came towards the end of and then after Tiger's run. Ray Floyd and Tom Watson would have been Jack's Phil. They started winning their majors right at the end of his run.

 

Both were amazing and I would understand taking Tiger's 13 wins over Jack's consistency. Tiger was clearly better in regular events during his prime. Jack used them primarily as tune ups for the Majors. I just want everyone to understand what a machine Jack was in the Majors. Even or 15 under it didn't matter to him, he found his way into contention and closed his share.

True. Although I think everyone forgets about Ernie and Vijay. Vijay was a more dominant player from 2000-2009 than even Phil. He even took the #1 ranking from Tiger for a time being. I will agree that Jack had top heavier fields but his fields weren't nearly as deep. It's so hard to compare generations from then till now. The money has increased significantly for events and some players would rather take home a fedex cup than a major. Jack's consistency is beyond impressive in the majors. I guess the regular tournament dominance just puts Tiger over the top for me. Either way, both were stupid good.

 

Fun story: Jack had a gift for knowing what the winning score would be at the beginning of a given week. Can't remember the Tournament (think it was the Masters) but Jack shot -4 the first day and said after the round that even par would win the championship that week even though he was -4 after the first round. Sure enough he shot +4 the rest of the way and ended up winning it. 

 

Edited for accuracy. May not be spot on but I'm close. 

[revkev]

Both were amazing and you would never hear either complain about how hard a course was.

[808nation]

The course set up is what it is at a US Open...I believe they are set up fair for the Professionals to handle. Now the greens are a little different story. I've seen greens placements that I thought were not fair as well as the speeds of the greens that seemed like they were putting on glass. In my opinion, there should be a balance in making the course play fair to all sorts of players. It should be a good course to test and show who the best player is after the 4 days of competition. I like seeing a tournament having different winners every year.

 

Can't wait for the U.S. Open!!

 

Sent from MyGolfSpy mobile

[J_Wurz]

It kinda sucks to have us opens stretched out to darn near 8000 yds. It gives a lot of the younger guys an advantage with their stupid long length. On the flip side the fairways are about a car width wide and the rough is 1ft high!! I love even par to maybe -5. I do hate the great shot turn into a chip back on. That's frikin dumb!!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[revkev]

Let's put an end to that myth right now. The USGA sets the course up at around 7200 yards each day. They need the extra yardage to vary the tees and allow for differing wind conditions. They don't use the entire course on any given day. That's true of all your events.

 

Sent from my VS986 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[Undershooter]

It kinda sucks to have us opens stretched out to darn near 8000 yds. It gives a lot of the younger guys an advantage with their stupid long length. On the flip side the fairways are about a car width wide and the rough is 1ft high!! I love even par to maybe -5. I do hate the great shot turn into a chip back on. That's frikin dumb!!

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy mobile app

Generally the Players never play the course all the way back. Last year was the first time ever that the US Open ever touched 8k yards over 4 days and guess who came out on top, a kid people call "short" off the tee. In truth he isn't short by any means but he isn't what I'd call long either. Longest US open in ever was won by the Speith not DJ. That says it all to me.

Gotta do it all. Fairway, green, below the hole, make a putt, don't three Jack...