2014 US Open Contest & Thread - Awesome Prizes

[TRyan]

It wont be a popular choice, but I tend to agree with him. I thought the course looked awful.
Trying to get "new" golfers into the game and showing a course (good or bad) that looked like a muni on TV does not exactly do it.
I have played Pinehurst (most of them) and enjoyed myself. However I am in the big minority that think it is incredibly overrated.

I don't agree with parts of this. You are obviously entitled to your opinion on the looks of the course, but the part I don't agree with is the idea that the appearance of this course will in some way dissuade new golfers from playing. I mean week in and week out they see places like Augusta, Sawgrass, Pebble Beach. I don't think 1 week away from that will turn new people off from golf, because frankly I don't think people make their decision on whether or not to take up golf based on 1 course they saw on TV

 

[lightningbolt44]

It wont be a popular choice, but I tend to agree with him. I thought the course looked awful.
Trying to get "new" golfers into the game and showing a course (good or bad) that looked like a muni on TV does not exactly do it.
I have played Pinehurst (most of them) and enjoyed myself. However I am in the big minority that think it is incredibly overrated.

JB do you mean overrated in terms of cost to what you are getting or taking cost out of it the course being overrated.

I would say when throwing cost in in my mind there in no way it could not be overrated. That is an extremely expensive round and with so many great courses from 60-150 bucks I find it hard to think the course is better than many of those. I felt the same with Torrey Pines I think it may be the most overrated golf course I have ever played when thinking of cost as well as the course .

Now the reason I want to play #2 is more for the history not for the course although I do like the look of the redesign

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

 

[dirkules]

Not sure I would say he "stepped down" to overhaul his swing. He changed his swing to play a draw and it ruined his game, he is now back to his old swing and the fade and appears to be back to the form he was 3-4 years ago. I am sure if you asked him he wouldn't have changed a thing knowing what he knows now and how much it cost him in money, wins, etc. I thought the tournament was good, the course is horrible, not talking about the condition of the course either, the greens suck. This may be the first time I agree with Miller and they need to redo those greens. When you can only put a flag on less then 50% of the green because of the slope, to me something is wrong.

No he did not go back to his old swing. He initially thought that the swing changes would take about 3 months to work but it turned out to be 3 years. But he definitely stayed with the change. He hit a few nice draws during the players and US Open.

And he said himself that he is a better golfer now with the changes than he was before. So I'm not sure he wouldn't change a thing if he could do it all over again.

 

[JB]

I spent a fair bit of the weekend trying to explain the "natural restoration" to some casual fans. It did not play well with HD TV at all.

I don't agree with parts of this. You are obviously entitled to your opinion on the looks of the course, but the part I don't agree with is the idea that the appearance of this course will in some way dissuade new golfers from playing. I mean week in and week out they see places like Augusta, Sawgrass, Pebble Beach. I don't think 1 week away from that will turn new people off from golf, because frankly I don't think people make their decision on whether or not to take up golf based on 1 course they saw on TV

Look up TH. Try explaining to someone new to the game, why they want to play in mud, dirt, sand and weeds. The US Open is supposed to be the greatest challenge in golf and played at a place that people want to strive to be at.

Looking up at the TV and seeing conditions that resemble a muni, does not make people want to be one with nature.

 

[dcbrad]

Look up TH. Try explaining to someone new to the game, why they want to play in mud, dirt, sand and weeds. The US Open is supposed to be the greatest challenge in golf and played at a place that people want to strive to be at.

Looking up at the TV and seeing conditions that resemble a muni, does not make people want to be one with nature.

Did you catch the discussion with the course official on ESPN, I think it was Friday? He was spinning it in a way where less watering and maintenance (chemicals, fertilizers, etc) was better for the environment and created more roll out for "longer" shots. It was an interesting point of view. I don't know how much golfers will buy into that line of thinking though.

 

[Rhyno]

Did you catch the discussion with the course official on ESPN, I think it was Friday? He was spinning it in a way where less watering and maintenance (chemicals, fertilizers, etc) was better for the environment and created more roll out for "longer" shots. It was an interesting point of view. I don't know how much golfers will buy into that line of thinking though.

