Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Maybe I Don't Want to Qualify for the U.S. Open

Just around the first of May every year, I take the time to fork over a couple hundred bucks to donate to the United States Golf Association in my attempt to qualify for the U.S. Open. It is a two step process that I'd rank on par with attempting to build my own iPod out of scratch and figuring out if the little lady on all the Starbucks cups is hot or not.

Basically, it's an impossible task, but I torture myself every May, going out and trying to compete with guys that do this for a living. It's my humbling experience of the year, and I'm not really sure why I do it, but I do. This year it'll be on May 18, but I'm starting to think qualifying for the U.S. Open is a bad move. That is, after reading what Graeme McDowell said about Congressional. Basically the golf course looks to be playing as hard as it would be for Donald Trump to actually become president.

Here is what McDowell said on Twitter...

Congressional 7574 yards Par 71 US Open set up. No-one will break par.

He then said, about the par-4 11th ...

“I’m hoping I got the wrong tee at 11,” he said, describing the 494-yard par-4 with the creek down the right side of the fairway. “I can’t really see much positive to say about that golf hole. If you’re selling four 4s, I’m think I’m buying.”

Wow, sounds fun!! Sign me up!

Honestly, USGA, we get it. You want the U.S. Open to be really tough so nobody goes super low and it is a "true test of the game"? But making the golf course seem un-parable before the first tee shot is smacked? That might be taking it a little too far.

Also, if I somehow qualified for this thing (read: don't bet on it), is there any chance I'd break 80? I'm going to go ahead and say no, no, no, no and no. Get that?



Dan Levy said...

Come on, Bacon. Every single year guys bitch about the US Open course being too hard and the rough too thick and the greens to...stimpy. And every year it's never as bad as it seems (except that ridiculous Pinehurst year and that Bethpage hole they kept having to water between pairings and that...)

Okay, fine. It might be hard, but I'll take -2 scores over -14 Masters, any year.

Roody said...

I agree with Dan. Us amateurs love to see a course bring the pros down to mere mortal levels.

Matt said...

Personally, I think the obsession (either way) with any number relative to par is silly. As long as it's a fair test of golf that's capable of separating the wheat from the chaff over the course of four days, I'm happy.

For the most part, I find the players' complaints about the setup silly. But the USGA does walk a fine line and too often, in their in their desire to make things very challenging, they go too far and create holes that are simply useless as a test of golf.

spencer096 said...

i don't think the USGA is really trying to go for that ultra penal setup anymore, but it's not like it's a bad thing even if they did...they're all playing the same course.

that said, i wasn't a fan of 14 at pebble last year, or the par 3 at shinnecock that was a cement green...but winged foot and oakmont were BRUTALLY setup and those tourneys were still absolutely fantastic.