2018 US OPEN

[BIG STU]

I think Beef agreed. I guess he apologized to Phil because he couldn't stop laughing.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using MyGolfSpy

Phil and Beef were in the scorer's tent laughing their arses off I presume about the incident

[BIG STU]

I'd like to point out that the guy who won shot even for the last two days. Others shot under par for those days.

 

It was tough, but the guy who played best - prevailed. It wasn't quite as unfair as everyone was screaming about.

 

Carnoustie has the potential to be every bit as tough, too.

 

Enjoy that.

 

BTW I hear the USGA is bringing a floating tee in to make 18 at Pebble a 575 yard par 4.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

That is why they call Carnoustie "Car Nasty"

[Golfspy_CG2]

That is why they call Carnoustie "Car Nasty"

#Can'tWait

[excourse]

So looking forward to Carnoustie! The wife and I will be on the couch for all 4 rounds.

 

Sent from my SM-N950U using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[mcmarsico]

Anyone think that Saturday's setup would have been different if DJ hadn't played as well the first two days? If he had been even instead of -4, would they have kept similar set-ups instead of pushing the envelope even more? Maybe he cost himself the tournament by playing so well on Thursday and Friday...

[mcmarsico]

I do not believe the USGA thought about or gave any consideration to DJ's Thursday-Friday play, scoring.

On Friday afternoon the tournament had a 36 hole cut established, the scores of an entire field for two days worth of play, weather forecasts for Saturday and Sunday, the current condition of the course Friday afternoon etc.... This is the criteria the USGA's set up staff used for the Saturday round, and they used the same criteria for Sunday's final round.

As for "fairness to the field", every Tour event has morning rounds and afternoon rounds. It's part of the game. Usually the afternoon rounds have more wind, firmer greens etc... It's part of the game, part of Tour tournament golf.

I've heard Hank Haney say that one of the remarkable aspects of Tiger's dominance was that for a 10 year period , when his Thursday-Friday scoring just about always put him in contention, he was able to consistently score well Saturday's and Sunday's even given the more challenging afternoon tee times.

The only part I question is the weather part. From all I have heard, they got the exact weather/wind that was forecasted. So they set up the course knowing it would get as hard for the leaders as it did, which gave DJ's -4 closer to the even par they desire (even if they won't officially say it). Then, since they went too far on Saturday, they made Sunday easier so the winning score could be close to even if one of the leaders played well, which Brooks did.

[RoverRick]

It's simple really...and Fox showed it on one of the par 4s..the closer you can position your ball to the green from the tee box the better chance you have of getting a lower score.

 

But the rest of that story is how DJ drove it closer to the hole and BK laid up 100 more yards more to the hole almost. But BK birdied the hole and DJ parred or bogeyed. So much for statistics.

[Undershooter]

I do not believe the USGA thought about or gave any consideration to DJ's Thursday-Friday play, scoring.

On Friday afternoon the tournament had a 36 hole cut established, the scores of an entire field for two days worth of play, weather forecasts for Saturday and Sunday, the current condition of the course Friday afternoon etc.... This is the criteria the USGA's set up staff used for the Saturday round, and they used the same criteria for Sunday's final round.

As for "fairness to the field", every Tour event has morning rounds and afternoon rounds. It's part of the game. Usually the afternoon rounds have more wind, firmer greens etc... It's part of the game, part of Tour tournament golf.

I've heard Hank Haney say that one of the remarkable aspects of Tiger's dominance was that for a 10 year period , when his Thursday-Friday scoring just about always put him in contention, he was able to consistently score well Saturday's and Sunday's even given the more challenging afternoon tee times.

 

I agree that the USGA did not take DJ's early scoring into play. I also agree that Tiger was unreal for 10+ years when he had a lead despite tougher afternoon conditions.

 

I'm going to have to disagree about this week resembling anything close to a regular tour event when you compare the morning rounds to those in the afternoon. Normal weeks generally are between 0 to 1.5 shots worse in the afternoons. With 1.5 being a bit of an outlier. The average difference from the 2010-2014 seasons were .1636 shots worse per round when playing in the afternoon. This data also includes Thursdays and Fridays. I am nearly certain that if we only looked at the weekends (where the leaders tee of later) then that difference in scoring drops. I'd guess that it would drop to close to .1 per round difference in M vs A. 

This passed Saturday had a difference of nearly 4 shots per round when comparing M vs A. That is a massive difference when compared to the nearly .1 shot per round difference that we see every week. 

Yes, some players said their were only 3 or 4 pins that were an issue when the course baked out in the afternoon but that is still 3 too many. Those 3 or 4 could be the difference in the 4 shot difference in morning vs afternoon alone. Not all players agreed on this btw. Plenty of them said the USGA lost the course in the afternoon. I don't believe they fully lost it but they really screwed the pooch when setting all the pins. 

