U.S. Open

Miniature Golf

Written: June 18, 2007
The national organization (the USGA) that tends to amateur golf has run the U.S. Open, the most prestigious tournament on the planet, for 107 years. Their stated demand is that the golf course that is selected each year to host The Open, will challenge each player to use every shot in their bag and to make "par" a difficult score to achieve. This year, as in years past, they missed their goal. The average score for the field was 5.72 over par. I thought the course set-up at Oakmont was akin to creating a miniature golf course. The only thing missing was the proverbial "clown's mouth." If the overall scores and the reaction from the majority of players doesn't prove my point, then consider the following: ridiculous pin placements on rock-hard, wildly rolling greens that read over 13 on the Stimp. If you have to guess and hit a putt or chip virtually 'sideways' to get anywhere near the hole, then my miniature golf metaphor is not far off. Players only slightly exaggerated that the greens were as fast as putting on linoleum. The primary rough was so deep that if it weren't for an army of forecaddies, it would have been impossible for any player on his own to find his ball. I'm watching this train wreck on TV and thinking that even though I carry a two-handicap at my home course, and I am basically straight off the tee, I wouldn't break ninety at Oakmont. Does that make me a 20 handicap if I played there?

Golf is supposed to be a fair game, not a joke. Errant shots should not be rewarded but good shots should not be so penal. I couldn't help but think that watching the Open at Oakmont was like going to the Indy 500....if only to watch for a spectacular, high-speed car wreck. Having a 300-yard par three, a 307-yard par four, a 500-yard par 4 and a 667-yard par five are only the obvious examples. And the USGA even tried to calm the course down on Sunday by using what they call "corrective" watering on all 18 greens.

I could go on....and I will. I don't blame the Welshman, Bradley Dredge, who took a lot of shit amongst his peers, for not even wanting to bother and try and qualify for the event. I have two suggestions: either hold next years Open on a glacier or let the professionals (The PGA) do what they do best, set up The Open course so that it is fair. There is a difference between making a course smart and difficult or just being stubborn in order to prove that they (the USGA) are the true "keepers" of the game. Methinks the leadership of the USGA always likes to think that they know more about golf than the professionals do. I don't think so. I liked Jim Furyk's comment at the end of the tournament the best. Asked how Winged Foot and Oakmont compare, Furyk replied, with noted sarcasm, "I don't know. They both stink." Major cross-dresser, Ian Poulter added that, "it's laughable."

In our funky pool we had 7 near-winners: 4 Tiger's and 3 Furyk's. Baddeley was Saddeley. He triples the first hole and then never makes a putt the rest of the way. Our Jim Brady leaps into second place and the world will have a difficult time remembering the name of the actual winner at the 2007 Open. We will probably remember only the crashes (Baddeley), the dented fenders (Woods and Furyk); and the blown engines, (Casey, Ames and Stricker).