If the players are spoiled, then what is the USGA?

[Birdie Wooster]

There is a recurring theme in many of the various U.S. open threads that the players are spoiled and shouldn't complain about the greens, etc. I agree that many of them probably have less tolerance than they might for not having things the way they wish. BUT:

 

1). At least they are competent. They are highly skilled at their profession; they are the best in the world at it. And it is wrong to say that they are overpaid, because they WIN their money. Purses might be too high, but they are not too high for the players who miss the cut or don't qualify for the tounament. They have sponsors as well, but that income also derives indirectly from thier performance in almost every case (obviously, some get more $$ because fans simply like them for whatever reason). Mike Davis and the gang ARE paid to do a job, and part of that job -- a big part, the biggest part -- is to conduct the U.S. Open. They mess it up one way or another far too often. When they do, they do their best to obfuscate and equivocate their way out of accepting any blame or admitting any mistakes -- just like a spoiled child. No rhetoric is too tendentious if it serves to avoid fessing up to the obvious blunders.

 

2). When was the last time there was an outcry about the course being simply too hard? I think it's been awhile. Complaints about obvious mistakes like the greens this year, that green at Shinnecock in 2004 that became unplayable and had to be watered during the round, the 18th green at Olympic in 1998, etc. are not simple whining about difficult conditions, they are directed toward MISTAKES. No one ever claimed that they did any of that intentionally. The argument is always that it is by definiton fair because everyone plays the same course. That is at best an oversimplification, I think, but the key point is that they cannot seem to get things right. And maybe I just don't remember, but where is the grousing the rest of the year? They never complain about the Masters, seldom about the British or the PGA or the Players. It's always the U.S. Open.

 

3). The USGA might be a non profit, but all the top people get paid quite handsomely. Even the executive committee. They might not get paid money, but they get junkets aplenty, get to be on TV, hobnob with the players (probably not as much fun as they hoped, after they have angered the field), social prestige, access to rounds at Pine Valley, Seminole, Cypress Point etc. -- all that is very valuable to the sort of people who wind up on the executive committe, probably way more valuable than more money. For them to create a fiasco like this year's Open shows that they care more about their faux-populist ideologies and projecting their preferred image than they do about the conditions of the competition. Isn't that spoiled? Spending their money, which largely derives from the tournament (including the extortionately-priced merchandise and concessions, no populism to be found if it effects the bottom line) on "While We're Young" commercials, the orgy of priggish self-congratulation that is the First Tee, and their own salaries and perks instead of on the agronomic support that could have resulted in smooth greens is spoiled -- selfish too.

 

4). Finally, if I hear the same old guff about how Nicklaus knoew that anyone complaining about the course was one fewer player he had to beat, etc. I'm going to vomit. Even if that is true for everyone ( and is it out of the question that someone might be better off getting angry about it; some people play better a little angry or with a chip on their shoulder), even if the player is hurting his own chances by complaining about the greens, that doesn't mean that they aren't, in fact, terrible. Who has a better idea of the condition of the course than the people playing it? Why believe the people who are responsible for selecting and setting up the course when they say it is good? They have a conflict of interest at least as big as the players, probably bigger.

 

Davis or someone else should resign over the greens this year. They were the worst I remember at a major in the last thirty years, and there was no horrible weather or anything else to account for them.

[straightshot7]

I enjoyed the championship. Where does it say US Open greens need to be perfect? Spieth and others obviously did fine

[Whit1969]

Greens were as bumpy as a worn out muni! They were running an 11 on the stimp meter, my country club has them at 11 without all the bumps. Did you see Pebble Beach or Torrey Pines greens this bumpy when they had the US Open there? This was the USGA and Jones being stubborn with their one type of grass for the entire course. Yes the Open Championships have similar conditions and green speeds on the stimp meter, but they do not have any where near the slope of these greens at Chambers Bay. Hard and bumpy are not the conditions the greens should be in for the US Open.

[PinonMagnolia]

Well said, Wooster. The USGA is about as bad as the NCAA, way too far gone to rehab.

[onwrd2vctry]

Wooster, I have played in the US Mid Amateur and I can tell you from first hand experience you are right on the money.

[Golf Monkey]

I suggest you chaps jump ship and play golf under the auspices of the Royal and Ancient.

[mrt99]

[quote name='Golf Monkey' timestamp='1434987114' post='11809838']
I suggest you chaps jump ship and play golf under the auspices of the Royal and Ancient.
[/quote]

Eh, the R&A is even worse...

