LOS ANGELES – For the majority of its 123 year history, the United States Open has embodied a number of archetypes. A certain type of course layout is shown, a particular kind of exam will be given, and a specific kind of player will thrive.
The venues of the game are well-known for enhancing both skill and mental health. Sports shrinks have helped generations of parents put their children through college by treating the PTSD suffered by players at Oakmont, Winged Foot and Shinnecock Hills. The survivors also fit into a certain profile. Curtis Strange and Hale Irwin were fierce competitors who wouldn’t give another player the Heimlich. Nicklaus, Hogan and others. They would ignore all the whining they heard in the locker rooms until they knew just how many opponents were left.
The U.S. The examination is the archetype of Open. It is not a test only of execution, but also of discipline, patience and intestinal fortitude. U.S. Opens are not won but earned. No matter which USGA chief was in front, Mike Davis or Joe Dey, his job was to tighten thumbscrews onto the world’s top golfers. When they yelled, twist them a little bit more.
Most of these ideals are no longer valid. Although the U.S. Open hasn’t lost its character, it’s changed for several reasons.
The variety of venues available is much more diverse than the usual northeastern establishment club. Pinehurst, Chambers Bay and Erin Hills, as well as Los Angeles Country Club, boast fairways wider than Great Plains by U.S. Open standard, with playing corridors which promise to be less firewood for Casa Chamblee. In theory, the move towards authentic architecture, with more angles and width, – goodbye Rees Jones hello Gil Hanse — should require greater imagination on the part of players. But only if crisp conditions can be ensured. Of course, this is not possible.
Open’specialists’ are also a thing of the past. Brooks Koepka is the only recent winner who resembles this old identikit. He’s not thrilled about L.A.C.C. He said, “I believe it should be about par,” looking at a leaderboard where Rickie was in double digits of the negative. “I’m a big fan of this place.”
Each major has its own identity. The Masters is a very exclusive event. Beating the weakest field in golf can be considered the pinnacle of achievement. The Open (British edition) is defined primarily by its history, ancient linksland, and weather. The PGA Championship, on the other hand, is friendly to its players and similar to the weekly tests of the PGA Tour. What about the U.S. Open, then? That’s like waterboarding for four days.
Or it used be. This reputation has been tarnished by two factors. The first is the distances that players hit their golf balls, which makes any course easy to take. It’s not as important to hit fairways as it used to be when you were using a mid iron for your next shot instead of a wedge. The USGA is almost invisibly timid.
It’s not the best word to describe the USGA, but it has suffered too many snafus in its signature event. USGA has become more cautious with thumbscrews due to the corrosive effects of player complaints and public roasting. The setups are no longer on the brink. Mike Davis was the last person to be manhandled in an Open when he wrestled Bird Man from the trophy presentation in 2012. Mike Whan is his successor. He is not a USGA lifetime member and prefers to avoid situations that generations of predecessors had to apologize for.
The lowest round of the championship history (twice!) was played on Thursday. Then came the histrionics over a lack challenge. On Friday afternoon, the scores were in neutral. The road to the finish will not be any easier. George C. Thomas, the architect of the L.A.C.C., described the course setup for the first round as a “gentle handshake”. The tees on Friday were slightly longer and the pins a bit harder. By Sunday, a gentle handshake may feel like brass knuckles against bone.
L.A.C.C. It’s tough but not as tough as the old U.S. Open. This is not a L.A.C.C. It’s not an L.A.C.C. problem. For too long the identity of the championship was tied to a winning score that could be considered acceptable. This can lead to a negative perception, as if the course had been too easy, rather than that the winner is too good.
No matter what the final score is, this U.S. Open was a great success. L.A.C.C. The set-up and play are fair. The USGA presented the challenge it could control but did not try to create one. This is a major shift in the mindset from previous years. If the USGA fails to maintain the archaic idea of what the U.S. Open is supposed to be, a U.S. Open that’s excruciatingly hard, with a winning score around par, then the problem lies not in the events in Los Angeles but rather in the decisions made in the past, or, more accurately, the lack thereof, regarding distance.