[Undershooter]

But the rest of that story is how DJ drove it closer to the hole and BK laid up 100 more yards more to the hole almost. But BK birdied the hole and DJ parred or bogeyed. So much for statistics.

You must be talking about 1 hole in particular? Koepka averaged nearly 6 yards farther per drive than DJ this week.

 

Edit: either typing or spelling was terrible. Not sure which to blame it on lol

[StrokerAce]

...thought this was a good wrap-up article:

http://www.friedegg.co/blog/2018-us-open-setup

 

A few interesting comments in here that made a lot of sense to me...

 

The USGA's setup issue at Shinnecock stems from a much larger problem. It's become nearly impossible to test the world's best players because of technology. It's the runaway train that is transforming golf from a game of skill, thought and execution into one that's strictly execution-based. It's not limited to low-spin, high-launch solid core balls. It includes the 460cc driver heads that make it virtually impossible to miss. The driving irons and hybrids that effortlessly launch balls high enough to hit to tucked flags. Green reading was an art until books that tell players every slope and contour on the putting surface came along. TrackMan ties it all together, allowing players to optimize every piece of their swing. Today's players are talented and better than ever - not because of skill but because of their tools. These innovations have actually diminished the skills that the world's best players have in their arsenal.

 

Many of today's prototypical Tour pros appeared clueless at Shinnecock thanks to changing winds, uneven lies and vexing green complexes. The idea of flighting a 4-iron into a modest wind from 180 to control the spin as opposed to bashing a 7-iron is a foreign concept. Rather than use the ground around the greens, many immediately grabbed their 60 degree and watched helplessly as chip shots rolled back to their feet. Shinnecock Hills asked a slew of questions to the world's best players that they had never seen. 

 

Most failed, and it's not their fault. Their week-in and week-out setups on the PGA Tour don't ask these difficult questions. To succeed on the PGA Tour, they don't need these shots, so why learn how to hit them? These are the skills that the great players of yesterday had in spades. Skills they learned because they didn't have solid core golf balls, massive driver heads and books that told them every slope on perfectly manicured greens.

 

The technology effect has been two-fold. It's made it nearly impossible for the USGA to properly set up a golf course, and it has also robbed the game of skill. Combine the two together, and the line of a good setup and bad setup is razor thin. The vast majority of players lacked the ability to hit the shots that were needed at Shinnecock, and their first reaction was to complain.

[Undershooter]

...thought this was a good wrap-up article:

http://www.friedegg.co/blog/2018-us-open-setup

 

A few interesting comments in here that made a lot of sense to me...

 

The USGA's setup issue at Shinnecock stems from a much larger problem. It's become nearly impossible to test the world's best players because of technology. It's the runaway train that is transforming golf from a game of skill, thought and execution into one that's strictly execution-based. It's not limited to low-spin, high-launch solid core balls. It includes the 460cc driver heads that make it virtually impossible to miss. The driving irons and hybrids that effortlessly launch balls high enough to hit to tucked flags. Green reading was an art until books that tell players every slope and contour on the putting surface came along. TrackMan ties it all together, allowing players to optimize every piece of their swing. Today's players are talented and better than ever - not because of skill but because of their tools. These innovations have actually diminished the skills that the world's best players have in their arsenal.

 

Many of today's prototypical Tour pros appeared clueless at Shinnecock thanks to changing winds, uneven lies and vexing green complexes. The idea of flighting a 4-iron into a modest wind from 180 to control the spin as opposed to bashing a 7-iron is a foreign concept. Rather than use the ground around the greens, many immediately grabbed their 60 degree and watched helplessly as chip shots rolled back to their feet. Shinnecock Hills asked a slew of questions to the world's best players that they had never seen. 

 

Most failed, and it's not their fault. Their week-in and week-out setups on the PGA Tour don't ask these difficult questions. To succeed on the PGA Tour, they don't need these shots, so why learn how to hit them? These are the skills that the great players of yesterday had in spades. Skills they learned because they didn't have solid core golf balls, massive driver heads and books that told them every slope on perfectly manicured greens.

 

The technology effect has been two-fold. It's made it nearly impossible for the USGA to properly set up a golf course, and it has also robbed the game of skill. Combine the two together, and the line of a good setup and bad setup is razor thin. The vast majority of players lacked the ability to hit the shots that were needed at Shinnecock, and their first reaction was to complain.

I like Andy from the fried egg a lot and listen to his podcasts/ read his site. But he is clearly trying to make this about what he always does, which is the ball and the equipment are going too far. He hates that they are making a lot of the great older courses obsolete. Like most people, Andy has an agenda and his using this as a chance to push it. 

