***Official US Open Thread (Oakmont)***

[Mike Cuneo]

Didn't see it started yet so let's get it rolling. I was there today for practice rounds, first time ever at a tourney it was pretty sweet I might be going Sunday which would be money.

My pick to win (besides Tiger of course) is Vijay. Although he didn't play very well today.

Anyone else going?

[Evan]

I was there on Sunday in 2004 and 2006, and at a practice round in 2002. Phil should be happy I'm 8 hours from Pittsburgh.

[magicratx]

Anyone think Monty has a chance this year, or has that ship finally sailed after losing out last year?

[ligastar]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone think Monty has a chance this year, or has that ship finally sailed after losing out last year?

[/ QUOTE ]

The ship sailed away with his approach to the 72nd hole at Winged Foot. Monty turns 44 later this month. Nicklaus won his last major at 46 and Monty is no Golden Bear.

I look for big things from Toms, Cink, O'Hair and Ryan Moore.

[JTrout]

Woody Austin to contend...
Jim Furyk ftw.

[Spy Dog]

The obvious choice: Tiger Woods (11/4)

Some strong contenders: Zach Johnson (44/1), Jim Furyk (17/1), Luke Donald (32/1)

Some lighter darkhorses: Steve Stricker (80/1), Scott Verplank (95/1), Tim Clark (110/1)

Some dark darkhorses: Troy Matteson (275/1), Joe Durant (350/1)

Feeling Lucky?: Olin Browne (500/1)


Odds courtesy of WSEX.

[dug]

Can't wait to see just how tough Oakmont is going to play. Saw a brief clip of an interview with Robert Allenby yesterday and he thinks we'll see some players shoot in the 90's. I love watching golf where par is a good score on most holes and requires more of a though process than just bomb it and fire at the pin.

[dug]

I agree with you. I'm wondering how Adam Scott will do since he seems to be playing good lately.

[HDPM]

[ QUOTE ]
Can't wait to see just how tough Oakmont is going to play. Saw a brief clip of an interview with Robert Allenby yesterday and he thinks we'll see some players shoot in the 90's. I love watching golf where par is a good score on most holes and requires more of a though process than just bomb it and fire at the pin.

[/ QUOTE ]

Often very difficult courses require less thought process than courses that offer more latitude. Also the USGA often makes the set up more penal and by going penal takes away the architectural character of a course, thereby reducing strategy and thought. One example is the recent short par 4 where they grew so much rough the only play was to go for the green. Apparently the USGA didn't realize that having 4 foot deep rough at the narrow lay up spot and less rough near the green made it so laying up offered more risk and less reward than bombing it. Another example was where they grew rough on strategic areas at Pinehurst or Bethpage. When a hole is designed to offer a perfect approach angle from near a fairway bunker, growing 20 yards of rough up to the fairway bunker removes the strategy. So on the tee there is less thought required. Also if the fairways get so narrow that everybody misses them, there isn't that much to do or think about. OTOH, Oakmont was designed to be penal and is well-designed not merely tricked up. So this year should require more thought than at courses that are simply made tough through a tricked out set up. The USGA is moving in the right direction at some of the half par holes. Often half par holes are ones that offer a birdie chance, the USGA though seems to go the other way. Having the 288 yard par 3 and a par 4 not much longer is kind of cool. People get worked up about it, and that is a test in itself. Par really doesn't exist and is irrelevant when you think about it. If a player can go out there and just play the holes without regard to worring whether he has to make a 3 on an alleged par 3 or a 4 on a 500 yard beast of a hole, he will be ahead. Hard to do I guess when you see over par numbers go up, and it makes things sound less dramatic.

I thnk the amount of thought required to play needs to be separated from the idea of difficulty and the mythical concept of par. What you want to do is challenge and separate players and make them think. Sometimes that leads to high scores, other times not. I think any obsession with making good players shoot bad scores is misplaced. You want to see great players use their skills and brains. That might mean grinding pars at Oakmont, but it may also mean giving them a choice and eagle opportunity on par 5's at Augusta or choices where to put the tee shot at Pinehurst. Look how well the Open went last year at Hoylake.

Also, any course can be made more difficult in relation to par, as the USGA does by setting par at 70 a lot. Calling a couple of holes par 4's instead of par 5's is the same thing as making the first hole a par 2 really. So a guy shoots par instead of 8 under. Was the course really a better test?

[tuq]

HDPM, good post as always. Although I do fixate on the +/- par number, and as such get annoyed with the USGA's obsession with turning courses into par 70s. I like seeing chances for eagle once or twice per round - look how well Baltusrol went two years ago with the two par-5s as the last two holes.

As for favorites, in golf it is a frivolous discussion. There's Tiger, and then there's about 30-50+ other guys not far behind him who could win if they get hot this week. More interesting bets are pools where you pick or draft several players and their aggregate total decides the winner.