Open Thursday

A tough day to blog.  Typically we'd be all over the varied U.S. Open threads, but there's actual news from elsewhere that features in certain U.S. Open pressers, so things might bounce around a bit.

Where to start?  How about with Lee Wybranski's posterization of the event:

It checks all the obvious boxes, but the liberal use of the yellow spectrum seems ill-advised.  Digging deep into the archives (well, Google's archives), we find this from 2008:

Is there anything that's as good as it used to be?  Come to think of it, that could prove to be an enduring theme of today's post...

So, Eamon Lynch broke the news of the double-secret-probation PIP program a while back, and today he breaks an even more shocking story:

SAN DIEGO — The PGA Tour is likely to ban the controversial green-reading books used by

many of its players before the start of next season, Golfweek has learned. The Tour’s Player Advisory Council voted to outlaw the books at a meeting two weeks ago. Support for the ban among the 16 players who comprise the Council was described by one person who was present as “overwhelming.”

The issue will now be voted on by the full board of the PGA Tour, perhaps as early as next week.

Take a moment, if you need it, to collect yourself, because none of us saw this coming....

The Players Advisory Council met at the Memorial Tournament in Ohio on Tuesday, June 1. Jon

Rahm, one of its members, joined the meeting virtually because he was subject to contract tracing for a Covid-19 exposure. He later tested positive and was forced to withdraw before the final round of the event when he held a six-stroke lead. The PAC is currently chaired by Rory McIlroy and includes players like Justin Thomas, Billy Horschel and Zach Johnson.

PAC meetings are also usually attended by the four most recent past chairs of the Council, a group that currently includes Jordan Spieth, Charley Hoffman, James Hahn and Kevin Kisner. All four are player directors on the board of the PGA Tour.

One player who was present at the meeting said support for the ban was strong.

“It was overwhelming. It wasn’t close,” he said. The player requested anonymity because PAC members are not authorized to publicly discuss their deliberations.

High-minded and selfless, right?  Well, mostly, though this guy's motivation is a bit suspect:

“I used to caddie for a player and when I asked him if he wanted a greens book for the week he said, “Of course I do! It will save me from bending over,” recalled another Tour bagman. “That says it all.”

Any guesses?  I have no inside information, but Eamon presents as if it's a done deal:

One member of the PAC told Golfweek that he expects the ban will be implemented in time for the 2021-2022 season. That season begins in just three months after the FedEx Cup playoffs conclude in September. The full board of the PGA Tour is scheduled to meet on June 22 in Connecticut at the Travelers Championship. That is the only board meeting that is planned before the start of the ’21-’22 season, meaning a vote to ban the green-reading books may come as early as next week.

The USGA has taken on green-reading books very recently, though bizarrely through regulating font size and the like.  The Tour seems unduly focused on how things look (the same applies on the subject of rabgefinders), though Shack notes that the USGA's prior efforts to regulate the subject bizarrely took on the hot-button issue of...well, font size:

Despite claims otherwise, the books slow the game down, provide an awful look for the “product” and have likely reduced time put into practice rounds in search of local knowledge. Oh, and the whole general skill of reading greens, imagination, etc. that was warned about when players fought to have the (expensive) cheat sheets.

The USGA and R&A attempted to reduce their influence—even while including them in official yardage books for their Opens—by changing rules on size of the information accessible during competition. The change has had the opposite effect, with players pulling the books closer to their face, appearing to work harder at reading smaller lines and only highlighting the absurdity of the books.

Which unduly punishes the more elderly... You see, it's a civil; rights issue.

 Rory had a reaction in his U.S. Open presser:

“It's not that it's an advantage really, it's just taking away a skill that takes time and practice to be mastered. I think reading greens is a real skill that some people are better at than others, and it

just nullifies that. It nullifies that advantage that people have. Yeah, honestly, I think it's made everyone lazier. People don't put in the time to prepare the way they used to, and that's why you see so many more players at Augusta, for example, take their time around the greens, hit so many more putts, it's because they have to. It's because there is no greens book at Augusta. Look, it might take practice rounds, it might make practice rounds a little longer, and you might have to do a little bit more work, but I think, once we get to the tournament rounds, it will speed up play, and I think it will help the guys who really have done their homework, it will help them stand out a little bit more.”