That's fine, but IMO the course looked like crap. And it was a US Open.

 

[Philly Golf Guy]

So showing courses week in and week out with Augusta like conditions on tv get the golfer into the game, then they go to their muni and get a great big wake up call?

And I would be happy explaining to anyone that the way something looks and the way it plays are two completely different things. i.e. the Old Course, for starters.

 

[IceyShanks]

It wont be a popular choice, but I tend to agree with him. I thought the course looked awful.
Trying to get "new" golfers into the game and showing a course (good or bad) that looked like a muni on TV does not exactly do it.
I have played Pinehurst (most of them) and enjoyed myself. However I am in the big minority that think it is incredibly overrated.

I agree, I don't think it was one of those WOW courses that would pull a bunch of people in to play.

 

[drp3434]

I go back and forth on how much I liked it. I think if the brown grass was all really green it would have made a big difference. Desert courses that are surrounded by sand with lush green fairways look awesome. I think the brown was the problem.

 

[mikeg_74]

While I'm in the minority of having a "blah" reaction to the course aesthetics, it's not because I don't like/appreciate natural or links style courses. My thoughts come from the notion that in my mind when I think US Open I think carefully manicured courses with green fairways, deep rough & fast greens that are receptive. This year even offline shots were not penal and more often than not players still recovered even if a tee shot or approach shot landed in the natural area.

I get the need to minimize water use and being environmentally conscious, but at what cost? Did this weekend do more to help or hurt golf? Only time will tell, but I think that golf suffering from lack of players is still an economic issue versus a course set up, pace of play or cost to play issue.

 

[ArmyGolf]

All I know is that if I pay a solid green fee to play golf, I expect zero brown grass in the fairway.
I think it would show 100x better if they watered the entire fairway and then left the "natural area" as is.

 

[blugold]

The course definitely didn't look like what a lot of fans expect. I understand that brown doesn't necessarily mean dead. Green looks awesome, but I liked how the course looked.

 

[JB]

So showing courses week in and week out with Augusta like conditions on tv get the golfer into the game, then they go to their muni and get a great big wake up call?

And I would be happy explaining to anyone that the way something looks and the way it plays are two completely different things. i.e. the Old Course, for starters.

Yes. And it has been shown time and time again that beautiful golf courses bring people to the game. Look at the numbers playing after the Masters.

The truth is there are thousands of great venues, yet they chose one that has some history, but looked like sh!t on TV.
Its about the representation of the game to help grow it. A beautiful place helps growth.
Does it make you want to run out and have a steak, after a commercial for said steak was full of fat and burnt?

 

[Mmaynard11]

My wife actually turned on the US Open this week and I told her she had the wrong channel. Course looked really dry and not very appealing. Note I would definitely play it.

 

[dhartmann34]

I loved the redesign. I like bringing the game back a few years. I also love the fact that it's really helped them save $$ and water. I heard this morning they used 55 million gallons of water per year before the redesign and now it'll only be 15 million gallons. That's incredible!

 

[Mulligan9111]

I personally thought the course looked like an Open Championship course. Often times when you watch The Open Championship their courses are brownish with a ton of roll. Then when you see a lot of players putting from around the green as much as they did this US Open, it was hard not to think it was an Open Championship. I'm not fully against it, it's just that when I think of US Open, I think of thick deep rough and speedy greens that puts a premium on hitting fairways. Can't even count how many times a wayward drive wasn't even penalized because of the "wash" area giving the players an almost perfect lie.

Anyways this US Open reminded me a lot of Rory's and Tiger's in that I was extremely bored watching it. By the 6th or 7th hole you realized nobody was going to make a run at Kaymer, just as what happened in 2000 with Tiger and 2011 with Rory.

 

[Wake]

I love the natural looking courses, and think they look great when you are playing them, but I agree it doesn't translate to TV as well. But I think it's great for the usga to try to gain widespread acceptance for these courses, they are much more environmentally friendly, and cheaper to maintain, it could hopefully lead to lower priced green fees while allowing courses to have higher profit margin.

 

[sparksjr]

I don't really like the style but it didn't keep me from watching it anymore than the same style keeps me from watching The Open Championship.