[Birdie Wooster]

My only contact with the R & A comes from watching the Open Championship, so I don't really have an opinion about them other than they know how to do an awards ceremony way better than anyone else. But even if they do do an even worse job, I don't see the relevance. They could both be corrupt and incompetent, and which is worse isn't very interesting or important. The USGA and the R & A are, uniquely, governing bodies of the game itself (rules, clubs, etc.) and also of the game in their national territories (U.S. Open and Amateur, British Open and Amateur, etc.). I am talking about only the second aspect. How are the French, Spanish, and Canadian Opens run? I have no idea, but I don't remember any silliness from what I've seen on the Golf Channel.

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but to me anyway, it comes down to this: if the players cannot use the bad greens as excuse for missing putts, then why can the USGA use the weather/grass/whatever as an excuse for the poor greens? They CHOSE the course; if the climate doesn't allow for good greens, that was or should have been taken into account when they SELECTED the site. If you decided to hold the PGA Championship in Arizona, when people started dropping like flies from dehydration and heat stroke, you would not be able to shrug your shoulders and say that there was nothing you could do about the heat. It's predictably hot there in August every year; you would be responsible by virtue of your decison to hold the tournament there. Poa annua invading greens on the Pacific coast is predictable; I believe that's why they go ahead and make the greens 100% poa even though almost everyone would rather putt on something else: if you can't beat'em, join 'em. The two greens that were resodded or whatever were apparently fine. As Ian Poulter pointed out, a little of the Fox money spent on the other 16 greens would have solved the problems. It was spent instead on that ridiculous Astronaut/bodybuilder commercial.

Straightshot: obviously, there is no written ruling from a higher authority decreeing perfect greens for the U.S. Open. I think that there is a general consensus that the smoother the surface, the more putting skill rather than luck is rewarded. And who said anything about "perfect" anyway? This is a preferred rhetorical gambit of the USGA, so let's examine it and see what they're doing. Hyperbole aside, there have never been and never will be perfect greens. The tables used for professional snooker are not perfectly smooth if you look closely enough. So when you divide all greens into those that are perfect and those that are not, the Chambers Bay greens get put into the same category as all other tournament greens, the "less-than-perfect" category. Who could complain about that, right? But there are subcategories within the "less-than-perfect" category, for instance, the "occasionally causes a putt to pop four or five inches into the air and veer off orthagonally" category and "can produce an outside the hole lip out, in which the ball turns, misses the hole, and then turns the other way, finshing up directly behind it" category.

[straightshot7]

^okay let me revise my post.. Where does it say US Open greens even need to be in good condition?

These greens probably were "good" compared to average courses around the country, but my point is you're projecting your arbitrary belief on what the green quality should be onto the USGA and US Open. It's their decision.

It's once a year. Let them putt on some bumpy greens. I have to putt on bumpy greens and through ball marks every week at my local public course.

The greens obviously weren't unplayable, giving up a 66 and 64 on the final day to Rory and Adam.

And if the point of the tournament is to identify the best player(s) that week and overall, I'd say Spieth, DJ, Day, Oosthuizen, Scott, Schwartzel, Snedeker, and Rory all in the top 10 is a pretty good indication that they did.

[crazy8golfer]

[quote name='straightshot7' timestamp='1434953327' post='11807472']
I enjoyed the championship. Where does it say US Open greens need to be perfect? Spieth and others obviously did fine
[/quote]From what I could tell, they were far from perfect. Looked and rolled like your local country 9 hole homemade greens !!

[crazy8golfer]

[quote name='Golf Monkey' timestamp='1434987114' post='11809838']
I suggest you chaps jump ship and play golf under the auspices of the Royal and Ancient.
[/quote]I have played several courses in Scotland and never had greens rolling as bad as those were in this past weeks US Open.

[crazy8golfer]

Personally, I will play a course with bad fairways and bunkers, but I will not go back to a course that has terrible greens !

[Whatsinthebag]

I used to play a muni inCanada that has poa greens and they and the course itself were always in great shape. You can't blame the grass. I don't like Bermuda grass because I'm not used to it but that's not the grass' fault

[Whatsinthebag]

This is the future for golf in this country as we can't go on wasting water to keep grass green just because it looks nice. Just ask people in California.

[Birdie Wooster]

[quote name='straightshot7' timestamp='1435001423' post='11812138']
^okay let me revise my post.. Where does it say US Open greens even need to be in good condition?

These greens probably were "good" compared to average courses around the country, but my point is you're projecting your arbitrary belief on what the green quality should be onto the USGA and US Open. It's their decision.