 This is quite stunning, as Shack notes here:

It’s a potentially unbelievable scenario should the players end up beating the governing bodies to killing off the books as a skill-diminishing tool. Particularly as the USGA and R&A are on the offensive to reign in de-skilling factors.

I'm a bit unclear on what he means by that bit, as we don't really understand their intentions of the larger issue of distance and equipment regulation.  And, while the players certainly deserve credit for doing the job the regulators seem desperate to defer, they have their blind spots as well:

The backstory: the USGA has a wonderful time par system used at all championships except the U.S. Open. That’s because the PGA Tour’s slowest would run into penalties if enacted at our national championship. So the USGA defers to a Tour-friendly slow play guideline in the interest of peace and minimal friction.

Bodenhamer had not seen the possible PGA Tour ban news given his role managing the championship. Still, it’s odd he was not briefed. That proved awkward not long after when Golfweek’s Adam Schupak asked about a recent incident in which the checkpoint system resulting in penalty strokes, costing a Final Qualifying player a spot at Torrey Pines. Bodenhamer explained how the system has been in place a long time and was then asked why that system is not in place at the U.S. Open:

We follow what is done with the Tours. It's more familiar. It's not something we impose here at the Open by choice on the players because we want to follow what the Tours do and do it collaboratively with them.

Baby steps...  

Rory also had some thoughts on arm-locked putting:

Q. When you were answering the question about the greens book, you said that you thought

maybe it would be better for golf if there wasn't a greens book. I think that's pretty much what you said. Can you talk about what other things you'd like to see changed that you think would better golf that currently are being implemented in the game right now? Like if it's anchoring putting, whatever it might be.

RORY MCILROY: I thought we got rid of anchoring putting three years ago.

Q. I don't know, did we?

RORY MCILROY: No, probably not (laughter). Yeah, that is certainly something that I would like to see addressed, as well, and I think there's a common consensus with the players on that one too. Look, the game of golf is in a great place. I think we always have these conversations of what we can do to make the game better or grow the game or expand the game.I think it's in a pretty good place. Yeah, there's a couple of little things that us golf nerds want changed, whether it be green reading books or arm-lock putting or whatever it is, but from a whole and looking at the game from an entirety of it, I think it's in a really good place.

It would be in an even better place if we could lose the hoodies....

Shall we spend just a few minutes on the venue?  We all remember the hoopla when the USGA announced the selection of Bethpage Black as the 2002 U.S. Open site, but Joel Beall speculates that 2021 will be the swan song for the People's Open:

This year the U.S. Open is "open" again with more than 9,000 entrants and more than 40 percent of this week’s field earning their invite through qualifying. And though it won’t be a full house there will be people at the people’s championship, at a people’s course no less.

“People’s course.” Maybe that’s where the romanticism lies, a prestigious event visiting a public venue. What a simple and beautiful concept. But a concept that warrants a requiem, as Torrey Pines likely marks the end of an era for the U.S. Open.

The 2021 edition will be the sixth time in 20 years that the U.S. Open is played at a municipal or daily-fee facility—places where 90 percent of golf in the U.S. is played—a remarkable frequency considering the tournament didn’t stop at a purely public site for its first 101 championships. However, there is not a single such facility among the U.S. Open’s future venues. Seven of the next eight years are spoken for, 2028 the only open date, and Merion is a good bet to start the new decade in order to coincide with the 100th anniversary of Bob Jones’ U.S. Amateur win that clinched the Grand Slam in 1930. That may be the last open date for quite some time. (Before we go any further, yes, Pebble Beach and Pinehurst are technically open to everyone, but so are commercial space flights and courtside NBA seats. If you want to play them, be ready to stay at the resort and have a bank account that rivals the GDP of Switzerland.)

None of us had any adverse reaction to the strategy, but the execution foundered in the mud of Bethpage and on the burnt-out greens of Chambers Bay.  

I at least understand why folks might morn the Open reverting to private venues, but why would you be wistful about this swan song?

The return of the U.S. Open to the South course at Torrey Pines in June marks the twilight of

another significant era in major-championship golf: 2021 is likely to be the final time a men’s major championship is contested on a golf course prepared by architect Rees Jones, who remodeled Torrey Pines in 2001 and renovated it again in 2019 ahead of this year’s event.

