Aug
12
Listen up, PGA of America! We don't need another U.S. Open
The PGA of America has always seemed more progressive than the USGA. Most recently, it was wonderful when they finally acknowledged that their Ryder Cup selection process was not as good as that of the Europeans. Granted, it took five losses in the last six matches (and the last two were drubbings) to get their attention. But in comparison to the speed in which the USGA moves on anything, that looks like a jab from Muhammad Ali.
Here is to hoping that they take some time to sit back and re-evaluate the way they set up Oakland Hills Country Club for the 2008 PGA Championship. I might sound a little like James Brown here but Please, Please, Please don’t give us another U.S. Open. The Masters is already making that mistake and the tournament that was once the most exciting in the world year in and year out, has become very much less so. Here is to hoping that by noticing their changes Friday night combined with Mother Nature’s fortuitous intervention on Saturday served to make the tournament come alive with some birdies sprinkled around the occasional eagle on Sunday.
The telecast of the final 18 holes was as riveting as you could wish to see. We want to see excellent play rewarded. Great courses like Oakland Hills don’t need to be pushed to the edge of unplayability. One U.S. Open per year is all that the golf world needs. So, here is to hoping that the more forward-thinking PGA of America does the right thing by the players, and by us, the viewing public.
| « Carl Pettersson Tosses His Hat into the Ryder Cup Ring | PGA Championship Ends Automatic Qualifying for the 2008 U.S. Ryder Cup Team » |
19 comments
I was thinking the same thing, watching on Sunday. Thank the heavens for their rain, or Sunday would have been a Shinnecock-like debacle. Even the announcers commented on how the course set up (narrow fairways, thick rough) had taken away many of Donald Ross's intended angles of attack into those mean greens. It wasn't how the course was built, and wasn't how the PGA should run their tournament.
08/12/08 @ 12:33
Comment from: Donald Ritter [Visitor]
Excellent post, Shanks (and swell new photo, btw).
One thing i never understood though is why people keep saluting the PGA for changing the Ryder Cup selection process. i mean "we're losing so we're going to change the rules"? Seems like like a third-grader's way, not the American way.
One thing i never understood though is why people keep saluting the PGA for changing the Ryder Cup selection process. i mean "we're losing so we're going to change the rules"? Seems like like a third-grader's way, not the American way.
08/12/08 @ 12:46
Comment from: Wendy (UK) [Visitor] 
What's with the new pic?
Just read an article that said "a couple of years ago an amateur event was held at Oakland Hills and the average score was just over 71" so the members thought that the world's best would embarrass the legend of The Monster which is why they made such drastic changes. Don't think they'll make the same mistake again.
The first two days were totally dispiriting to watch. Thank God we sent you some rain.
Just read an article that said "a couple of years ago an amateur event was held at Oakland Hills and the average score was just over 71" so the members thought that the world's best would embarrass the legend of The Monster which is why they made such drastic changes. Don't think they'll make the same mistake again.
The first two days were totally dispiriting to watch. Thank God we sent you some rain.
08/12/08 @ 14:33
Are you spoon feeding yourself or sipping through a straw? Are you yodeling? I'm baffled by the new pic, too.
However, appearances aside (unless you're a chinese girl singing at the olympic opening ceremonies) I agree with your premise. My guess is, the PGA was essentially "stuck" with Oakland Hills in this new era of golf. They did a good job at Southern Hills last year but had no way to defend OH other than what they chose. Over the last five years, I had enjoyed the PGA more than the Masters. This year, hopefully, was an aberration, and next year at...oh wait, it's at hazeltine...here's hoping. Maybe we'll wait for straits in 2010.
However, appearances aside (unless you're a chinese girl singing at the olympic opening ceremonies) I agree with your premise. My guess is, the PGA was essentially "stuck" with Oakland Hills in this new era of golf. They did a good job at Southern Hills last year but had no way to defend OH other than what they chose. Over the last five years, I had enjoyed the PGA more than the Masters. This year, hopefully, was an aberration, and next year at...oh wait, it's at hazeltine...here's hoping. Maybe we'll wait for straits in 2010.
08/12/08 @ 17:19
Comment from: Lester Hinson [Visitor]
Jesus, Ron Mon, that's a cigar Shanks is a smokin' on in the new pic, not a spoon. Grow a pair, will you!?!?!?
