What Do You Want the US Open To Be?


#1

Carnage or New Style? I’m not making a poll, I want explanations because I think there is merit for both. Personally, I side more with Curtis Strange where I think it is the one week where I want carnage. Everything else can be the beauty that is width and angles but just that one week…

Bonus Question: Can Merion still hold a US Open?


#2

Count me in for the carnage. The USGA is foolishly trying to balance making it “the ultimate test” and also not piss guys off. I say they embrace their role, tell the pansy-ass players to suck it up for one week, and just crank it up to 11.


#3

I think carnage or new style is fine, but it should be presented as the course allows. In other words, don’t force a venue to be one thing when the design intent was something else. Do I want to see a birdie fest every year? No. But, I don’t want to see golfers praying for par on every hole either.

If I had to choose just one, I would choose new style but ONLY because logic would tell you that carnage adds to round length.


#4

Couldn’t agree more. Carnage. It’s impressive to see the best in the world hit driver wedge to every hole the rest of the year. But it’s a different kind of impressive to see those handful of players that are able to tame a brute of a US Open test. I’m thinking Bethpage in ‘02 when only Tiger and maybe one other were under par. That’s a whole new ballgame of fun that’s great to watch…and come on, it’s only once a year! The players need to quit their whining


#5

GAHDAMN searing takes already I love it. I think a balance of carnage is good. For some reason I loved merion, but (although I wasn’t anywhere near old enough to comprehend) Shinny '04 was way too much from what I have seen…


#6

This is super logical I love it. Real question: does pro pace of play bother/affect you? I think it does for amateurs to an extent because it is the precedent for better or worse that we look to


#7

Carnage. Not because I get enjoyment out of seeing professionals struggle, but its part of the US Open’s identity. Being really hard was something that made the US Open stand out.

The Masters has ANGC and everything that comes with it, the [British] Open has the wind, rain, tall fescue and links golf, and the US Open has the thick rough and the over par winners. These 3 majors all have their own elements which make them special.


#8

Pro pace of play bothers me because slow play means networks have more time to fill between shots. This leads to several outcomes:

  1. More cringe-inducing TV tower interviews

  2. More over-produced TV packages (e.g., fluff pieces on the “beauty” of something related to golf)

  3. Fewer golf shots to be shown

  4. More TV commercial breaks

  5. Makes it boring to watch

  6. More camera time on the pros going through their pre-shot routine which has a trickle-down effect on the twice-a-year golfer (plumb-bobbing, walking around every side of the hole, walking 40 yards to the green to see where they want their chip to land, etc.)


#9

Absolute carnage. LONG, super penal rough, fast greens, fescue, dry/firm. All of it. As mentioned by others, we don’t get to see it often…and I’m fine with it once/year. Screw the players’ opinions. They will still play and the ones that embrace the challenge will have a chance to win.

One caveat. I DON’T want the setup to overly tax the golf course to the point it is unreasonable…Shinny '04. You can’t lose a green completely. With that said, I was also fine with Erin Hills and the score relative to par. Setup the golf course as best you can and don’t look back. If the winds picked up at Erin Hills, there could have been carnage there as well.


#10

I’d like to see something similar to Winged Foot in 2006, or Pebble in 2010 or 2000, or Olympic in 2012. I want to see 77 be the average score one day because it was just ridiculously windy. I want to also see some 65s because dudes are just so good. I don’t really care about pace of play in the US Open. If it’s long then it’s long. Pace of play in non majors are more of an issue.


#11

Winning score should be like -4 or -5.


#12

Carnage, though I’m more concerned with where the cut line is than what the winning score is. I also don’t want the test/setup of the US Open to be weather-reliant - that’s for the British.


#13

Carnage. No lead should be safe, ever.


#14

Length doesn’t matter as long as the course is conditioned as it should be. Merion wasn’t okay, nor was Shinnecock when they lost greens.

Carnage should rule the day at the US Open and the USGA needs to embrace that. Players that complain are far fewer than those who genuinely want to win a major. Give me more amateurs qualifying and taking a shot at the toughest test.

Any given course has it’s exploits that they can crank up and kill a golfer, So I agree that tricking up is not okay, but juicing what you can (and should) is great


#15

“I secretly smiled when I got to a tournament and heard guys griping about the course setup. When I heard that, I checked him off, one less player I had to beat that week” - Jack Nicklaus


#16

Man, I really do not care what happens I just want to watch something captivating come Sunday. If it is a battle to get in the house - great. If it is a scenario where the last few holes need to be played in X amount under par - great.

Just want to watch the winner play exceptional golf Thursday - Sunday and have the cream rise to the top - as a major should be.

So far this year feels void of captivating golf.


#17

Carnage (for most players). I think there’s nothing more impressive than seeing everyone in the field hovered around par or over par, and then seeing a few players between -5 and -10. We kinda saw that last week at Shoal Creek for the Women’s Open, and I think it shows just how good Ariya and Kim were playing compared to everyone else.

One thing that’s not been talked about I will bring up is the Merion question. Yes. It could absolutely still host a US Open. The way it played in 2013 is not a one-off thing. The weather was fairly good and players still got kicked in the ass. Assuming major championship venues don’t eventually expand to being played at AT&T Stadium to compensate for the infrastructure that gets set up nowadays, I see no reason why Merion can’t continue to host. I feel like 2013 was probably the best, most enjoyable, universally-agreed-upon quality US Open this decade encompassing every possible reason that could affect a fan, or player’s opinion of the event.


#18

I think that everybody overestimates the extent to which the course/setup can cause “the cream to rise to the top.” It feels like it happens at Augusta, the Players, and the majors because we consistently see a ton of big names at the top, but I think that’s really only a reflection of the strength of the field in those events.


#19

Sure. However, shouldn’t the US Open be set up in a way that requires the winner to have a wide variety of shots executed to the highest extent? This is the one test where the players actually need it to be all there to be in contention - a la Bryson last Sunday where he couldn’t put the driver on the map but was putting out of his mind. That will not and should not fly at the US Open.


#20

Yes, but if the guy that does that on a given major week better than the field is not a top 10 player in the world, I don’t believe that’s a failure on the part of the golf course/setup.