U.S. Open Championship

[THEZIPR23]

58 minutes ago, sixcat said:

Listen, I get it! It was a fantastic watch. But quality of play doesn't automatically equate to quality of golf course. Bay Hill does all the things you mention. Nobody is suggesting Bay Hill is worthy of a US Open. Keeping Torrey Pines in the "rota" simply to keep Southern California in the "rota" is a flawed concept. If the USGA wants to have a US Open at a regular Tour stop, Riviera is a much better choice.

People blew a gasket over Merion. Before the 2013 US Open was played, we heard "it's too short", "the best players today will destroy it", "it can't hold up to the best players and modern technology." What we got was an unbelievable venue hosting a remarkable championship with a winning score of +1. Not only did it silence the pre-championship critics, it thrived in the process. Torrey doesn't inspire any of those things. At least not in my mind.

Just my opinion!

So we should give all the credit to the USGA? (blasphemy). If the goal of the US Open is to identify the best player in the world Torrey has delivered 100% of the time. Tiger (I think was #1 when he won) and Rahm was #1 after his victory. I have played Torrey and it is meh from a design perspective however that doesn't mean it didn't produce. 

[sixcat]

10 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Since you brought this into the conversation, I prefer that the US Open and PGA to be at courses that aren't on the regular Tour, just to bring different venues into the action.  I also understand why the organizers like west coast venues, the ad revenue for prime-time golf telecasts has to be great.  

I agree completely with preference of non-Tour venues hosting. I'm looking forward to LACC. The Walker Cup there a few years ago was outstanding. I also understand the east coast bias for wanting a certain number of west coast majors. I just feel there are better options than Torrey. LACC being one of those.

[sixcat]

11 minutes ago, THEZIPR23 said:

So we should give all the credit to the USGA? (blasphemy). If the goal of the US Open is to identify the best player in the world Torrey has delivered 100% of the time. Tiger (I think was #1 when he won) and Rahm was #1 after his victory. I have played Torrey and it is meh from a design perspective however that doesn't mean it didn't produce. 

I couldn't care less who gets credit. Torrey delivered a quality watch and a deserving champion twice.  So did Chambers Bay and Erin Hills. I still think the USGA has better options for venues than Torrey.

[LICC]

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/usga-oakmont-country-club-us-open-anchor-site-merion-golf-club

With Pinehurst and now Oakmont anchor sites, and likely Pebble Beach and Shinnecock, the regularity for other clubs will be reduced. With those courses getting a US Open every 7-8 years, I'm guessing some others like Winged Foot and Olympic will get one every 15 years or so. Which leaves 5 other years in every 15 or so for other courses. Other courses that will be in the one every 15-20 years will be Merion, maybe Congressional, Oakland Hills will probably get one in the next ten years, if Brookline or LACC go well they could get a return, and once every ten years or so they can pick a new course or non-conventional venue, like Chambers Bay or Erin Hills.