2024 PGA Tour

[jncuse]

Great round by Shipley the amateur -3 through 12... he has moved up to 16th (from 40th or so), and if he stays even the rest of the way, I am fairly certain he will get into the top 10.

If you finish with a 66 or 67 today you are going to make a nice solid jump.

 

[Oakland]

NBC wasted way too much time on Tiger; thank goodness that he missed the cut. Instead of following
5 time major champ Brooks Koepka, who is in his prime and was only five back, we got to watch out-of-contention Tiger miss putts and then watch replays of him missing putts, and then we got to watch him sulk after missing putts but were reminded that it was competitive sulking.

I get it that he stills draws a lot of eyeballs but we didn't get to see a lot of important play by players who were in actual contention. If people want to watch Tiger I suggest they play their VHS tapes from 2000.

 

[UpstateSM]

NBC pissing down their legs today what a joke

 

[jncuse]

Would have liked it to be a Ryder Cup year. The Europeans are doing quite strong this week, and on paper will be more evenly matched than prior years... due to players like Aberg... not that paper ever mattered in the battle.

And while the President's Cup will be interesting to me because it's in Canada, and since the team will have somewhere between 3-5 Canadians that could deserve to make it. But the fact that 3-5 Canadians deserve to be there speaks to the lack of strength of the team. It likely won't be a very competitive event.

 

[Cowtown]

I'm thinking Donald Ross must have had some really dark moments.

 

[PoppyHart]

I think you are creating a bit of narrative that doesn't really exist much at this point.

Are there many experts / golf analysts that are saying Tiger has any chance to realistically win at this point? Can't be very many. Might find it a bit more amongst casual golf observers. but even they are seemingly limited.

Tiger says he can still win when asked the question (with a little more humility than before, when he had none) - that's what you would expect from an uber competitive person. Jack was the same way,

If Tiger says it, it becomes a headline, if not "the" headline. Thus, people talk about it.

 

[upperdeck]

FInau and Aberg barfed on that one hole and those triples cost them dearly.

Bryson bombing drivers but also got away with all but one of the bad shots those last 5 holes.

only one person has yet to shoot a round in the 70s. He does it tomorrow he wins. But if he shoots 72-73 and backs up, someone even or better has a shot. It will be interesting to see how the hip responds he had an obvious limp those last 9 holes.

 

[Cowtown]

Famous last words but Scottie is done. I can't believe how openly frustrated he is.

It's the course, for the most part. It's so different from what they're used to playing. It's like the World Series arrives, and the strike zone changes. How many other courses have so many turtle-back greens? A few, okay, but every one? And while the course itself is perverse, the USGA seems to enjoy seeking out this effect. Chambers Bay, Winged Foot, Shinnecock, LACC, Bethpage are all arbitrarily difficult courses. It's/they're almost unwatchable. The USGA seems to think they're identifying the best player(s), when in fact they're embarrassing them. In order for a course to be a great course it must be playable. No. 2 is not playable. The upside-down plates that serve as greens and the bizarre rough make it more of a gadget course than a great one. Regardless of what the talking heads on The Golf Channel gurgle and slobber about.

 

[PoppyHart]

I like seeing players rewarded for making par (scrambling from the fairways, gettiing up and down etc…,) as opposed to a birdie fest.

I doubt the winner will feel embarrassed.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

If Tiger says it, it becomes a headline, if not "the" headline. Thus, people talk about it.

The greens there are crazy. I think they were somewhere between 9-11 when I were there, which was exactly one year from next week. I believe the caddie said the greens would get ramped up to 13 or so.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

It's the course, for the most part. It's so different from what they're used to playing. It's like the World Series arrives, and the strike zone changes. How many other courses have so many turtle-back greens? A few, okay, but every one? And while the course itself is perverse, the USGA seems to enjoy seeking out this effect. Chambers Bay, Winged Foot, Shinnecock, LACC, Bethpage are all arbitrarily difficult courses. It's/they're almost unwatchable. The USGA seems to think they're identifying the best player(s), when in fact they're embarrassing them. In order for a course to be a great course it must be playable. No. 2 is not playable. The upside-down plates that serve as greens and the bizarre rough make it more of a gadget course than a great one. Regardless of what the talking heads on The Golf Channel gurgle and slobber about.

The rough isn’t bizarre. It’s what is there naturally.

 

[jncuse]

The rough isn’t bizarre. It’s what is there naturally.