 

 

I do agree with him about most of the regular tour set ups though. They are boring and soft.

[StrokerAce]

I like Andy from the fried egg a lot and listen to his podcasts/ read his site. But he is clearly trying to make this about what he always does, which is the ball and the equipment are going too far. He hates that they are making a lot of the great older courses obsolete. Like most people, Andy has an agenda and his using this as a chance to push it. 

 

 

I do agree with him about most of the regular tour set ups though. They are boring and soft.

 

yeah... he seems kind of old school in that sense but I do think that he made a couple of good points about having to use some creativity vs. just mashing a wedge 200 yards.... although, contrary to his point, guys were hitting PW to the 159 yard par3 on Sunday.  haha.

 

Must be frustrating for a course architect to design a course that he wants to be played in a certain way only to see guys just blister it way up in the air and over the dogleg leaving an 80 yard pitch into a par 5...

[Shankster]

yeah... he seems kind of old school in that sense but I do think that he made a couple of good points about having to use some creativity vs. just mashing a wedge 200 yards.... although, contrary to his point, guys were hitting PW to the 159 yard par3 on Sunday. haha.

 

Must be frustrating for a course architect to design a course that he wants to be played in a certain way only to see guys just blister it way up in the air and over the dogleg leaving an 80 yard pitch into a par 5...

True, but the path of less resistance is there why not take it? I cut corners all the time if I can get over the trees.

 

Also. Another reason why I don't listen to the news, radio, podcasts...

[Undershooter]

yeah... he seems kind of old school in that sense but I do think that he made a couple of good points about having to use some creativity vs. just mashing a wedge 200 yards.... although, contrary to his point, guys were hitting PW to the 159 yard par3 on Sunday.  haha.

 

Must be frustrating for a course architect to design a course that he wants to be played in a certain way only to see guys just blister it way up in the air and over the dogleg leaving an 80 yard pitch into a par 5...

No doubt it's frustrating! Which is why Andy uses these chances talk about rolling back the ball and clubs. 

 

I disagree with him about the pros being unskilled though. As Shankster mentioned, they just choose the path with the least resistance and the one with the fewest variables most often. As do I if at all possible. That doesn't mean that they can't play the ball on the ground. You'll see plenty of it at the Open. I believe that some of them didn't do it as often this week because the greens are so quick as opposed to the Open where they are much slower. It's easier to judge the roll out when they aren't lightning fast. 

 

[Undershooter]

My observation of Shinnecock is that while at first glance the course appears to be styled and played similar to a British links course, it is not.

Specifically, Shinnecock's greens are perched well above its fairways, whereas a true links course has greens which are more or less level with the fairway.

 

I agree. Which is why I was happy when they shaved down the areas around the greens so the ball would run away on missed shots. As opposed to being held up in the rough. I think Shinnecock is an excellent golf course. It's all about hitting excellent approach shots and being able to recover when you don't. The Friend Egg had an excellent write up about it before US Open began. 

[Shankster]

My observation of Shinnecock is that while at first glance the course appears to be styled and played similar to a British links course, it is not.

Specifically, Shinnecock's greens are perched well above its fairways, whereas a true links course has greens which are more or less level with the fairway.

I wish all courses here in the US looked like that. Never been to it, but I'm 100% certain I'd love it.

 

Even just for an evening stroll around the grounds.

[Undershooter]

I wish all courses here in the US looked like that. Never been to it, but I'm 100% certain I'd love it.

 

Even just for an evening stroll around the grounds.

Alan if I ever get out on Shinnecock they'd probably have to carry me off of it.

 

Jk of course... or am I 

[Shankster]

Alan if I ever get out on Shinnecock they'd probably have to carry me off of it.

 

Jk of course... or am I

You and me both. Or bury me there. I told my wife there will be a list of courses for me to visit when I kick the bucket. First stop will be St. Andrews.

 

I hope my kids have good jobs, they'll be taking a long trip to meet my wishes.

[Shankster]

Personally, courses with perched "upside down frying pan" greens are my least favorite to play.

Pitching and chipping is the weakest part of my game, and upside down frying pan greens are the most challenging of all from which to play chips or pitch shots.

Fair enough. The course I regularly play has a good number or perched greens, I don't like the blind landing zone of it, but I actually play those holes the best. I just aim at the top of the flagstick if I can see it, same as my sand shots. That way it will have enough to get there. Sometimes I get it wrong and over shoot it, but it works 80% of the time.

[excourse]

My observation of Shinnecock is that while at first glance the course appears to be styled and played similar to a British links course, it is not.

Specifically, Shinnecock's greens are perched well above its fairways, whereas a true links course has greens which are more or less level with the fairway.

Exactly why I enjoy playing a true links course.

