US Open will not be Open this year (NO POLITICS OR COVID-19 POSTS)

[grm24]

In the last 25 years..... 2009 Lucas Glover, 2005 Michael Campbell, Steve Jones 1996.

[bscinstnct]

 

Thanks! 2009, saw that one. Was rooting for Ricky Barnes, lol.

 

But LG played tough at Bethpage.

 

Then. I remember he went on Letterman and did this top 10....

 

“Top Ten things Lucas Glover wanted to say after the U.S. Open":

 

10. I'd like to thank Tiger Woods for letting someone else win.

9. I started playing golf in March.

8. I forget my wedge yesterday so I used a rake.

7. Honestly, I'm just glad to be out of the rain.

6. I had Phil Mickelson in the office pool.

5. Ladies, my last name isn't Glover, it's G. Lover.

4. I drive for show and putt for dough.

3. Does anybody have a phone number for that Jon and Kate lady?

2. If there's anything more exciting than watching golf, it's 10 lame jokes read by a guy who plays golf.

1. Even I have never heard of me.

 

 

[grm24]

I was rooting for Duval.

[Doublebagger]

While I understand the decision it’s frustrating for those of us who look forward to the local and sectional qualifying events to test our game.

[davep043]

I sympathize with all of the players who won't get a chance to try to qualify this year, but I do understand the decision. I checked the USGA website, they had over 100 Local Qualifiers set up. With every state having different rules and different schedules, I can't imagine any way they could have held appropriate qualifiers.

[smashdn]

Sucks for the guys who need to qualify to have that chance, but fundamentally it will likely not change the product on the course nor the outcome of the tournament. Fair to say there is a pool of about 20-30 guys who have a real shot to win?

[QuigleyDU]

I agree, to an extent. I do think at the US open the conditions being so tough that it does not turn in to a complete shootout brings in a few more potential winners.

[Ignatius Reilly]

That would be a huge disappointment for whoever wins. Pretty strong field and (I assume) a super tough setup and... no major?

The real issue of course is if Tiger or Phil wins. Tiger for #16 or Phil for career Grand Slam. Deny either one of them a major and there will be some.... discussion, I'm sure.

 

[smashdn]

I don't think it being an open is the sticking point as to why it is considered a major. I'd bet the strength of field doesn't change much from years past and might actually go up a fraction unless the USGA goes bananas inviting players whom they shouldn't.

[cristphoto]

What criteria does the PGA tournament use for qualification for club pro's to play in that Championship?

[Darth Putter]

Top 20 club pros from the PGA Professional Championship will qualify. That tournament is currently scheduled for Barton Creek in Austin, TX July 19-22.

[gvogel]

A guy named Lee Trevino went through qualifying in 1966 to play in his first US Open. If there is another Lee Trevino out there, he won't have that opportunity.

i think that the USGA should name the tournament, the 2020 USGA National Golf Tournament. The winner does not get recognized with a USGA Open win, no name on the trophy, no gold medal.

Sort of like what happened to Ben Hogan during WWII.

It's a war against Covid-19. Sporting events get cancelled during wars. On the other hand, we need to have sporting events to get through this. During WWI, Bobby Jones played exhibitions to support the war effort. None of those matches enter into the official record of Bobby Jones' wins.

[JohnnyCashForever]

Since 2000, the three lowest OWGR ranked golfers (as of the 1st week of June of the relevant year) to win the US Open were

80th, Michael Campbell (2005, Pinehurst No. 2)72nd, Lucas Glover (2009, Bethpage Black)48th, Retief Goosen (2001, Southern Hills)Everyone else was comfortably in the top 50 when they won their US Open, with the overall median ranking being 11.5. Furthermore, in this decade (2011-2019), the lowest ranked player to win the US Open was Martin Kaymer (28th, 2014, Pinehurst No. 2).

Looking at the past winners at Winged Foot (Jones (1929), Casper (1959), Irwin (1974), Fuzzy (1984), and Ogilvy (2006)), with the exception of Ogilvy, all finished their careers as multiple major winners. And Ogilvy was having a very good year up to that point in time (ranked 16th). He finished the year ranked 10th.

What does all this mean? Qualifying for the US Open is even less relevant this year than in other years. The winner of the 2020 US Open at Winged Foot will likely be a top-50 ranked player who will complete his career with multiple majors. This is probably not the year where a dark horse will come out of nowhere to win. A further wrinkle in favor of a proven winner as champion is the blurb from the USGA where they state that the composition of the 2020 field will not simply be a dump of the top 100 players but instead will have the "look" of prior US Open fields. Whatever that means. I don't know, but I suspect it means that the USGA committee will somehow muck it up with a diversity lineup that checks all the boxes...and then some. All of which increases the likelihood that a host of marginal players, whether deserving or not, will be favored for inclusion and making it more likely a top 50 player will win.

