Originally posted by
itsgr82bag8r View Post
It's not so much that the greens are "bumpy", it's that they have a couple different types of grass in them. This isn't an unusual thing in most courses across America. Hell, some of the Bermuda greens on courses close to the water can have surfaces that demand more green reading ability that what the pros routinely play on. Is that such a bad thing? Not to me. This tourney isn't always played on the ideal "picture-perfect" manicured course. In fact, that's more of a recent trend than historical one. Did you notice last year at Pinehurst #2? It's natural condition was far from what you'd call a typical tour stop course. This course is a further departure from the type of course people have been spoiled with playing & seeing on TV every week.
This article, written BEFORE the tournament was even played, might help you see what the USGA is moving towards, on purpose. I think it's a good thing. Of course, I love it when only a few pros can manage the skill to actually beat the course by finishing under par. That certainly makes the cream rise to the top.
Respectfully disagree...there were multiple players that would yell "get lucky" after a shot. This course took skill out of it and added LUCK. That course had zero business hosting a US Open. And if they are moving towards XYZ like you say...this course was picked a long time ago...before they were moving in that direction. Something doesn't add up. Speith DOUBLE BOGEYED the 17th and still won. That screams "bad course" to me. But that is just my opinion.
And FOX made a mockery of golf on TV. It was a total disaster.