 

Sent from my SM-N950U using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[tony@CIC]

Shinnecock's greens are both perched and crowned (false front all the way around the green, upside down frying pan shape etc...). It's not so much elevated greens which I find a real challenge to chip or pitch to, it is constantly facing false fronts as well. It's like a double-whammy of toughness.

Here on the west coast the courses do not typically have this perched-crowned combination.

I think the style is more prevalent in the east. Donald Ross was a prolific course designer, and I think most of his work was done in the eastern USA, and his courses are known for perched-crowned greens.

We have them in the Midwest as well - I call them muffin tops.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using MyGolfSpy

[HardcoreLooper]

Do you believe the muffin top-crowned-360* false front-upside down frying pan etc.... greens have something to do with snow regions ?

That somehow this profile of green withstands winter-snow better than relative flat greens ?

I'm certain that they do deal with snow better than flat greens, but it doesn't snow all that much down here in the Southeast, where Ross designed so many of his courses.

[HardcoreLooper]

No doubt it's frustrating! Which is why Andy uses these chances talk about rolling back the ball and clubs. 

 

I disagree with him about the pros being unskilled though. As Shankster mentioned, they just choose the path with the least resistance and the one with the fewest variables most often. As do I if at all possible. That doesn't mean that they can't play the ball on the ground. You'll see plenty of it at the Open. I believe that some of them didn't do it as often this week because the greens are so quick as opposed to the Open where they are much slower. It's easier to judge the roll out when they aren't lightning fast.

I love Andy's writing about architecture (he reviewed our local muni that's an old Tillinghast design, which I love very much), but I have had it with people complaining about technology in the game. How far do we roll it back? To steel shafts, persimmon heads and balata balls? Hickory and gutta percha? Featheries? I'm sure that at every turn, there have been complaints about how the latest technological improvements have taken skill out of the game.

 

+1 won the US Open, and it was great to watch. Hats off to Brooks Koepka who proved he can win a -16 birdiefest and a +1 meat grinder, both for one of the biggest achievements in golf. That's pretty versatile.

[Undershooter]

I love Andy's writing about architecture (he reviewed our local muni that's an old Tillinghast design, which I love very much), but I have had it with people complaining about technology in the game. How far do we roll it back? To steel shafts, persimmon heads and balata balls? Hickory and gutta percha? Featheries? I'm sure that at every turn, there have been complaints about how the latest technological improvements have taken skill out of the game.

 

+1 won the US Open, and it was great to watch. Hats off to Brooks Koepka who proved he can win a -16 birdiefest and a +1 meat grinder, both for one of the biggest achievements in golf. That's pretty versatile.

 

It's funny because Andy himself said that he found many places where old architects such as Alister Mackenzie complained about technology advancing too much and leaving old courses behind. So this is no new "problem" or complaint by some. 

[kingcscott]

On the USGA and the handling of the US Open:

 

I know the course conditions were not what the players or spectators wanted or appreciated, nor did the USGA do a particularly good job at setup or keeping conditions within reasonable playing condidtion. But, are we just complaining to complain? Is Brooks Keopka not just a Bad Mother Fucker for pulling it off two times in a row? Was Phil wrong? Does Zach just have a bad taste? "Yes"and "no"are the answers.

I don't think the course should protect par and I don't think the USGA should be is completely idiotic. I do think they should set up the course within reason and I do think they should leave it alone after they set it up. On Sunday Mike Davis kind of owned what went down on Saturday. Also, he is ultimately responsible for all of this.

The USGA should just pick a course, grow the rough a little, set pins where the are difficult, but not impossible and leave it alone. Otherwise, they should build their own freaking course and see who shows up.

The players don't really want to ******, but they do and do for good reason. However, I think they should just shut up and play, win/lose and move on. I have come to not really care about the US Open because of all the BULLSHIT. Sad really as I went to the 2014 more just to see the course than the players. It was a great day and a fun fathers day for me, out there by myself just wandering around hawking at the beauty of the C and C refurb of Pinehurst.

I have no point really, I am just tired of what goes around what should be a showcase and not a murder scene as well as hating drama to the highest degree.

Get your s*** together USGA.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[BIG STU]

Shinnecock's greens are both perched and crowned (false front all the way around the green, upside down frying pan shape etc...). It's not so much elevated greens which I find a real challenge to chip or pitch to, it is constantly facing false fronts as well. It's like a double-whammy of toughness.

Here on the west coast the courses do not typically have this perched-crowned combination.

I think the style is more prevalent in the east. Donald Ross was a prolific course designer, and I think most of his work was done in the eastern USA, and his courses are known for perched-crowned greens.

That is absolutely 100% correct on a Ross course. I was born and raised in the Carolinas and us Carolina boys my age know all about Ross courses