+5 to win --- what do you think???

[the_har]

I think it's nice to see a course beat up a golfer. I liked the high scores and thought it was fitting for the US open to see golfers struggle instead of the usual -5 to -15 scores that are usually predominant otherwise. Do you guys think the course was to tough?? Did you enjoy seeing the bogeys, doubles, and triples?

[wayland]

Did you enjoy seeing the bogeys, doubles, and triples?

Not really. I get to see em up close every weekend.

:rofl:

Yeah, I like it when the rough really punishes them. Can you believe how far Angel was driving the ball? How about that 397yd drive? That thing hit the ground and ran for like 2miles.

[Arid]

It was interesting to see that the leader changes throughout the day. I find it boring to see one guy leading from beginning to end.

[Hork42]

It was interesting to see that the leader changes throughout the day. I find it boring to see one guy leading from beginning to end.

Agreed... today it was Baddeley, then Tiger, then Ames, then Cabrera, then Furyk... etc.. Furyk and Tiger kept it interesting till the very end.

But it wasn't like other tournaments where they would purposely hit it into the trampled down gallery rough where they would usually get a good lie. Once it was in the rough, forget about scoring on that hole.

[Hacker87]

i'm not a fan of seeing them struggle like that..it's one thing to make the rough longer to make it harder to play out of, but Oakmont's rough was rediculous..I felt that the rough took out the chance of seeing a miraculous shot from the rough..all guys had to basically chop out..but I shouldn't complain, the USGA did well in keeping it fair for the entire field for the four days and like you guys said, everyone had a chance till the end

[TourIQ]

I think it's nice to see a course beat up a golfer.
I like to see a bit of a birdie fest coming down the back 9.
Never did like to see greens with 3 foot breaks or more.

[DavidY]

i'm not a fan of seeing them struggle like that..it's one thing to make the rough longer to make it harder to play out of, but Oakmont's rough was rediculous..I felt that the rough took out the chance of seeing a miraculous shot from the rough..all guys had to basically chop out..but I shouldn't complain, the USGA did well in keeping it fair for the entire field for the four days and like you guys said, everyone had a chance till the end

Unlike most US Open courses, I have read that Oakmont is generally like that 365 days of the year. The main exception is that the members generally don't play from the back championship tees.

Based on the TV announcers, the organizers could have made the hole locations (especially in the front 9) even tougher in the final round. Only two got into the 60's in the final round....Angel Cabera 69 and Anthony Kim 67.

Dave

[The Troll]

If you're not going to protect a course with rough what are you going to protect it with....with so many stadium courses on tour it's not like these guys play a lot of treed courses. Rough is the only protection against technology.

That said, I saw a few too many good tee shots bounce off into the rough after rolling many yards in the fairway. With the slope of those fairways I think the rough is fair but the fairways could be a little wider.

On that 397 drive he rolled right down a shoot in the fairway....musta got 100 yards out of it .

Angel, Tiger and Furyk deserve credit for some really gutty, quality play. Really enjoyed watching the Open.

[xander.uk]

i think oakmont was wayyyy over the top and that the usga are making a big mistake!
i dont think it makes very good viewing/television to see guys unable to get out of the rough or putting off the greens from 20ft.
if those greens had been the roughly standard 11 on the stimpmeter that the pro's usually play then i think it would have been a much better contest!

havent checked the finishing stats but i believe there were less than 10 rounds under par ALL WEEK from the worlds best 150+ players.
i think some1 in the usga gets off on pain and misery but it isnt the best golf to watch on television and thats what really pays the bills.
baddeley led the tournament into the last round and shot 80 yesterday.
i dont want to watch supposedly the worlds best golfers shoot scores i see every week.
of course i realise i dont see them on a course like oakmont - but then i wouldnt pay to play oakmont.
i wonder if in the future people will give the event a miss?
if players like mickelson ( and others) are going to injure themselves playing the course then maybe it will be better for them to not play as mickelson's injury could mess up the rest of his season.