The current rough area at Pinehurst #2 is entirely contrived,. Well sort of anyway! Back when Pinehurst #2 started, the rough area almost 100% resembles what we see currently

Over time the rough area at Pinehurst #2 was cleaned up to look like more of a traditional US treelined golf course (See the post below on the 2005 US Open, which I was watching snippets of yesterday -- the difference in visuals is very significant)

Around 2010 they then did a restoration to re-build the rough era to its more natural state.

 

[Symphony Steve]

It's the course, for the most part. It's so different from what they're used to playing. It's like the World Series arrives, and the strike zone changes. How many other courses have so many turtle-back greens? A few, okay, but every one? And while the course itself is perverse, the USGA seems to enjoy seeking out this effect. Chambers Bay, Winged Foot, Shinnecock, LACC, Bethpage are all arbitrarily difficult courses. It's/they're almost unwatchable. The USGA seems to think they're identifying the best player(s), when in fact they're embarrassing them. In order for a course to be a great course it must be playable. No. 2 is not playable. The upside-down plates that serve as greens and the bizarre rough make it more of a gadget course than a great one. Regardless of what the talking heads on The Golf Channel gurgle and slobber about.

I've always considered Augusta a gadget course with its roller coaster greens. I much prefer a Pinehurst to a typical tour stop, and the US Open (with the exception of last year, THAT was a course not ready for prime time) suits my perverse sense of pleasure. I mean, it's only once a year, the golfers know to expect difficult conditions.

I'd like to know, though--what difficult course is not 'arbitrarily difficult'?

 

[jncuse]

Here is the full broadcast of the 2005 US Open.



The course was very different looking than it is now. And it was considered one of the hardest setups of the US Open at the time based on what I heard on a snippet as I browsed through points of the coverage.

As noted above the big changes since then:
1) Rough area around fairways is more of what we normally see in traditional tree lined courses. And for the US Open it would be the consistent long green stuff.
2) Seems like there is much more shaved areas around the green.

They could probably make the course more difficult in 2005 than now for 2 reasons.
1) Long normal grass rough will give you more tougher and more punitive lies on "average: than what we see now. Now we get some punishing lies in the rough, but there are also a number of areas where you can recover in a less punitive manner.

2) It was easier to shrink the fairway back in 2005 in anticipation of a US Open. You just had to grow out the grass to shrink the fairway, Now the fairway size is the fairway size, as it is determined by the rough area which is tough to manipulate.

I sort of prefer the visuals of what we see now - its more unique than what we normally see.

 

[Symphony Steve]

Here is the full broadcast of the 2005 US Open.



The course was very different looking than it is now. And it was considered one of the hardest setups of the US Open at the time based on what I heard on a snippet as I browsed through points of the coverage.

As noted above the big changes since then:
1) Rough area around fairways is more of what we normally see in traditional tree lined courses. And for the US Open it would be the consistent long green stuff.
2) Seems like there is much more shaved areas around the green.

They could probably make the course more difficult in 2005 than now for 2 reasons.
1) Long normal grass rough will give you more tougher and more punitive lies on "average: than what we see now. Now we get some punishing lies in the rough, but there are also a number of areas where you can recover in a less punitive manner.

2) It was easier to shrink the fairway back in 2005 in anticipation of a US Open. You just had to grow out the grass to shrink the fairway, Now the fairway size is the fairway size, as it is determined by the rough size.

I sort of prefer the visuals of what we see now - its more unique than what we normally see.

I also think that, as long as Tiger could hit it, Bryson and Rory hit it that much longer.

 

[jncuse]

I also think that, as long as Tiger could hit it, Bryson and Rory hit it that much longer.

It's a bit easier for bombers at this US Open. Driving accuracy mattered much more at the 2005 US Open than it does at the 2024 US Open.

You often get some somewhat easy lies at this open where you can still go at green (although they are hard to hold). In 2005 you missed the fairway, get in the primary rough, going at the green is not an option.

 

[jncuse]

I've always considered Augusta a gadget course with its roller coaster greens. I much prefer a Pinehurst to a typical tour stop, and the US Open (with the exception of last year, THAT was a course not ready for prime time) suits my perverse sense of pleasure. I mean, it's only once a year, the golfers know to expect difficult conditions.

I'd like to know, though--what difficult course is not 'arbitrarily difficult'?

I don't think the LACC was that bad. It was destroyed the first day. It really toughened out as the week went on, and it was quite fair in terms of approach shots.reens were tough, but didn't reject good shots.

