Phil needs to fly Brian in this time

[Bigwill]

They were making birdies on bad tee shots.

There's a few things I remember about Augusta. I remember one year they discussed that they believed the firmness of the greens should be such that they nicely compressed shot from the fairway shot be able to hold onto the green. I remember when Woosie blasted it over those bunkers on 18 each day when he won it, they moved the tees way back because that wasn't what they thought golf was about. I remember when Tiger destroyed the course in '97, they 'Tiger proofed' it.

I always thought that it was a sign that the Masters committee really had a keen eye for what a golf course and a golf major should be about. The US Open is my favorite major (just something about it that is dear to me), but there have been course setups that I think were poorly done in the past and I always thought that the USGA wasn't as keen to the game and keeping the integrity of a great golf tournament as the Masters Committee was.

Now I see the Masters in a different light.

I also believe that if in the 80's the scores were like they were this past tournament, you can rest assured they'd find ways get higher scores the very next Masters. Now, I'm not sure they care to do that and just keep letting it be a long drive and trick shot competition.





3JACK

Where you're seeing trick shots, I'm seeing creativity, and the talent to execute those creative shots. Tomayto, tomahto, eh?

They said that they wanted to bring the roars back, so they didn't set it up like a U.S. Open. And conditions were perfect for scoring. I don't think that you would have been as disappointed if the wind were up, or if it were cooler, if they hadn't hand rain, etc.

I'm on the other side of the fence from you, though. The U.S. Open isn't my favorite major, at least how it had been the previous few years. I don't like to see the pros looking like hacks. Make it tough, make par a decent score. But don't take all the creativity out of the game by making the rough so crazy that the only option is to hack it out. I'm glad they (usga) went to the graduated rough.

That's the great thing about the majors, though. There's something for everybody. Another reason to love this game.

 

[gmbtempe]

I think it's fair to say, though, that the cream rises to the top in the Masters more than the US Open and perhaps the other two as well.

Coincidence, or the set-up, the US Open produces some winners with head-scratching stories:

Andy North - wins 2 Opens but not thought of a as favorite otherwise. See Lee Janzen.
Scott Simpson - seemed to play well only in Opens.
Curtis Strange - wins back to back Opens in his early 30's then disappears.
Lee Janzen - wins two Opens in the 90's but is never really considered a favorite for other tournaments. Kinda Andy North of the 90's.
Steve Jones - wins, then basically disappears
Michael Campbell - wins, then really disappears

I think you make a good point but I would point out that the Masters over the years is the easiest to win for the favorites. You have 90 players, about 15 or so are past champions, then you have ameatures, so right away you are left about 70-75 players. Now 15 or so might be first time starters who almost never win at Augusta (its happened like once in 30 years), so you are down to 60 or so. Then you have 15-20 guys (not named Phil/Tiger) who just are off form. So really the very best players 10-15 ranked in the world have a much better chance than the fields with 120-130 players. Plus the favorites likely have played the course a lot.

 

[Richie3Jack]

Remember though, the Masters is an invitational tournament. The US Open is 'the most democratic golf tournament in the world.' Theoretically I could put my money in a local qualifier, make it to the US Open going thru qualifying and win the tournament. I don't think the Masters 'favors' the big dogs, it's just a far more limited field so the big dogs tend to win.






3JACK

 

[savydan]

Pretty much agree with what you said. I was really addressing what I thought was overly harsh criticism on the set up allowing for recovery from wayward shots. I was suggesting that the flip-side to that was the Masters tends produce champions that have had more previous and future success. True, it's more than the set-up. Same course every year is an advantage, but, of course, earned by the best.

 

[Bigwill]

Remember though, the Masters is an invitational tournament. The US Open is 'the most democratic golf tournament in the world.' Theoretically I could put my money in a local qualifier, make it to the US Open going thru qualifying and win the tournament. I don't think the Masters 'favors' the big dogs, it's just a far more limited field so the big dogs tend to win.






3JACK

I do like that about the U.S. Open. It really is open. If your sticks can take you there, an you can afford the fees, you can play in it, no matter who you are.

 

[Steve Greffen]

I do like that about the U.S. Open. It really is open. If your sticks can take you there, an you can afford the fees, you can play in it, no matter who you are.

But...you have no flippin chance of winning! (or usually making the cut) The guys that I have known that are not tour players that have happened to make it through the local and regional have shot sky high on much too difficult course for them to play. At least of recent events. Great to see them there but not too many feel good stories happening at the US Open.

 

[Bigwill]

I'm sure