It's once a year. Let them putt on some bumpy greens. I have to putt on bumpy greens and through ball marks every week at my local public course.

The greens obviously weren't unplayable, giving up a 66 and 64 on the final day to Rory and Adam.

And if the point of the tournament is to identify the best player(s) that week and overall, I'd say Spieth, DJ, Day, Oosthuizen, Scott, Schwartzel, Snedeker, and Rory all in the top 10 is a pretty good indication that they did.
[/quote]

If the USGA wanted bumpy greens as a sort of pseudo-hazard to make the players hit it closer to the hole or something, then I would strongly disagree with their decision, but as you say, it's their tournament. But that was not the case at Chambers Bay. They were clearly on the defensive from the beginning of the week; those greens were not a decison they made, for better or worse, but a sign of negligence and incompetence. The "the best putters putt well on bad greens" and the evergreen "same for everyone" arguments only got aired after the mounting photographic and video evidence completely refuted Davis' and others' claims that they looked spotty on TV but actually were rolling smoothly, etc. It basically got so bad that they could no longer control the narrative, even with Fox forsaking even the pretense of objectivity and serving a USGA PR/Crisis Management firm (so despicable!).

And with respect -- it makes no difference at all what you or I putt on. We haven't qualified for the U.S. Open; no one is making money selling tickets to people who want to watch us exhibit our skills.

[Birdie Wooster]

[quote name='Whatsinthebag' timestamp='1435002164' post='11812242']
This is the future for golf in this country as we can't go on wasting water to keep grass green just because it looks nice. Just ask people in California.
[/quote]

The color is not at issue, the bumps were problem.

[Shilgy]

Just because Speith won does not mean he handled them fine. News flash-someone had to win. News flash 2-whether they were better or worse than what you putt on at your course also has no bearing on whether the Open greens were acceptable. Els is his interview referenced the bumps and noted that in many instances they were just putting on dirt. The USGA rolled the dice on a course before it was even built and they lost with this one. Let's hope Erin Hills fares a bit better in their upcoming event.

[caniac6]

[quote name='straightshot7' timestamp='1435001423' post='11812138']
^okay let me revise my post.. Where does it say US Open greens even need to be in good condition?

These greens probably were "good" compared to average courses around the country, but my point is you're projecting your arbitrary belief on what the green quality should be onto the USGA and US Open. It's their decision.

It's once a year. Let them putt on some bumpy greens. I have to putt on bumpy greens and through ball marks every week at my local public course.

The greens obviously weren't unplayable, giving up a 66 and 64 on the final day to Rory and Adam.

And if the point of the tournament is to identify the best player(s) that week and overall, I'd say Spieth, DJ, Day, Oosthuizen, Scott, Schwartzel, Snedeker, and Rory all in the top 10 is a pretty good indication that they did.
[/quote]This is the National Championship! There are no pot holes on the field for the Super Bowl. The World Series grooms the infield. The NBA cleans the floor. The NHL resurfaces the ice every 20 minutes. The US Open deserves good turf conditions. The argument that they all played the same course just means they all played the same crappy course. The USGA had a long time to get things right, and they blew it!

[straightshot7]

[quote name='Birdie Wooster' timestamp='1435003394' post='11812418']
[quote name='straightshot7' timestamp='1435001423' post='11812138']
^okay let me revise my post.. Where does it say US Open greens even need to be in good condition?

These greens probably were "good" compared to average courses around the country, but my point is you're projecting your arbitrary belief on what the green quality should be onto the USGA and US Open. It's their decision.

It's once a year. Let them putt on some bumpy greens. I have to putt on bumpy greens and through ball marks every week at my local public course.

The greens obviously weren't unplayable, giving up a 66 and 64 on the final day to Rory and Adam.

And if the point of the tournament is to identify the best player(s) that week and overall, I'd say Spieth, DJ, Day, Oosthuizen, Scott, Schwartzel, Snedeker, and Rory all in the top 10 is a pretty good indication that they did.
[/quote]

If the USGA wanted bumpy greens as a sort of pseudo-hazard to make the players hit it closer to the hole or something, then I would strongly disagree with their decision, but as you say, it's their tournament. But that was not the case at Chambers Bay. They were clearly on the defensive from the beginning of the week; those greens were not a decison they made, for better or worse, but a sign of negligence and incompetence. The "the best putters putt well on bad greens" and the evergreen "same for everyone" arguments only got aired after the mounting photographic and video evidence completely refuted Davis' and others' claims that they looked spotty on TV but actually were rolling smoothly, etc. It basically got so bad that they could no longer control the narrative, even with Fox forsaking even the pretense of objectivity and serving a USGA PR/Crisis Management firm (so despicable!).

