Tuesday Tastings - Eighteengate Edition

Not looking to depress you, but it's mid-June (hope you had a joyous Juneteenth, whatever that might be), but there's exactly one golf tournament remaining that means anything until next April.

You think the free golf is the only perk of being a golf journalist?  After the conclusion of Sunday's final round Golf.com's writing staff were apparently allowed to don their onesies and not file until Monday morning.  Hence a delayed Tour Confidential.  Given the leisurely schedule, you'd have expected more from their insights:

Wyndham Clark held off a couple of fan favorites in Rory McIlroy and Rickie Fowler to win his first major, the U.S. Open at Los Angeles Country Club. Clark won his first PGA

Tour title last month at the Wells Fargo but is still not a player with whom many fans are familiar. What most impressed you about how he handled himself and his game this week?

Jessica Marksbury: That short game. Wow! On the few occasions when it looked like Clark was in trouble, he came through with some incredible up and downs. Bogey save at 8. Par saves at 9 and 11. He was never flustered, just businesslike and in the moment. His composure was aspirational, and I think it was what truly won the day.

Josh Sens: Agreed. Another way to say it is that he never compounded a physical mistake with a mental error. His trouble on 8 was a good example. When he tried hacking out of the junk with his third and the ball went nowhere, you could see his frustration. But almost as quickly, you saw him gather himself and limit the damage. That was a huge moment and emblematic of how he carried himself all week.

Alan Bastable: What most impressed me? That he won! On Sunday mornings at the majors, we press-tent “sharpies” look right past guys like Clark. This tournament was Rory’s to lose, or Scheffler’s to snatch — or maybe, just maybe Fowler would find a way to get it done. But untested, unproven Clark? Nah, surely he’d wilt under the white-hot spotlight. Jess is right — his chipping was something to behold. Whenever he missed a green, his wedge seemed to save him.

Zephyr Melton: I was most impressed by his moxie. From the time he let out that ferocious club twirl on 18 last night, he had a certain look in his eyes that the other players just didn’t. Sure, he made some mistakes on Sunday, but he never looked out of his element. Although those in chase were major champs, Clark had the most poise of anyone in the final round.

Ryan Barath: Wyndham played his game and stuck to his plan. He relied heavily on his go-to fade and it worked perfectly down the stretch. Also, it’s hard not to talk about how well his short game and putting held up on Sunday considering how many other players around him had trouble on the greens.

Jack Hirsh: I have to piggyback off Jess here: his short game on Sunday was incredible when he needed it most. His up and downs on 1, 6, 9, 11 and 17 when the pressure was highest was the type of stuff that should win you a major. Not to mention his up and down after finally taking two shots to hack out of the junk on 8. That could have been a big number and it ended up being just a bogey.

Shocking that we'd be impressed by a guy that just grabbed a U.S. Open.  That short game was nails, and I was pretty impressed as well by that 60-foot two putt on the final green.   

And on that Orange Man (don't panic, the good one):

A resurgent Rickie Fowler started the final round tied for the lead with Clark but faded from contention with a five-over 75. Given where Fowler’s game has been in recent years, it’s hard not to look at his U.S. Open as anything but a success, but what’s your overall assessment of his week?

Marksbury: I really thought the stars were aligning for Fowler, but he seemed a little flat right from the start. Golf is so, so hard, especially a U.S. Open. And Rickie was carrying so much weight in expectation and fan adulation. Going wire-to-wire was a big ask. Still, such an awesome thing to see him in contention again. Definitely a positive, and luckily we still have another major to look forward to in the Open Championship, where he’s shined in the past.

Sens: You could look at it either way. As a sign of further progress or a crushing disappointment. The important thing will be how it sits with Fowler himself. Based on how he has handled himself during recent struggles, I suspect he’ll focus on the positives, doubling down on what he did to put himself in contention while trying to figure out what went awry on what was, let’s face it, a huge downer of a final round.

Melton: I think the week was ultimately a disappointment. Yes, getting back into contention is all well and good, but no one gets to the Hall of Fame with moral victories. Chances like these don’t come around often, so letting this one slip away has to hurt.

Bastable: Tough but fair, Z-Man! Major-title chances don’t grow on trees (unless you’re Rory) so you absolutely need to make the most of every one of them, no matter your past struggles. I will say it was fun to see Fowler in contention again. I walked nine holes with him Friday and he seemed in total command of his ballstriking. His father, Rod, told me that Butch Harmon has been a savior for Rickie — not just in terms of finessing his mechanics but also strengthening his mind. No doubt they’ll rehash this Sunday together, break down what went wrong and build on it.

Barath: Although Sunday wasn’t his day, Rickie proved that he can still hang at the top of major championship leaderboards. As a gear nerd, the one thing that stuck out down the stretch was how close his ball speed was to other players in the last few groups. Is he still one of the longest on Tour? No. But the modern game is so much about speed and he still has plenty of it, and I expect him to snag another win soon.

