Is The USGA Killing Golf?

From what I've read, most golf analysts think the Open at Oakmont was a fair test. I agree, but only because everyone played the same course under the same conditions. It was not the intelligent test of golf it was meant to be. The U.S. Open is the greatest golf tournament in this country and, as such, it sets the direction of the sport in general. With its handling of the Open, the USGA is turning golf into an Extreme Sport, killing what's it's supposed to be preserving.

Brad Faxon and Billy Andrade just finished hosting the CVS Charity Classic at the Rhode Island Country Club. It's held Monday and Tuesday after the U.S. Open and is one of the best golf fund raisers in the country. (It's a great venue. The players are relaxed and the spectators can see some of the best in the game up close and personal.) One of the all time greats played this year - Lee Trevino. And Lee had a lot to say about the state of the sport that has provided him a wonderful life. He's upset by it's continual decline. Bottom line for Lee; it's too hard and too expensive for the average player - the one that's the lifeblood of the game.

I couldn't agree more with Mr. Trevino and I think a lot of the responsibility lies with the USGA, particularly with how they set up courses for the Open. Oakmont was a big mistake. Unfortunately golf architects take their clues from this tournament. It seems a new course can only be among the best if it's over 7000 yards and is so difficult that you and I will lose at least a six pack of balls, shoot well north of 100 and spend over $100 (or maybe a lot more). Sounds like fun, doesn't it? As the cost of living and gas skyrockets like our handicaps, we'll still be happy to spend big bucks for five plus hours of torture, won't we. Yeah, right!

So what's wrong with the setup of the Open? It's that it misses the point of what golf is all about. It was never meant to be an Extreme Sport. The way things are going, in 10 years the rough at the Open will be stocked with man eating crocodiles. Or how about adding wind machines to every hole to simulate playing in a hurricane.

If you watched the Open you probably heard the quote from Mr. Fownes who was the course architect; 'a poorly played shot should be irrevocably lost'. Compare that philosphy to Alister MacKenzie's, the architect of Augusta and Cypress Point to name a few - a great golf hole should be able to be played by the amateur and the professional alike and be challenging to both. Maybe Mr. Fownes should have just said 'the player who hits a poor shot will be summarily removed from the course and beaten within an inch of his or her life'. Teach you to make a bad swing I will! Golf is about finding salvation from our mistakes, not about being hit over the head for them.

I've heard commentators get on Phil's case for blaming the rough for injuring his wrist. Hold on a moment, Phil wasn't the only one to be injured while playing and have to withdraw. At last count at least 6 players were injured. Is golf a full contact sport now - miss a shot at Oakmont and be prepared to take a blind hit from a Steeler's linebacker? I'm not a big Phil fan, but I'm in his corner on this one.

I believe golf was meant to be mostly a mental challenge. The great architects design courses with numerous routes to the hole, all with differing risk/reward profiles. The visual layout of the hole is meant to challenge and deceive the mind. Great golf is more like chess and less like a WWW Smackdown.

After watching the Open at Oakmont, I'm sure there will be architects and their customers planning the next 'top 100 course' where the fairways will be no wider than your sidewalk and the rough will look like a Kansas wheat field just before the combines arrive. It will cost you at least a month's spending money to play and you'll say 'never again' when you're finished and bleeding in the clubhouse.

I'm not against tough courses. I've been lucky enough to have played some of the great ones both in the U.S. and in Scotland and loved them. But it's wrong when their are only two shots possible; 1) a great one that gets a lucky bounce and 2) every other shot where you lose at least one stroke. Because of the setup at Oakmont, there were virtually no chances for great recovery shots. Yet, recovery shots are very much a part of the game and often what is most memorable from tournaments of old. Miss a shot at Oakmont or get an unlucky bounce and your only option was to take an extra shot and try again. Hit a bad shot and you should be challenged to make a spectacular shot for a recovery. There was no such option at Oakmont. Your only choice was to take your wedge and gouge it out 90 degrees. This is not exciting golf, it's actually painful to watch. If every course was setup like this, there would be no place for the Seve Ballesteros's of the world.

In the coming years, the people who are supposed to be promoting this great game will sit in their offices, scratch their heads and wonder just what went wrong. My advice to them is to go back and read how golf began, why it prospered for centuries and what was on the minds of the great course architects. And start promoting a game that a normal working family can enjoy. The professional game has to dramatize the allure of golf and, believe me, it's more about the mental than the physical. They also need to find better ways to teach the game. Most amateurs fight some kind of slice, which indicates their basic swing is seriously flawed. They rarely understand how to 'let the club do the work'. And they sure as hell aren't going to play a tight, extremely penal course more than once a year.

And if the USGA isn't going to rise to the occassion and address the problems they're most responsible for creating, then the stars and future course designers will have to. I guess this means you, Tiger. You are probably the one person who has a shot at single-handedly changing the game. When I was a kid, I played at a course that had dirt tees. My friend Robby used to bring a hammer - yes the kind you drive nails with - so we could pound our tees in. We played because it was cheap and we had a lot more fun than if our parents were members at Oakmont. Tiger, maybe you never played a course like that. If not, go out to a few local dog tracks and see what's going on. You're a charitable guy and have helped thousands of people. Why not help 10's of thousands learn the game by designing some cheap challenging courses that the average family can afford. Help us get back to the great game that golf has always been.