And with respect -- it makes no difference at all what you or I putt on. We haven't qualified for the U.S. Open; no one is making money selling tickets to people who want to watch us exhibit our skills.
[/quote]

It does make a difference what you or I putt on because it's us that supports this entire thing. If not for us checking the websites, buying the tickets, the memorabilia, watching on tv, etc. This is just a few guys playing for 10k. So if the real sponsors (us), play bad greens and want the pros to experience them too, our opinion matters.

So, in that sense, you have a point---if the majority of patrons want to see gorgeous, smooth greens, that's what we should get. (at least there's always augusta)

Yes i did contradict myself from earlier with this post lol.

I for one don't mind seeing them have to deal with the bumps. It's a US Open, it's supposed to get under their skin. But if enough people want the smoothest greens possible, the Usga should comply

However, The average viewer wasn't bothered by how this weeks green rolled in my opinion. If anything it just bothered them how they looked. But firm, fast dehydrated greens will never be the most beautiful

[straightshot7]

If only I could somehow gather up all the tears on this forum, I could solve the drought problem in California.

[fowlerscousin]

I suspect a lot of complaining this week was a veiled rage at Spieths young success.

[straightshot7]

[quote name='caniac6' timestamp='1435004260' post='11812542']
[quote name='straightshot7' timestamp='1435001423' post='11812138']
^okay let me revise my post.. Where does it say US Open greens even need to be in good condition?

These greens probably were "good" compared to average courses around the country, but my point is you're projecting your arbitrary belief on what the green quality should be onto the USGA and US Open. It's their decision.

It's once a year. Let them putt on some bumpy greens. I have to putt on bumpy greens and through ball marks every week at my local public course.

The greens obviously weren't unplayable, giving up a 66 and 64 on the final day to Rory and Adam.

And if the point of the tournament is to identify the best player(s) that week and overall, I'd say Spieth, DJ, Day, Oosthuizen, Scott, Schwartzel, Snedeker, and Rory all in the top 10 is a pretty good indication that they did.
[/quote]This is the National Championship! There are no pot holes on the field for the Super Bowl. The World Series grooms the infield. The NBA cleans the floor. The NHL resurfaces the ice every 20 minutes. The US Open deserves good turf conditions. The argument that they all played the same course just means they all played the same crappy course. The USGA had a long time to get things right, and they blew it!
[/quote]

It doesn't work like that in golf. The point of the US Open isn't to play on the most immaculately lush and beautifully conditioned golf course. If it was, they'd play it at Augusta National every year.

The point of the tournament is for it to be HARD. Literally. We want to see these guys have to work to shoot par. In order to do so, the USGA intentionally doesn't water the course enough to make it green and beautiful. It's firm and fast. That's the point.

Comparing the playing field of different sports to golf is comparing apples and oranges.

Golf is a whole different animal. The course is front and center and is supposed to be different from tourney to tourney, etc.

It's not just an afterthought that the players run, stand, or skate on.

[Forty]

[quote name='onwrd2vctry' timestamp='1434986045' post='11809640']
Wooster, I have played in the US Mid Amateur and I can tell you from first hand experience you are right on the money.
[/quote]

I've played in 4 USGA Championships and couldn't agree less with the OP.

[KrazyTrain18]

After Saturday's round I was talking to one of the caddies (who I will leave unnamed) and he expressed the view that he believes roughly 95% of the players on tour are spoilt brats who can't handle any adversity or anything outside the box. His views much echoed what Geoff Ogilvy said earlier in the week about most players mentally ruling themselves out because they have issues with the setup.

[caniac6]

[quote name='straightshot7' timestamp='1435009897' post='11813342']
[quote name='caniac6' timestamp='1435004260' post='11812542']
[quote name='straightshot7' timestamp='1435001423' post='11812138']
^okay let me revise my post.. Where does it say US Open greens even need to be in good condition?

These greens probably were "good" compared to average courses around the country, but my point is you're projecting your arbitrary belief on what the green quality should be onto the USGA and US Open. It's their decision.

It's once a year. Let them putt on some bumpy greens. I have to putt on bumpy greens and through ball marks every week at my local public course.

The greens obviously weren't unplayable, giving up a 66 and 64 on the final day to Rory and Adam.