08/12/08 @ 18:15
Comment from: Oliver Sudden [Visitor]
I've thought about this topic and the problem is how does one set up a golf course to distinguish a major championship from other PGA Tour events. It ain't easy for 2 reasons, (1) many regular tour events are played on difficult courses, and (2) the players are so good and the equipment so advanced that the players can shoot very low scores on any course that is not really tricked up. The powers that be don't want majors won with scores 15-20 under, they want par to be a good score and that's impossible because of (2) unless they make the course ridiculous. I agree they ruined the Masters and Oakland Hills was on the edge until it rained. Several years ago Jack Nicklaus gave us the answer which is to change the ball back to what it was 40 years ago. A ball that curved a lot and a real monster might hit 300 yards. Let the hackers have a ball where you dial in the hole number then when you hit it a GPS guides it into the hole. Everyone scores 18. If the pros had to play the old ball it would fix everything. The old courses like Augusta could be restored, more or less, to what they were. It would be great.
08/13/08 @ 00:39
Oliver Sudden brings up a good point. The course was lengthened to modern standards, the fairways were narrowed rough brought up to 3-4 inches. Finally, and this is huge, they converted 2 of the par 5s into long par 4s. That in itself is one of the ways they defend par: by replacing 2 birdie opportunities with tough pars. Adds about1-3 shots per round.
But here's the thing about Oakland Hills: even with the softer, "easier" conditions after Saturday's rain, guess how many of the world's best shot below par? Out of 73 players, 10 in round three and 9 in the final round.
But here's the thing about Oakland Hills: even with the softer, "easier" conditions after Saturday's rain, guess how many of the world's best shot below par? Out of 73 players, 10 in round three and 9 in the final round.
08/13/08 @ 07:39
Comment from: Dave [Visitor]
Oliver is right; it would be great to watch.
Shanks, I find it hilarious that you blame the USA's recent Ryder Cup losses simply on the team selection process.
You know what the real reason is for America losing so often lately? It's because the European team is better.
Shanks, I find it hilarious that you blame the USA's recent Ryder Cup losses simply on the team selection process.
You know what the real reason is for America losing so often lately? It's because the European team is better.
08/13/08 @ 16:02
Your name is Lester and you're telling me to grow a pair? It's a pretzel, not a stogie. I agree with Dave that the Euros as a team are better. Phil strikes fear into no one's heart, as don't Stewart, Furyk, and the rest of the scarecrows.
08/13/08 @ 16:56
Glad to amuse you, Dave. But if you don't think the US side has had an inferior selection process prior to this year, then you haven't been paying close attention.
08/14/08 @ 07:21
Prior to this year, the top 10 automatic qualifiers for the US side were determined on a two-year basis, giving way to much credit for old performances (not unlike the world ranking system). The most egregious example was the '91 RC at Kiawah when Wayne Levi was on the team because he won 4 events in the 1990. Well, he had a horrendous 1991 but was there regardless. On top of that, Steve Pate (who was playing better than anyone going in) was injured in a freak car accident just a day or 2 prior to matches, which forced Levi to play a bit more. He or his twosome got crushed in every match, making it arguably the best RC finish in history. Had he not been on the squad, it likely wouldn't have been close.
08/14/08 @ 15:23
Comment from: Wendy (UK) [Visitor]
Ron Mon - humph! You looking for more nemeses? My Stewart took out Sergio; Luke is absolutely lovely, (sorry Tim McD) Jim Furyk is cool in a weird sort of way, OK, you can keep PM - I just don't like his feet - sort of PC Nod/Plod.
The RC selection rules were recently changed for both teams I believe, albeit not in the same way/year, not to mention the biggest change from US vs GB & NI to US vs Europe when we were sacrificial lambs.
One thought about reputed reluctance of some Americans to participate. If Europe lose, critism is diffused across several countries. If US lose, the criticism is concentrated and wow, do you know how to flay if you perceive someone has let you down. Would you put yourself out there?
Past performance is no guarantee to the future, as it says on my investment portfolio, so any chance we (and at least some of the players) can go on and enjoy this event without being petrified by fear of failure?
The RC selection rules were recently changed for both teams I believe, albeit not in the same way/year, not to mention the biggest change from US vs GB & NI to US vs Europe when we were sacrificial lambs.
One thought about reputed reluctance of some Americans to participate. If Europe lose, critism is diffused across several countries. If US lose, the criticism is concentrated and wow, do you know how to flay if you perceive someone has let you down. Would you put yourself out there?
Past performance is no guarantee to the future, as it says on my investment portfolio, so any chance we (and at least some of the players) can go on and enjoy this event without being petrified by fear of failure?
08/14/08 @ 17:45
Comment from: Dave [Visitor]
Shanks, I was hoping for something a little more recent than 17 years ago. But it doesn't matter anyway, we all know your argument is weak as hell.
