British Open or The Open proves why it's better than U.S. Open

I have to totally agree with you here. It is a lot more exciting to watch and see who can shoot the best round under par on Sunday to win instead of watching to see who doesn't shoot the worse round, ie. the US Open. The USGA has gone overboard in their setups. And when did having the winner finish under par become such a crime. Jack Nicklaus , with his constant crying over todays technology, would be perfect to head the USGA when David Fay retires. Then we could have courses with way to narrow fairways, impossible rough, greens to fast to hold a shot, and now you could add bunkers raked with rakes missing every other tooth. I read on some of the blogs here people complaining Royal Liverpool was to easy for a major championship. Thats crazy. You have a great leaderboard for tomorrow. Birdies can be had, but you know Sunday pin placements will be tougher. And the course is firming up. If the winning score does make it to 16 under , great. To have the winner be able to average 4 under over a tournament is good. The challengers can make birdies, and maybe someone can knock a 2nd shot stiff on a par 5 to jump up the leaderboard. That's excitement. If I want to watch golfers struggle to hit 50% of the fairways like in a US Open, I can watch my buddies as we play.

If Hoylake is too easy to be an Open course, then so is St. Andrews.

Indeed, such Open setups as Hoylake and St. Andrews ARE considerably easier than Royal St. George's and Carnoustie, but I honestly believe that Carnoustie is one of the hardest, if not THE hardest, golf course in the world.

I enjoy watching The Open more than the U.S. Open, and I honestly believe that the U.S. Open has lost some of its prestige - due in large part to the fact that the USGA are about as capable of running a golf tournament as the U.S. Department of Defense are of trying to fight a war and run a military.

The last couple of U.S. Open setups have been botched because the USGA are trying to make the courses too difficult - in fact, I think they're trying to outdo The R&A by making a harder course (which they rarely do, anyway, not that it really matters), mainly because they want everyone to think that they run the grandest championship in golf.

I volunteer that Kaluhyat in Verona, NY; Saratoga National in Saratoga Springs, NY; and the River Course at Kohler, WI are three of the hardest courses in the world. From the tips, they have taken turns kicking my arse this past year. I agree with Senor Suckuppo (aka Baldwin) that majors can be won with low scores. We do need the bad to offset the good (Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader begat Luke Skywalker to balance the universe a long time ago.) Therefore, I propose we call the British version "The Open" and the U.S. version "The Closed." The yin-yang prospects are endless.

Whatever the bloggers say about any course used for PGA tournaments, it won't ever be easy for any of you amateurs.

Add 30,000 spectators, pin placements, whatever other conditons (dry and fast greens or narrow fairways), and any other element that makes it a PGA quality course and try shooting par or even below par for four rounds and then, maybe you can declare the course easy.

Try doing it week in week out, season after season, major after major and when you can win 10 majors and be the number one in the world, then declare the course easy.

Does Tiger declare any course easy? even if he's won by double digits?