Hirsh: I think this week was great for Fowler winning on Tour again, but if he didn’t get it done today, I just don’t see him rallying to win a major in his career. That run in the early part of his time as a pro as one of the game’s elite putters has come and gone and that will always be the strength of his game. He can’t win majors without putting lights out all four rounds. His ball-striking has made great strides with his work with Butch again and it’s only a matter of time before he finds the winner’s circle, it just probably won’t be a major. I hope he proves me wrong.

I was rooting for him like everyone else and certainly gave him his props yesterday, but perhaps Day Two of the news cycle is a time to cautiously inject some realism into the discussion.  A reminder that is, that at the top of his powers, Rickie never won much of anything.... Yeah, we all thought that electric finish to his Players Championship win would kick-start a tear, but the thing is that we were all wrong....

So, perhaps expectations should be tempered a bit?  Just sayin'....

Now we veer into the newest cottage industry, dissecting yet another Sunday that got away from Rory:

Another major, another close-but-no-cigar week for Rory McIlroy. What stood out about this near-miss that was different from the ones that have preceded it?

Marksbury: For me, it was the fact that McIlroy stayed in it right to the end. Several of his top 10s have come from epic Sunday charges when he was never really in contention. This time, he was hanging around the whole time, and really battled. It was great to see, though it must be massively frustrating for him. That fifth major is coming though, I know it!

Well played, Jess.  You were so thoughtful that we hardly noticed you moving those towering goalposts....

But here's the thing.... Rory started the day one shot behind two guys that were highly suspect on the lead of a major, yet your ecstatic that he managed to "stay in it right until the end"?  I'd argue that that's quite the low bar for this guy.... 

Sens: Much was made about him taking a more conservative approach, and I think there’s a lot to that — he avoided the disaster holes that have been his undoing in some other big events. But he also got away with a couple of very poor shots in crucial moments — that wedge into the bunker face on 14, for instance, and that wild hook off the tee on 17. He was fortunate in both cases. Otherwise we might have been talking about his closing stretch in a very different way.

Melton: It didn’t feel all that much different from St. Andrews. It started with a few missed opportunities early and by the back nine we were all counting holes and begging for putts to drop. A different verse of the same song.

Bastable: Right again, Zeph — Rory said as much after his round. It was Old Course 2.0. He didn’t make any major gaffes but also never applied any real pressure on Clark, just as he didn’t make Cameron Smith sweat in St. Andrews. One lonely birdie when you’re chasing? Not good enough. On to Liverpool we go.

Barath: Once again Rory nearly walked away with a win, even after having a very so-so putting week. His swing has found a groove and I believe he has shown that he has taken his game to a new gear in the last month as he tries to hunt down his fifth major win. As Jessica said, he stuck around right to the end and only lost to one player.

Hirsh: Agree with Zephyr too, this felt exactly like the Old Course. It also felt a lot like the last two weeks with McIlroy tying the lead on the first two holes only to never make a serious charge the rest of the day. His putter has really betrayed him the last few weeks on Sundays. It’s really painful to keep watching it, but I really think he wants it more than anyone else, especially after his comments Sunday evening. That definitely counts for something. I think I might pick him for Hoylake.

As Josh notes, not only did he get away with a few incredibly loose swings, but he also caught the better side of the draw.  Like these folks, I also see the connective tissue to St. Andrews, not least the tentative putter.

As I said, all the cool kids are contemplating the "Wither Rory" issue:

Was this U.S. Open the same Rory McIlroy heartbreak? Think again

Big, if true, so whatcha got?

What made this week different from St. Andrews was that McIlroy got chased down last summer in Scotland. Cameron Smith shot 64 at the Old Course to run away and hide. But this tournament, eight time zones west, was there for the taking all day long. Clark dropped shots on the 15th and 16th, energizing the tame LA crowd with the prospect of a McIlroy major. Rory didn’t need to scan the leaderboards because updates were screamed at him every few minutes. Fans barked out Clark’s bogey on 15. They shouted about his bunkered tee shot on 16 and celebrated his missed par putt when he reached the green.

 And that's different why?  Different year, venue and competitors, but tell me again why it isn't the same old Rory?

McIlroy’s week may have finished with a similar result to St. Andrews — he even shot the same final-round score — but it felt decidedly different. The recent news of the PGA Tour’s partnership with the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia undercut McIlroy in such a way that made him feel like “a sacrificial lamb.” Those are his words, and they hurt when you hear them. He responded at the Canadian Open with a press conference he called the most uncomfortable feeling of his year; he tied for ninth and arrived in Los Angeles with a newfound, restricted media presence. He canceled his pre-tournament press conference, intimating that he had said all he needed to say, then shot an opening 65 and refused to talk Thursday night.

these are what I like to call distinctions without differences.... ultimately this is about as convincing as it gets:

For McIlroy, the biggest difference between Sunday in LA and 11 months ago in St. Andrews was how convincingly he left things. When asked if it was exhausting to answer questions about major disappointment time after time, he said yes, “It is. But at the same time, when I do finally win this next major, it’s going to be really, really sweet. I would go through 100 Sundays like this to get my hands on another major championship.”