[cristphoto]

Then why not have the top ranked 150 amateurs play a tournament? Take the top 20 and allow in the US Open. Obviously it won't be perfect but this is a unique year.

[Darth Putter]

Since the US Amateur is played a month before the US Open this year (August 10-16), problem solved.

 

There are six amateurs already in the field.

[Shilgy]

Good stuff. Question though. Lee won the US Open in 1968. Do you think if he hadn’t been able to play in 1966 he would have been out of golf? Would not having him in the field in ‘66 affected the results? How many golfers can you think of from the last half century that would have been run out of golf entirely if they had missed out on an “open” tournament?

[Shilgy]

I will add to that a report I heard is the USGA is looking at the normal mix of qualifiers and will draw from that. So if there are on average ten amateurs in the field there will be ten this year. Perhaps the last Walker Cup team or similar. Same with mini tour pros and down the line.

[A.Princey]

Just leave it as it is, this is a rough year already, no need to argue the status of the tournament. This discussion should be merely observation rather than debate. Everything in the world is turned upside down right now, let's just go with what we've got and be grateful. I hope Tiger loses handily, as this whole discussion just seems like a big setup to deny the winner of their rightful accolades. It's still a major, end of story, just accept it for what it is, given the year we're in.

 

The real story that might be interesting, is a lack of fans and hoopla that surrounds Tiger at tourneys, as that could seriously help him. His "1-2 stroke disadvantage" per round might finally shine through as reality!

[gvogel]

Shilgy, you are absolutely right. Somehow, Lee Trevino, as talented as he was, would have persevered and would have qualified for a US Open at some point.

But it would be damn interesting to ask Lee if qualifying for the US Open in 1966 helped accelerate his career. Did it keep him in the game? Did it give him the confidence to go to greater heights in 1968.

God bless Lee Trevino.

[Shilgy]

10-4 on that. The rags to riches type are getting more rare as the young players are largely more ready for early success today. The likes of Lee and Hogan and Larry Nelson for example. Could a Larry Nelson take up the game ar 23(as I recall-I think that’s correct) and flourish on today’s tour? Could a guy struggle as much as Hogan did early and persevere without financial backing? We will never know really of course but it makes for an interesting discussion.

[JohnnyCashForever]

I think all the confidence that Lee Trevino needed was growing up hardscrabble poor, serving in the Marine Corps, and winning money games against the likes of Raymond Floyd before he joined the PGA Tour. He earned his PhD before the age of 18. That is, he was loaded with talent and was poor, hungry, and determined. No one was going to stop Lee Buck.

[dalehead]

A lot of truth in what you say. The rags to riches guys have been replaced by riches to more riches guys. The background of up and coming tour pros varies from solid middle class to privileged. Most have come up through the junior golf system and played college golf. Nothing wrong with any of that. I too love Lee Trevino and his story. But there isn’t likely to be another.

[scores]

Agree they should change the name

[cristphoto]

It could hurt him as well. After 20 years he's probably used to the crowds. Plus out of respect they may try to be more quiet than for other players. Since he draws the largest gallery if that's gone and he starts to spray his drives a bit he could end up deeper in the junk. Plus no crowd to move the "loose impediment" boulders in his line. A great story line would be if Phil finally wins it after turning 50. You're correct that this is definitely a unique year and the record book will have a lot of asterisks in it.

[grm24]

What are some actual reasons that whoever wins the US Open this year if it's played there would be asterisks attached to it? Please back up your reasons with facts.

[cristphoto]

For the record book I was referring to golf in general. However the USGA's own statement cancelling regional qualifying seems worthy of an asterisk. Its still a major but conditions have changed for this year.

As previously stated there have been multiple past winners that went through the qualifying procedure. For other asterisk worthy records the various pro golf tours have said this year will be rolled into next year so many records will be modified (or eliminated). PGA Tour radio was discussing this last week. Scoring average, money title, British Open, rookie of year. player of year, KFT players advancing to PGA, Symetra players advancing to LPGA, etc.

[grm24]

In its history the US Open has not always had qualifying events to set the field. No "asterisk" exists for the players that won those events.

[smashdn]

I was thinking a few posts ahead of yours to post that the gap between good club players, club pros and good/great ams and the touring pro's is greater than ever. Not sure where you lay the reasoning on that. Gun to my head I would pick sponsorships that allow guys to be full-time tour pros without having to worry [as] much about actually making money when they aren't winning. No need for them to teach or do exhibitions for money when they take time off to practice, etc.

[Shilgy]

Seems like a logical reason. But that does not explain the vast number of quality players struggling on mini tours. To say nothing of the lower level PGA Tour sponsored tours like Canada and Latin America. See the leaderboard for the recent Arizona Open. A handful of tour boys but the others are mostly mini tour players. Or even working bag rooms at local clubs. Par 70 course rating 72.6 at just over 7100 yards.

[smashdn]

Not sure I follow struggling? Struggling to score or struggling to make money?