And if the point of the tournament is to identify the best player(s) that week and overall, I'd say Spieth, DJ, Day, Oosthuizen, Scott, Schwartzel, Snedeker, and Rory all in the top 10 is a pretty good indication that they did.
[/quote]This is the National Championship! There are no pot holes on the field for the Super Bowl. The World Series grooms the infield. The NBA cleans the floor. The NHL resurfaces the ice every 20 minutes. The US Open deserves good turf conditions. The argument that they all played the same course just means they all played the same crappy course. The USGA had a long time to get things right, and they blew it!
[/quote]

It doesn't work like that in golf. The point of the US Open isn't to play on the most immaculately lush and beautifully conditioned golf course. If it was, they'd play it at Augusta National every year.

The point of the tournament is for it to be HARD. Literally. We want to see these guys have to work to shoot par. In order to do so, the USGA intentionally doesn't water the course enough to make it green and beautiful. It's firm and fast. That's the point.

Comparing the playing field of different sports to golf is comparing apples and oranges.

Golf is a whole different animal. The course is front and center and is supposed to be different from tourney to tourney, etc.

It's not just an afterthought that the players run, stand, or skate on.
[/quote]So, I guess the USGA's plan is to take a course, create terrible conditions, gather the best players in the world, and tell them to have at it. Wonder why I maintain a membership in such a lame brain organization. If the country clubs that the blue blazer crowd belonged to maintained their courses in that manner, they would raise holy hell. I've putted on greens that were recently verticut that had fewer squiggles and bumps than the greens at Chambers Bay. I must say that the set up on Sunday led to an exciting tournament, but the greens absolutely sucked.

[straightshot7]

[quote name='caniac6' timestamp='1435022649' post='11815078']
[quote name='straightshot7' timestamp='1435009897' post='11813342']
[quote name='caniac6' timestamp='1435004260' post='11812542']
[quote name='straightshot7' timestamp='1435001423' post='11812138']
^okay let me revise my post.. Where does it say US Open greens even need to be in good condition?

These greens probably were "good" compared to average courses around the country, but my point is you're projecting your arbitrary belief on what the green quality should be onto the USGA and US Open. It's their decision.

It's once a year. Let them putt on some bumpy greens. I have to putt on bumpy greens and through ball marks every week at my local public course.

The greens obviously weren't unplayable, giving up a 66 and 64 on the final day to Rory and Adam.

And if the point of the tournament is to identify the best player(s) that week and overall, I'd say Spieth, DJ, Day, Oosthuizen, Scott, Schwartzel, Snedeker, and Rory all in the top 10 is a pretty good indication that they did.
[/quote]This is the National Championship! There are no pot holes on the field for the Super Bowl. The World Series grooms the infield. The NBA cleans the floor. The NHL resurfaces the ice every 20 minutes. The US Open deserves good turf conditions. The argument that they all played the same course just means they all played the same crappy course. The USGA had a long time to get things right, and they blew it!
[/quote]

It doesn't work like that in golf. The point of the US Open isn't to play on the most immaculately lush and beautifully conditioned golf course. If it was, they'd play it at Augusta National every year.

The point of the tournament is for it to be HARD. Literally. We want to see these guys have to work to shoot par. In order to do so, the USGA intentionally doesn't water the course enough to make it green and beautiful. It's firm and fast. That's the point.

Comparing the playing field of different sports to golf is comparing apples and oranges.

Golf is a whole different animal. The course is front and center and is supposed to be different from tourney to tourney, etc.

It's not just an afterthought that the players run, stand, or skate on.
[/quote]So, I guess the USGA's plan is to take a course, create terrible conditions, gather the best players in the world, and tell them to have at it. Wonder why I maintain a membership in such a lame brain organization. If the country clubs that the blue blazer crowd belonged to maintained their courses in that manner, they would raise holy hell. I've putted on greens that were recently verticut that had fewer squiggles and bumps than the greens at Chambers Bay. I must say that the set up on Sunday led to an exciting tournament, but the greens absolutely sucked.
[/quote]

I dont think it's to create terrible conditions, just difficult. And, I think you're right and the USGA would concede in private that they wished the greens were smoother. But obviously the goal isnt the same as a country club where the goal is to have a nice as possible conditions.

They wanted to make it difficult. To do so, you have to dry the course out so it ends up looking ugly and sometimes the greens get bumpy.

[geesecougar2]

Jordan winning saved the USGA's butt IMO. A new superstar ascending changes the post tourney conversation.

If Brandon Grace won, people would still be talking about the crappy course.