During the past 33 years, Jones has modified 12 courses for the U.S. Open and PGA Championship, covering 22 tournaments and four Ryder Cups. No other living architect has come close to matching his widespread association with major-championship golf or the influence on how these competitions look and play. Every design decision— fairway widths and orientations, tee adjustments, putting-surface expansion and contour, tree removal, bunker locations and depths—plays a role in determining how tournaments unfold and who is most capable of contending. Jones’ architecture has impacted the fortunes of a generation of major-championship winners with a mirror dimension of also-rans and what-ifs. However, the U.S. Open and PGA Championship will travel in new directions beginning in 2022, ones not likely—at least as it appears—to include the name or imprint of Rees Jones.

And why would you mourn that?  perhaps Baltusrol (no longer in the USGA's orbit) that best reflects the repudiation of the Jones clan:

More significantly, an increasing number of core-championship courses have embraced contemporary architectural trends at odds with Jones’ modernist style, restoring their designs to the more natural, organic appearances of their early years. Looking toward the future, clubs are turning back to their past. Baltusrol’s Lower course (site of the 2029 PGA Championship) and Congressional’s Blue course (the 2031 PGA), two clubs Jones had remodeled in preparation for previous PGAs and U.S. Opens, have each undergone substantive redesigns during the past 18 months based on the historical interpretations of Hanse and Andrew Green, respectively, rather than Jones.

Gee, Rees vs. Gil Hanse, that's a tough one.... I remember visiting Baltusrol many years ago at the invitation of friend-of-the-blog Mark W. and recoiling at the contrast of Rees' shallow bunkering with the traditional Tillie bunkers that define the course.  

This bit almost triggered a spit take:

His bunkering, as found at places like Torrey Pines or Bellerive, is edged with clean, artistic lines that curve and play with height and depth, suggesting a beaux-art formality. This sense of composure and tradition, and an almost self-conscious commitment to the proportionality between crime and punishment, runs through most of his tournament courses. “In my career the most important thing has probably been to make sure a recovery shot can be achieved and not to over-penalize a slightly errant shot,” he says. “That’s what the players most criticize.”

Really?  Beau-arts formality, that sounds so very sophisticated....  But I just happen to have a visual of what Rees thought Sleepy Hollow's iconic 16th hole needed (below on the right)

The words are all fine, they just bear scant relationship to the desecration left behind, what I once dubbed the "Reestrocity".  Modern golf architecture is mostly a repudiation of the effects of Jones père et fils, and thank God for that.

Brooks v. Bryson continues to absorb many more pixels than it merits.  I found this little sidebar highly curious:

And while there’s been some concern—given the antics at the Memorial Tournament, when fans repeatedly referred to Bryson as “Brooksy”—that having the two men play together on Thursday and Friday at Torrey Pines would devolve into a fracas, allegedly the USGA actually considered the possibility. At least, according to Brad Faxon.

Faxon, an eight-time PGA Tour winner who worked as a broadcaster when Fox held the U.S. Open rights, was discussing the possibility of a Brooks-Bryson pairing in an appearance on SiriusXM PGA Tour radio.

“I found out last night that the USGA actually did call Bryson DeChambeau and his agent, and asked them if they would be okay with that, and Bryson declined.”

Huh?  You want me to believe that Brad Faxon is the only one who knows this?

It's been denied by DeChambeau's camp , but ask yourself this... Does it seem likely that the USGA would seek approval for early round pairings?  I'm always reminded about Frank Hannigan's remark to Shack that the USGA's biggest weakness is its need to be liked. But to the point of seeding control of pairings?  

Joel Beall finds the absence of the craved for Brooksie-Bryson pairing to be for the best:

Monday’s coastal fog was gone but the air remained heavy Tuesday, filled with the sighs of a sport aggrieved. Oh how we wanted it. We don’t ask for much. Just give us this. The USGA may

have tried to deliver it, too, if certain folks are to be believed. But there will be no early pairing of Brooks Koepka and Bryson DeChambeau, and that, in the parlance of the nearby La Jolla Shore Beach surfers, is a bummer.

A bummer in the moment, at least. But it is for the best. The truth is we know not the consequences of our desires.

We promise, this is not a life-gives-you-lemons, make-lemonade spin. This is recognizing our want—to see the boiling feud between Bryson and Brooks spill out on, and possibly over, the Pacific cliffs of Torrey Pines Thursday and Friday—was myopic. You do not put the heavyweight championship on the undercard. Billy Joel does not open with “Piano Man.” The superhero faces the villain at the end of the movie. (We have no idea which golfer fills which role in that scenario.)