The biggest issue was its huge fairways - I have never seen fairways that big at a major.

 

[jncuse]

The biggest issue for the US Open in modern years is less about the fairness of the course in general (they have tended to be fair overall) and more that they always tend to **** up one or two holes where all approach shots are rejected or they do something stupid in the set up. for one or two holes. And its often on the weekend or last day.

The biggest defence of the course is certainly the greens and shaved areas, which does reject some good shots... or makes it very hard to get GIR's from the fairway. It's walking the line of what is fair or not, but it hasn't surpassed the line either. And I think that is what the US Open wants.

The rough looks tough, and you can get some bad breaks for sure, but its easier than the long thick stuff we see at other US Opens.

 

[upperdeck]

Even locally when we play some of the better courses when they want to trick up the green and make the pins tougher its night and day how much harder it is.

The goal of the open is to reward great shots and have players execute them. if the landing area to a pin is small either make the shot or don't try it.

Many of these players are hitting the same shots they try on normal weeks where you miss the shot by 10 ft and it just means you have a 25 ft putt not a 10ft one. Now the result is a 75ft chip instead. they don't want to play smarter.

bryson and rory with the length advantage on good days get more reward and yesterday bryson had 3-4 bad drives late but got great lies and then hit good second shots. That doesnt always happen.
Rory played well but got really hard recovery shots on his misses.

Guys are still making birdies they just make more bogeys on this course.

This course has fairways twice as wide as what most of us play on so the penalty of the bad lies and the tougher approaches are the offset to that.

 

[kirbivore]

That one year Zach Johnson said the USGA lost the course (Shinecock maybe?) proved how mentally weak he was and should have been a disqualifier for Ryder Cup captaincy.

 

[Oakland]

The current rough area at Pinehurst #2 is entirely contrived,. Well sort of anyway! Back when Pinehurst #2 started, the rough area almost 100% resembles what we see currently

Over time the rough area at Pinehurst #2 was cleaned up to look like more of a traditional US treelined golf course (See the post below on the 2005 US Open, which I was watching snippets of yesterday -- the difference in visuals is very significant)

Around 2010 they then did a restoration to re-build the rough era to its more natural state.

I'm surprised that the 'rough' (aka waste areas) hasn't caused more trouble. There have been many clean lies in the middle of that stuff.

 

[Oakland]

Surprised to hear that ~1/3 of the players still wear metal cleats.

 

[Cowtown]

That one year Zach Johnson said the USGA lost the course (Shinecock maybe?) proved how mentally weak he was and should have been a disqualifier for Ryder Cup captaincy.

Shinnecock was notorious that year, 2004, very dry and quite windy. I watched it but it wasn't fun, apart from watching Goosen's old swing. Interestingly, the USGA chose to water a few of the greens during play in the final round, especially the 7th because players were having trouble getting their balls to stay on (if you'll pardon the expression ) the greens. Also interesting, the course that day was a couple yards less than 7,000, par 70, and Pinehurst No. 2 this year (like 2014) is over 7,500, also par 70.

I'll watch today as a fan of the game, if not the USGA. But it becomes tedious and I'll take a break to water the garden, vacuum the basement etc. It's statistically inevitable that one player will succeed (I mean, somebody has to win) but it's more like a sort of morbid curiosity than it is entertainment.

 

[Oakland]

Bryson hits 6 iron into the 630 yd green. Remember 30 years ago when John Daly was the only person who could hit the 601 yd hole at Bethpage, with a 3 wood. Good to hear that the USGA is going to dial back the driver. Not sure why they don't do the same with the golf ball, which would not affect less than elite players.

 

[Cowtown]

The goal of the open is to reward great shots and have players execute them. if the landing area to a pin is small either make the shot or don't try it.

Many of these players are hitting the same shots they try on normal weeks where you miss the shot by 10 ft and it just means you have a 25 ft putt not a 10ft one. Now the result is a 75ft chip instead. they don't want to play smarter.

I'm not sure that's the case. Consider if a player misses the green(s)- on this course - in most cases he has to choose between chipping on or putting. In both scenarios, I've seen shot attempts fall short and come back to the original lie, or race across the green only to find an identical problem all over again on the other side - if not in a bunker. The problem is the diabolically shouldered greens.

Anyway, I enjoy watching several players make shots rather than watch them brought to their knees with inexplicable conditions they rarely see otherwise. But that's just me.

edit: Although I'm not a Bryson guy, he was freaking great Saturday, and it was good watching that.