[iyell4]

I think it's nice to see a course beat up a golfer. I liked the high scores and thought it was fitting for the US open to see golfers struggle instead of the usual -5 to -15 scores that are usually predominant otherwise. Do you guys think the course was to tough?? Did you enjoy seeing the bogeys, doubles, and triples?
love to see a very challenging course vs some of the world's best golfers.
love to hear player gripes in post-round interviews, too!:)

[golf101]

I think it's nice to see a course beat up a golfer. I liked the high scores and thought it was fitting for the US open to see golfers struggle instead of the usual -5 to -15 scores that are usually predominant otherwise. Do you guys think the course was to tough?? Did you enjoy seeing the bogeys, doubles, and triples?

Great tournament. Fantastic.

[iyell4]

i think some1 in the usga gets off on pain and misery but it isnt the best golf to watch on television and thats what really pays the bills..
having TW decked out in his 'Sunday red' and playing in the final pairing is what really pays the bills!:thumbs_up

[golf101]

i think oakmont was wayyyy over the top and that the usga are making a big mistake!
i dont think it makes very good viewing/television to see guys unable to get out of the rough or putting off the greens from 20ft.
if those greens had been the roughly standard 11 on the stimpmeter that the pro's usually play then i think it would have been a much better contest!

havent checked the finishing stats but i believe there were less than 10 rounds under par ALL WEEK from the worlds best 150+ players.
i think some1 in the usga gets off on pain and misery but it isnt the best golf to watch on television and thats what really pays the bills.
baddeley led the tournament into the last round and shot 80 yesterday.
i dont want to watch supposedly the worlds best golfers shoot scores i see every week.
of course i realise i dont see them on a course like oakmont - but then i wouldnt pay to play oakmont.
i wonder if in the future people will give the event a miss?
if players like mickelson ( and others) are going to injure themselves playing the course then maybe it will be better for them to not play as mickelson's injury could mess up the rest of his season.

Course was fair. If you drove it well. 8 scores under Par. Nobody will skip it because it is to hard. Maybe Phil. I woul dpay to play Oakmont. More then a Muskoka course all tarted up with Canadian Shield on the fairways etc...

[Bellyhungry]

I suppose everyone has their own definition of 'fair'. One of the commonly acceptable ones is if you hit a good shot, you should not be penalized. With all the tilted fairways, I have seen many good drives run into the rough at Oakmond.

I know that the pros did not want to come across as whiners this time around, thus no one *****ed about the setup. But I do not think the course was faired. USGA is the only one that can get away with setting up tough layouts - because it is a Major. Other tournaments can't afford to do that because no players will show up the following years if they get humiliated.

Having players play defensive golf all week is akin to seeing New Jersey Devils winning the Stanley Cup.

Aiming for an even-par winning score would have been more appropriate.

BTW, I still think the 18th at Quail Hollow has the best drama on tour this year.

[trunckslammer1]

These are the best golfers in the world. In the majors it should be tough. I am a single digit handicapper and I usually play on a course between 6300 to 6500 yards. On Sunday I played with a couple of friends who are high handicappers. we played Bond Head South Course and as a lark we decided to play from the golds. - 6800 and slope of 140 I think. 2 of the par 3's were over 200 yars. Although I scored 80, my playing partners had a hard time with it. It is not something that they or even me would do on a regulat basis.
In the Majors, for the 4 times, the golf courses should be setup as tough as they can otherwise it will never be a major i.e. Canadian Open.

[xander.uk]

i agree it should be tough but it shouldnt be unfair!

there are huge slopes on the greens at oakmont and if you have ever tried putting on a course thats ultra fast you know you dont want big slopes to go with it.

i have played ( and still do ) on a course that is 12+ on the stimpmeter regularly - but the slopes are quite gentle slopes ( you can still have 10 feet of break on some putts ) so you dont usually putt off the green.

if you hit a wedge to a 7 iron full shot into the green they will stop and you get backspin ( so you can control your shots)

oakmont WASNT tough it was bordering unplayable!

well struck shots just wouldnt hold on the greens and rolled off into rough so deep you could lose your caddie in it just inches off the green.