I would not fork over the fees to play it in this condition/style.

 

[CAA_Beat]

LOL - later this a.m. I'm headed out to a course via Golfnow. It's been torched (due to financial reasons) and hasn't been doing much of any upkeep. Some of their fairways look like the "nature areas" of Pinehurst No. 2......and the greens are really bad - but cart and golf is $8 (usually $30-40). I'll be hacking it around just for practice and get a few swings in. Probably will have the entire course to myself. Will hit a few balls off the tee......

and I'll imagine in my mind that all those weeds, bare lies, and sandy areas is Pinehurst No. 2 (for $8).

Hunter's Green?

 

[Philly Golf Guy]

Yes. And it has been shown time and time again that beautiful golf courses bring people to the game. Look at the numbers playing after the Masters.

The truth is there are thousands of great venues, yet they chose one that has some history, but looked like sh!t on TV.
Its about the representation of the game to help grow it. A beautiful place helps growth.
Does it make you want to run out and have a steak, after a commercial for said steak was full of fat and burnt?

That's assuming the course looked bad. It did not. Sure it didn't look like a vast majority of the courses out there with bright green, bright sand and bright blue water, but I disagree that it looked bad. It looked different and showcased how diverse courses can be, which brings a different sort of appeal to the game.

And really, a lot more courses are going to look like this moving forward. The game has stopped growing in large part because of the insane maintenance costs that courses could not keep up by keeping everything up the standard that the average Joe expects after watching the Masters.

 

[JB]

That's assuming the course looked bad. It did not. Sure it didn't look like a vast majority of the courses out there with bright green, bright sand and bright blue water, but I disagree that it looked bad. It looked different and showcased how diverse courses can be, which brings a different sort of appeal to the game.

To the educated golfer it did not look bad. To the guy flipping channels, it looked terrible. Just as they say the same thing during the Open CHampionships. Causual US fans want lush and green, not sand and dirt and weeds. Im not debating if the future will look like this, or if its good to the game, both of which MIGHT be true.

Im talking about the casual fan and if you read around the web, papers or listen on the radio stations, its almost a consensus about the looks of the course on TV. Heck more are talking about that than Kaymer, who is on an unprecented run with the Players and now this.

 

[huhhh]

That's assuming the course looked bad. It did not. Sure it didn't look like a vast majority of the courses out there with bright green, bright sand and bright blue water, but I disagree that it looked bad. It looked different and showcased how diverse courses can be, which brings a different sort of appeal to the game.

And really, a lot more courses are going to look like this moving forward. The game has stopped growing in large part because of the insane maintenance costs that courses could not keep up by keeping everything up the standard that the average Joe expects after watching the Masters.

i don't know if there are stats that bear that out (JB may have some) but I hope so. It makes sense...and anything that brings down green fees is very good.

 

[JB]

i don't know if there are stats that bear that out (JB may have some) but I hope so. It makes sense...and anything that brings down green fees is very good.

Let me know when that happens. Despite the savings, it is not going to be anytime soon, guaranteed.

 

[Canadan]

I'm kind of curious how it could be defined as not looking bad. It's not a reference to playing conditions, but visual appearance... that course was splotchy with varying shades of green and brown with what appeared to be weeds lining the fairways.

I'll give it credit as being a great test, but I wouldn't frame a photo of one of those holes for my office.

 

[Philly Golf Guy]

To the educated golfer it did not look bad. To the guy flipping channels, it looked terrible. Just as they say the same thing during the Open CHampionships. Causual US fans want lush and green, not sand and dirt and weeds. Im not debating if the future will look like this, or if its good to the game, both of which MIGHT be true.

Im talking about the casual fan and if you read around the web, its almost a consensus about the looks of the course on TV. Heck more are talking about that than Kaymer, who is on an unprecented run with the Players and now this.

So then it turns into whether major venues should start gearing things around the casual golf fan or not and getting things to look the way they expect. I guess I'd rather see things move in a different direction and try to broaden the perspective of what a course should look like. I understand where you're coming from and there's no question a lot of casual fans turned on the tv and probably wondered why they were playing on "dirt," but I like the awareness this US Open raised to many.