I love the US Open.
It is the most democratic championship in the game of golf. The US Open begins long before the third Thursday in June. Through April and May, nearly 9,000 golfers begin their US Open journey. For the overwhelming majority of those golfers, it also ends there.
Anyone (with a low enough handicap index and $200 to pay the qualifying entry fee) can enter America’s national championship and begin in local qualifying. Those who play well enough in that 18-hole local qualifier advance to a one-day 36-hole qualifier - known as golf’s longest day - 10 days prior to the championship proper. A tee time at the national championship awaits golfers who finish in the top places at those final qualifying sites.
In the past, the championship has been called “Golf’s Toughest Test.” Winning scores can hover around even par, sometimes winners even finish over par.
The US Open, to me, represents everything that is great and aspirational about golf. The pursuit of perfection. The triumph of spirit (shout out FOX’s USGA golf theme). The agony of defeat. The reminder that golf is brutally difficult. That the lowest score wins and the golf ball doesn’t know or care what your swing looks like, how old or young you are.
This year, the USGA took the national open to Los Angeles Country Club, a usually very closed place. There was great anticipation to see LACC as the club opened their doors to a national audience. The US Open hasn’t been to Los Angeles - the second biggest city in the country - since 1948 when the tournament was contested at Riviera Country Club.
Was The US Open “Open”?
However, it seemed the US Open wasn’t as “open” as a national open should be.
It was a clear goal of the USGA was to return to the city of Los Angeles. There is no reason that the nation’s second largest city should not have held a US Open in 75 years.
The USGA brought the Walker Cup (amateur golf’s Ryder Cup) to LACC in 2017. Sometimes, the USGA seems to use these smaller events at newly chosen host venues as a test run for their largest championship. For example, Chambers Bay hosted the 2010 US Amateur before the 2015 US Open was contested there. Erin Hills followed the 2011 US Amateur with the 2017 US Open.
Those smaller events are naturally attended by fewer spectators and have a smaller infrastructure build out than the US Open. However, the US Open is one of golf’s major championships! There are going to be spectators there! Part of the allure of the US Open is the large crowds, loud roars, and open to the country of golfers of abilities and interest levels.
That is where this year’s US Open fell short. With attendance reportedly being limited to 22,000 spectators, when there was the potential for 40,000, the majority of those tickets being corporate hospitality, and the membership of LACC buying some of the general admission ticket allotment to limit foot traffic on the course, this US Open was open to 10,000 entries into qualifying, but essentially closed to those who wanted to watch the best players in the world. That the LACC membership purchased tickets to limit the amount of general public to traverse the grounds is disappointing; if the club doesn’t really want to host a US Open and all that a major championship entails, maybe don’t sign the contract to host. However, as we’ve seen lately, money talks; with the club keeping all the corporate hospitality revenue, they likely earned a pretty penny hosting the championship. It’s a shame it was done at the expense of the general public golfer, the everyday golfer upon which the backbone of the sport is built.
Was The US Open Challenging Enough?
The everyday golfer sometimes seems to love to see the world’s greatest players struggle. The fact that the US Open is traditionally “golf’s toughest test” and winning scores, especially in historic championships, are near or over par. Golf is hard. The elite professionals make it look easy. Seeing the struggles of professionals on the course is relatable, slightly akin to the game we see up close during our weekend fourball.
This year’s US Open featured two record low scores in the history of the championship: 62 - about 20 minutes apart! Was the course too easy? It certainly is jarring seeing -8 lead the US Open after the first round. That is not the US Open scoring we are accustomed to seeing.
Course set up, especially for elite players, is such a fine line between playable and fair and impossible and unjust. The course at LACC with its half-par holes and wider than average fairways seemed to lend itself to lower scores from the jump. Give professional players “par-3.5” and “par-4.5” holes and wider fairways and they will score well. Given the fact that 156 players have to get around a golf course in the first two days of the major championship, the first two days should be set up slightly easier.
Eight under was leading after day one. Ten under ended up winning the tournament. People got the carnage they wanted. It just took a little time to get there.
The winning score at Pebble Beach in 2019 was -13. Was Pebble Beach too easy?
The winning score at Pinehurst in 2014 was -9. Pinehurst is hosting the US Open next year (and in 2029, and in 2035, and in 2041). Prepare your outrage now when the winning score isn’t 12 over par.
The recent trend in US Open course set up has been a bit more player-friendly. With the caliber of players and the quality of golf equipment, it is almost an impossible task to get the course challenging enough to create high scores while still being playable and not creating six-plus-hour rounds of golf.
Does this make the USGA seem "softer and gentler?" Maybe. But par is just a construct: a way to measure the placement of golfers relative to each other in the middle of a round. The announcement of the winner at the trophy ceremony is accompanied by the total number of strokes taken, with no mention of over or under par. Oakmont used to be a par 80! At that par, Dustin Johnson would have shot 44-under par in the 2016 US Open. Would Oakmont be considered too easy considering that?
Some holes at LACC fall flat of the hype. The short 15th, especially when it was playing 81(!) yards, seemed to not get the disasters we were expecting. The 18th hole, with its 58 yard wide fairway, probably wasn’t the strongest finishing hole either.
However, holes 4, 6, 8, and 11 are terrific golf holes. After watching the US Open, would I want to play LACC? Absolutely. Does it seem like a great members’ course? Definitely. Is it a great venue for the US Open and its demands of a major championship? That can certainly be debated.
Even through its faults, even through its minor imperfections, the US Open remains my favorite tournament in golf. It symbolizes the hope that every golfer who puts the tee in the ground on the first hole that this round could be the round of their life.
Comments