What Do You Want the US Open To Be?


Taking things in a different direction from the current dichotomy, one thing I would like to see is the cream rise to the top. I think one thought tucked away throughout this thread is the idea that if the course plays difficult, the better players are more apt to shine through. When I say I want “carnage,” I don’t want a course that is arbitrarily difficult (where the greens are so slick, for instance, that whether you stay on is more a function of luck, or the wind piping up, or a boisterous fart from a caddie, or a giant vape cloud from Kiradech, than skill). Instead, I want greens that are fast enough to make skill and experience a prerequisite to success, rough that penalizes bomb-and-gougers and less cerebral players, and holes with sufficient distance to reward players for taking the less safe club.

I’d like to see amateurs ejecting and guys who don’t have their A-game right now ejecting. As long as that happens, the winner’s score to par can be whatever.


I hate the idea of major courses being determined for our lifetimes right now. Erin Hills wasn’t a great tournament, but it is a GREAT course. The USGA took a swing and hit a single, maybe a double if you’re generous. But, because the scores got too low, Erin Hills never gets another shot, and we can only play at U.S. Opens at courses that are 100 years old? I think it’s a silly notion and eliminates great, newer, courses from ever being considered.



Let me be explicit: I think the USGA did the best job they could have at Erin Hills. Fescuegate and all. I loved it and enjoyed watching as I always do and at least on Thursday and Friday, Fox made the course come alive. I just don’t think it is the right fit for the US Open. I would LOVE it for a PGA. Hell, with the PGA move they might even be able to go back to Chambers without the greens being broccoli.I really like what @endangeredspiethies said about the PGA becoming the width major. I think that would set up really nicely and juxtapose it against the other domestic major championship. Thoughts, anyone?


I agree but I think that if they prove themselves in the shape of a PGA then the USGA can have more faith. Also, Erin Hills as a matchplay course might be incredible…


I somewhat agree with the PGA to U.S. Open credentials, but I’m not sure with the politics between those two organizations, it works like that anymore. Here in Minnesota, I think it’s clear Hazeltine is now a PGA course, and likely won’t see another U.S. Open (and maybe shouldn’t). But they’ve clearly decided to align themselves with the PGA of America, and because of it, got awarded another Ryder Cup much too soon. Maybe they are an anomaly, but I fear you won’t see many courses that host US Opens, and PGAs, and because of that if you have courses that want to be known as elite (i.e. Erin Hills) they are going for US Open bids.


I want to amend my previous desire for carnage to include the nuance described above by @Soly and @ANTIFAldo . I like the constant fear of impending doom I feel with the US Open. A groove too high or low and ejection is around every corner. THAT is golf’s ultimate test in my mind.


to be fair, the original question posed was “Carnage or New Style?” It didn’t really allow for nuance.


As the starter of the thread, I think that @3wiggle has summed it up perfectly. I love the impending doom at every hole and the possibility to eject, and I want the winner to be the guy who can defy it.


@Soly hit the nail on the head on this issue, I think there’s a fine line between a true challenge to the best golfers and a course just being hard for the sake of being hard and not rewarding good shot making and shot selection. Sure, the US Open shouldn’t be like some regular PGA event where the winner is -25 for the week, but the other extreme where only a handful of guys are even below par great either. This weekend is special and important for the game and should reward only the best golfers for sure, but there has to be balance.


I like that four-year rotation idea. Haven’t heard that one before.


Carnage for me. Narrow fairways, thick rough but options for great recovery shots around the greens.


I want the winning score to be E at best. So I’m for carnage, ideally it can be in a fair way that suits the course and produces a deserving winner, but at the end of the day I want those scores to be high regardless of what it takes to get there. I get so much enjoyment out of the best golfers in the world struggling to make pars, and facing the toughest course setups they’ve ever faced. It’s a fun change of pace compared to the rest of the season, and I love seeing the pros get uncomfortable. I wish they would just accept the challenge and be okay with a course being ridiculously difficult for one tournament out of the year. Everyone has to play the same course anyway.


I’m all for some carnage, but I don’t get the people wanting the winner to be around even. From a viewer’s perspective, what fun is it to see everybody scrambling all the time? Sure the well-time blow ups are great for drama, but we don’t need to see a ton of them on a ton of holes. I want to see some darts thrown at pins in key moments, so I like to see wide fairways with accessible pins IF you position yourself correctly off the tee. Basically, I want to give guys the chance to execute JT’s 2nd shot into the 18th on Saturday at Erin Hills last year.


This is the same as my stance and, from what it sounds like, Phil’s too. If you make a mistake, you should be punished. If you don’t, the course should be fair and the player should be rewarded. Phil likes the winning score to be -4 to -6 and that is most likely what we will see at Shinny if it doesn’t rain and make it -10 to -12 or the USGA lose the golf course and have it be +2 to +4


Defy it… or recover from it!


Even better.