Shanks, no matter what point system is used, the best players in the world who are eligible for the Ryder Cup generally make it into their respective teams. There are always a few players in the competition who are hot at the time who we all know will not make it to the next one. For example, in 1997, Per Ulrik Johansson and Ignacio Garrido played. In 1999, Paul Lawrie, Andrew Coltart and Jean van de Velde played. In 2002, Mark Calcavecchia, Pierre Fulke, and Phil Price played. Need I go on? But the point is, the BEST players in Europe and the USA, the absolutely indispensible ones, almost always make it in. (I can't actually think of one counterexample of this.) Don't blame the qualification system for the USA losing - and more importantly, don't blame a CAR CRASH.
> On top of that, Steve Pate (who was playing better than anyone going in) was injured in a freak car accident just a day or 2 prior to matches..
Hehehehehe. Good one, Shanks.
Shanks, no matter what point system is used, the best players in the world who are eligible for the Ryder Cup generally make it into their respective teams. There are always a few players in the competition who are hot at the time who we all know will not make it to the next one. For example, in 1997, Per Ulrik Johansson and Ignacio Garrido played. In 1999, Paul Lawrie, Andrew Coltart and Jean van de Velde played. In 2002, Mark Calcavecchia, Pierre Fulke, and Phil Price played. Need I go on? But the point is, the BEST players in Europe and the USA, the absolutely indispensible ones, almost always make it in. (I can't actually think of one counterexample of this.) Don't blame the qualification system for the USA losing - and more importantly, don't blame a CAR CRASH.
> On top of that, Steve Pate (who was playing better than anyone going in) was injured in a freak car accident just a day or 2 prior to matches..
Hehehehehe. Good one, Shanks.
08/14/08 @ 19:56
Dave, I picked the most glaring example of the weakness in the system to illuminate the point I was making. And the car crash did not affect the outcome at Kiawah as the US won that one anyway. It only changed the score a little. I totally agree that the Euro team has just been better/deeper than the US the last 2 matches. I've just wanted the US to select their team on a similar basis, which is current year form.
08/15/08 @ 07:23
Comment from: Wendy (UK) [Visitor]
I suspect Dave is doing a little bit of a wind-up (and why not, as Faldo & Azinger are providing little if any entertainment?).
"Prior to this year the top ten automatic qualifiers for the US side
were determined on a two-year basis, giving way too much credit for old performance". "I've just wanted the US to select their team on a similar basis, which is current year form". Sounds eminently sensible to me.
We have a weakness, however, when we have to fudge our selection criteria in order to retain the participation of our best players on the European Tour. Evens itself out with the rookies in most cases, I suppose, (with the odd exception, e.g. Rose) who are mostly familiar with their own tour.
"Prior to this year the top ten automatic qualifiers for the US side
were determined on a two-year basis, giving way too much credit for old performance". "I've just wanted the US to select their team on a similar basis, which is current year form". Sounds eminently sensible to me.
We have a weakness, however, when we have to fudge our selection criteria in order to retain the participation of our best players on the European Tour. Evens itself out with the rookies in most cases, I suppose, (with the odd exception, e.g. Rose) who are mostly familiar with their own tour.
08/15/08 @ 14:21
I appreciate that, Wendy, because I know you would blast me if you thought me unreasonable.
The Euro team has been smart enough to evolve their selection criteria to where it is so good is has not changed the last few times. The US, however, has not until now. they are definitely on the right track. Whether or not they have the horses is another story.
The Euro team has been smart enough to evolve their selection criteria to where it is so good is has not changed the last few times. The US, however, has not until now. they are definitely on the right track. Whether or not they have the horses is another story.
08/15/08 @ 15:12
Comment from: Kevin H. [Visitor]
Shanks, I agree with Ritter that the PGA tweaking and re-tweaking the selection process reeks of a kid who's losing at Monopoly suddenly changing the rules in his own favor. Suck it up, Yanks - if you want to win, PLAY BETTER GOLF!!!!
08/16/08 @ 09:03
No doubt, they need to play better if they want to win.
But I find it hilarious that anyone thinks the Yanks are the ones "tweaking and re-tweaking the selection process". that is exactly what the Euros did over the past 30+ years to maximze their chances. And now that the US will make long overdue changes to catch up, people find fault in it.
But I find it hilarious that anyone thinks the Yanks are the ones "tweaking and re-tweaking the selection process". that is exactly what the Euros did over the past 30+ years to maximze their chances. And now that the US will make long overdue changes to catch up, people find fault in it.
08/16/08 @ 09:12
This post has 1 feedback awaiting moderation...
Comment feed for this post
Ron Mon:
Jason Scott Deegan:
The Accidental Golfer:
Brandon Tucker:
Recent comments