US Open, Fair or Unfortunate?

By most of the players and commentators comments so far, this US Open is getting high praise for fairness. The tee and pin locations have been picked each day so that there is a mix of easy, intermediate and hard locations. As usual, straight hitting and excellent putting is rewarded, everything else punished - sometimes severely. Is this the best test of golf for our national tournament?

The USGA makes no bones about their goal of making the US Open the toughest test in professional golf. I don't think anyone disputes the notion that they have indeed achieved that. Is it the fairest test of golf? Does it test all aspects of the game equally or have they played up some while downplaying others? The USGA has put a lot of emphasis on precision. By the same token, they've eliminated the skills associated with recovery shots. Hit it in the rough and the only real option is to hack it out with a wedge, unless you're in the 2% of freak lies that offer recovery potential, like Tiger's shot yesterday from next to the cart path. Is the true test of a great golfer just precision, or should recovering from trouble get its due?

The height of the rough around the greens also puts a tremendous premium on accuracy. The rough is so penal that you're almost guaranteed to lose at least one stroke if you miss the green. Combine this with the rough by the fairways and most golfers don't go for the greens unless they are in the fairway. It's so much safer to play short and pitch up. On a couple of holes, some of the greenside rough has been shaved to peach fuzz causing most balls to roll into the canyon hazard. I saw Padraig Harrington hit a green on a long par three only to see his ball roll off and down the shaved bank and into a bush. That's not fair, that's bad luck.

I'd hate to see the US Open reduced to crowning the most accurate golfer for the week who was also the luckiest. Luck surely plays a part in the game, but should it be so important. I wonder whose prowess is really on display during US Opens, those of the pros or those of the USGA committee responsible for course setup. Unfortunately, it seems that the USGA has become a prisoner of it's own image. It's so enamored with being tough that it's afraid to try some new strategies. Maybe they should set-up an Open sometime that has long rough on some holes and shorter rough on others. Why should the rough have to be uniform hole to hole? Instead of 8 inch - luck of the draw - rough around the greens, perhaps they should let the greenside contours that the designer built in, challenge the players' short game skills more. No less an expert than Dave Pelz said Wednesday night that chipping out of the greenside rough is mostly about luck and not skill because of the type of grass and it's length.

One last question; if Tiger wasn't in this tournament and playing well, would you be as excited? Does a war of attrition make great theater? It seems to me that somewhere in the distant past you saw great charges during the Open, players making birdies on top of one another. But then again, maybe I'm thinking of someone else's tournament.