We were blinded by instant gratification. We were willing to trade in two years of buildup and animosity and theater for 36 holes that would have ended this little production.

Fair enough, though I still believe that the most compelling reason to avoid a B-B pairing in the first two rounds is that they actually play as threesomes... While the idea of throwing PReed into that combustible mix had a certain superficial appeal, the simple fact is that no third-party deserves that.

Plus it holds out the eternal possibility of such a pairing happening organically with the tournament hanging in the balance.... Unlikely, but who knows?

Time for another segue, an Elizabeth Nelson item for the New York Times Magazine, that curiously equates the Naomi Osaka story from the French Open with the Brooksie-Bryson cage match.  I don't think I buy much of her thoughts, but you might react differently.  

I should first admit to a skeptical reaction to he lede:

For those of us who follow golf, pleasure rarely comes as pure as it did a few weeks ago, when some golf-world insider leaked an unaired confrontation between the sport’s most notable warring hulks.

Does she?  My default position is the assume anyone employed by the N.Y. Times has an inherent loathing for our game, but just keep that in your mind as we proceed.  Here's her take on the golf bit:

It’s difficult to describe exactly why this burst of antagonism between large men was so

enchanting to golf media. Part of the explanation has to do with the game’s by-design status as the most passive-​aggressive of televised sports. The magisterial slowness of the contest creates a false intimacy among competitors, who are often paired together, moving down the course in a dance as awkward as anything Larry David could concoct. To cover the sport is to know of a nontrivial number of players who wouldn’t cross the street to pour water on a fellow pro who erupted in flames. But owing to golf’s byzantine, Edith-Wharton-style bylaws of decorum, it verges on impossible to get any of them to come out and say this. So they maybe do other things to bug one another, like taking a ludicrous amount of time to line up a two-foot putt, or telling a playing partner “nice shot” after what is objectively a terrible shot, or chewing their granola bars extra loud. Once you’ve seen enough of this hidden needling, open hostility can feel like the ultimate forbidden fruit.

She does score a couple of hits there, as there's no question that that the PGA Tour tries to present an illusion of comity and manners that doesn't exactly conform to reality.  I find that Tur policy off-putting, but more because I actually believe that most of these guys are, in reality gentlemen, and that the non-conforming are a minority. 

Nelson then introduces the Osaka affair into the mix, though I find exactly zero connective tissue to the golf story.  I find the Osaka story bizarre, for the simple reason that I vividly recall her going out of her way to be a social justice warrior at the U.S. Open, but now she's too wracked by internal demons to answer a couple of questions?  Seems highly problematic, though anything that focuses attention on Serena's disgracefully hissy fit at that 2018 U.S. Open finals is all for the better.

But this coda is puzzling:

All this suggests the two sports are having difficulty understanding both their audiences and their athletes. They proceed from the premise that their tissue-thin veneer of high-minded sportsmanship and sometimes incomprehensible notions of etiquette are celebrated attributes, not turnoffs. But evidence suggests the opposite. Fans don’t want pageantry; they want intimacy. Increasingly, the stories that grab the public are those that break up the placid, corporatized surface of the game — a tennis star who chooses self-care over a major, or two large golfers who seem ready to fistfight. We recognize the image-​crafting guardrails that surround every sport, and we perk up when we see them falling. Is this what happens when sports stop being polite and start getting real?

Whereas I think she's making the classic blunder of misinterpreting the golf (or tennis ) public and media from the general versions thereof.  Yes, the B-B and Osaka stories break out of their lanes and engage the general public for a brief moment in time.  But as tempting as it might seem, those folks are not your fan base and won't be with you for the long term.  It might seem wise to engage them, but that engagement also risks antagonizing your core fans... 

She also seems to think that golf feuds are something new, which is most certainly not the case:

13 of the greatest feuds in golf history

Brooks and Bryson don't like each other, but the intensity can't match 'Zinger v. Seve....  And that piece just covers the modern era, Nelson's head might explode if she were made aware of the animosity between the Morrises of St. Andrews and the Parks of Musselburgh.

I'm going to have to leave you here, and will not have time to blog tomorrow morning.  I've booked far to many social engagements for the next three days, which will limit my time in front of the screen.  But Sunday will be sacrosanct, and we'll be back with a full wrap on Monday morning.