150 something players for 2 days then was it 65? made the cut for another 2 days.

thats almost 450 rounds of golf by the worlds best players AND ONLY 8 ROUNDS WERE UNDER PAR

and every hole on the course played over par!

tiger almost hit every fairway and green in his 3rd round but still was only 1 under par for the round! and nobody has hit more fairways and greens on any course in the last 25 years but he still only just sneaked under par!

thats ridiculous

i dont want to watch golf were the players cant hit greens cant putt and shoot scores in the 80's cuz i can do that.

nor do i want to watch easy stuff were they shoot 62 every round.

i think oakmont might have got the balance right had they just putt a little water on the greens.

[jjgowland]

I thought the green speeds were much too fast.
Rough much too deep. Rough around the greens (or lack thereof -which allowed for excessive roll-off) was nuts.

Golf is not supposed to be a sport that results in injuries.
The course could have used three tiers of rough. First rough cut a bit longer than the fairway, second tier a bit longer than the first tier and third tier maybe 6 inches.

The coverage of the last forty minutes it looked like TW was playing alone. The broadcasters even admit they don't know much about the other players because they only cover the big names.
Angel C made some fabulous shots! Good for him! The last 4, count em FOUR US Opens have been won by non-Americans.
Watch for future years of the US OPEN being limited to USA citizens. :)

[Golden Bear]

I'm honestly not sure what is good about a major becoming a bogey-fest. I agree that courses have to be tough and challenging, but if we're being honest, does anyone really think that it's more exciting to see a tournament come down to who goes backwards the slowest? Tournaments get exciting when guys are making birdies down the stretch, not when guys are struggling to save par.

[mizuno_mp37]

i agree it should be tough but it shouldnt be unfair!

there are huge slopes on the greens at oakmont and if you have ever tried putting on a course thats ultra fast you know you dont want big slopes to go with it.


I would say that is probably the one comment I agree with. I think the rough was fair, hit the fairways and you are good to go, but I do think that the greens were too quick when combined with the slopes. This meant that even if you hit a great drive and a good approach you might end up with a "touch and pray" putt.

[xander.uk]

i swear i saw one of them hit his putt with the breeze off his putter as it went past!

did you also notice how quiet the crowd were in general?
sure there was that crowd on the 1 hole that were just cheering ridiculously ( think it was the short par4 & i thought the stewards should have had a word with those guys ) but ( imo ) they were doing it because the golf was that BORING.

fans cheer and love to see chips/bunker shots being holed or long putts racing into the cup.

what did they see this week?

guys standing in the rough hacking and defensive putting ( even from tiger )

all week ONLY 8 rounds of golf under par isnt tough its unfair!

whats wrong if a guy plays well and finishes 6 under after 4 rounds?:confused:

trust me if they had put a little water on the greens ( and brought them down to near 12) the golf would have been better but i still doubt the winner would have been much under level par!

[JEBS]

I think that the problem with Oakmont is that it is boring for a TV audience, you do not get an appreciation for the severity of slope (too many tower and snoopy cams) and all the viewer gets is small fairways lots of rough and the smattering of bunkers. there is no coastal drama like whisteling straits or Bandon Dunes or eye candy like Kiawah Island or the lushness of Augusta National no water hazards TPC Sawgrass. So for the lesser golf fan all they have is the commentators telling them how difficult it is to be on this patch of grass, they do not know that the fairways are as fast as the greens we play on.

For the purist Oakmont is a treasure !!the very basic funamentals Pin placement, Green speeds, tight fairways and crazy rough are what makes this course what it is... its just not eye candy!!

[the_har]

love to see a very challenging course vs some of the world's best golfers.
love to hear player gripes in post-round interviews, too!:)

did you hear mickelson's comments after he was done??? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I'm honestly not sure what is good about a major becoming a bogey-fest. I agree that courses have to be tough and challenging, but if we're being honest, does anyone really think that it's more exciting to see a tournament come down to who goes backwards the slowest? Tournaments get exciting when guys are making birdies down the stretch, not when guys are struggling to save par.

that also makes for an intersting round. But doesn' that happen too often? It's nice once in awhile to see a real struggle.

[Golf_Goof]

Course was fair but challenging.

A tee shot right down the middle that runs away into the rough is a result of poor shot choice/execution by the player. The place was set up to reward the best course managers and shot shapers (Furyk, Watson, Woods).

Greens were treacherous but always rewarded a specific shot choice/execution.

I get more entertained watching pros carefully manage a round rather than bombs and birdies everyday.