2013 U.S. Open Running Thread

Then Mickelson should have played 13 and 15 better.

If that's a par 5 you'd be ok with it because he needs eagle instead of birdie?

 

Well, we see once again that the USGA can fix any course to the point where no one breaks par. What is so great about that?

Was this tournament better than 1981, when David Graham's winning score was -7? I thought the tournament had plenty of drama, but it was the "oh my god, I hope my guy doesn't screw this next hole up and make triple bogey" kind. It was always a question of who was going to mess up the least.

As for Woods, hey, all golfers have their down weeks. He may or may not be seriously injured. If he's hurt, take time off, like he did in 2011. At least he's not making excuses.

As for Merion, the golf course itself was fine. A bigger issue, perhaps, was all the logistics surrounding a tournament of that size. Merchandising tents, media facilities, practice grounds, ticket sales, concession stands, locker rooms and, of course, porta potties. It's a fine, quaint little facility that would be fine for a Women's Open, a Senior Open, US Amateur, Walker Cup or whatever. But with so many other larger courses ready, willing and able to host a US Open, I kept asking "Why are they doing this?"

 

Doesn't matter to me if the USGA didn't assign par to any hole; just give 'em 18 holes and let 'em have at it. But when 146 of the world's best play a hole and there are 0 birdies, my inclination is to say that's a bit over the edge of providing a fair and proper test of their skills.

 

It should be noted that Rose, the winner of the tournament, was the golfer who came closest to birdieing 18, at least as far as was shown on TV.

 

Mickelson birdied the hole to end the second round. No one birdied it on Sunday. And with no driver in the bag, he left himself too long of a second shot with the wind and wet conditions. He didn't have a chance, not because of the USGA, but because he had five wedges in his bag.

 

Broadcasters said earlier in the round that the Sunday pin placement eliminated driver from consideration for everybody. Not having the driver was no biggie there. The lords of golf simply did not want a 3 to be possible on that hole.

 

My quibble with 18 was, it was a tweener hole.

* Too long and difficult of a par 4 to have a realistic shot at birde.

* Too short for a real par 5. If it's gonna be a par 5, then lengthen it, or everyone make birdie and that's not a test of skill either.

No quibble that Rose won. He was the best over 72 holes. But unlike say, the Masters, the closing holes were way to tough for anyone to have a real chance at birdie and to make a late charge. And that's what makes a tourney exciting.

 

On Sunday, the pin placements appeared to be set on the principle of easier for the easier holes and harder for the harder ones. Mickelson bogeyed a 100-yard par three on Sunday. That and the missed short putts are why he lost, not 18.
Micro, the idea that the closing holes are so hard disaster is only a swing away can generate some drama, too. Excitement is just about birdies. If it was, the Palm Springs tournament would have the highest ratings every year.

 

I think setting the final hole up that way is like the NFL doing away with the two-point conversion -- it would be a reasonable and historically grounded decision, but it makes for a lot less excitement as a spectator sport.

 

Yeah, but it affects your mindset as you play a round. It's a lot harsher to think "gee, I just bogeyed from the fairway" than "well, no birdie this time, but at least I made par."