Really?  First, where he sees a "convincing exit" I see empty rhetoric.....  Obviously immune to irony, as the author seems overly-impressed with Rory's words just when the market value of such verbiage (as evidenced by that June 6th shocker) has reached bear market territory.  

ESPN has this as well:

Rory McIlroy resolved to win again after U.S. Open defeat

I'll agree that he uses all the right words.... But is he sufficiently resolved to fix the obvious weaknesses in his game?  Is he sufficiently resolved to move on from the boyhood-best-friend on the bag?   Is he, in fact resolved, or does he just use words that sound like resolution?

Back to the TC gang on the venue:

This U.S. Open represented a coming-out party of sorts for the Gil Hanse-restored North Course at LACC. The players offered mixed reviews — with some praising the course for rewarding creative shotmaking and others bemoaning sloping fairways where tee shots congregated in the same spots. What was your read on how the course performed as a U.S. Open test?

Marksbury: It felt like a tale of two courses: the opening round, and the weekend. I am not one of those “protect par at all costs” people, so I wasn’t really bothered by the ultra-low scores at the beginning. I think the players are better judges than I am, watching from home, so if they were bothered by it, there’s probably good reason. But I certainly enjoyed the downtown LA vistas and real estate eye candy. And at the end of the day, 10 under won, and that sounds about right for a U.S. Open.

Barath: As a lover of classic course design, I think LACC looked amazing and stood up well to the best players in the world. It rewarded well-played shots but when a player missed it became costly. Too many courses are very one dimensional, and the leaderboard reflects that, but one look at the top 20 at LACC demonstrates the course offered players with a variety of strengths a chance, and that’s the best sign of a well-designed layout in my opinion.

Sens: If you’re into seeing how architecture influences strategy and shot-making, I don’t know how you couldn’t have enjoyed it. The USGA probably erred too far on the side of forgiving on Thursday but for the first go around with this event, better to err on the side of caution. We’ve seen how quickly things can get out of hand if you ratchet up the torture too early.

Bastable: This course is a blast, the kind you’d never tire of playing if you’re lucky enough to be a member. Does it instill fear like an Oakmont or Winged Foot? It does not. But when it started running fast and firm over the weekend, it proved to be plenty tough. As Min Woo Lee said, “I played my ass off for the last four days, and I’m only five under.” I liked what Bryson said when he compared it to a links course. That’s exactly how it started to feel (sans dunes and ocean breezes) as the fairways and greens baked out.

Melton: I thought it was fantastic. It might not have had the carnage that many begged for, but it had lots of interesting holes and produced some compelling golf. Big fan of LACC.

Hirsh: I agree with everything said so far with one big exception. The tee shot on 18 was far too easy. This is my only gripe with the golf course. Clark did not hit a good tee ball with a one-shot lead, totally overcooked his fade and missed it probably 30 yards right of where he was looking. But that fairway is 60 yards wide. I will look forward to the 2039 U.S. Open at LACC (especially the 6th hole again!) but they’ve got to toughen up that 18th tee shot.

A couple of quick reactions, then we'll link to a deep dive hinted at in the header....  First, I liked the venue very much, though it came up just a little short of love, mostly because the course never got as firm as many of us had hoped.  No doubt the USGA was overly cautious on Thursday, not least because of the need to get 156 players around the joint.

But about that Wyndham Clark tee ball on No. 18?  Geoff is on the case:

We all know what happened. Wyndham Clark came to L.A. Country Club’s 18th needing par to win the 2023 U.S. Open. He aimed left and hit a large cut, then looked immediately to his caddie wanting to know where the ball went. The hole was declared too easy and end times declarations flowed. Some conjecture even implied the 56-yard fairway and apparent free pass Clark received somehow compromised the entire championship and may require years of therapy for old school U.S. Open lovers to grapple with.

I’ll try to present this rebuttal with only traces of condescension—right, too late—even after reading or listening to hot takes likely infused with emotion due to the player Clark beat, views of how a U.S. Open should play, and because Twitter has become a giant sewer of stupidity warranting empathy for those still in the trenches.

Let’s start with the setup backstory before we get to the particulars of Clark’s tee shot.

• The hole is 502-yards and rises 45 feet from tee to green.
• It plays into the late afternoon sun, a design flaw.
• Quad subscribers who read the pre-tournament 18th hole deep dive know this was a regrettable situation for architect George Thomas who hated first and 18th holes playing east and west.
• Thomas worked with an existing sequencing and nearby road that’s become a large boulevard when he redesigned the course, so he was limited in repositioning the first and 18th.
• The green design rewards a drive up the left side to back right pins.
• I reward drives down the right-to-left pins. People call this strategy.
• Right of the fairway is hazard marked with a red line. Some call this a penalty area.
• Prior to the U.S. Open and in consultation, the USGA narrowed the fairway significantly.
• Professionals who visited for practice rounds made dramatic declarations, with some even threatening to play up the first fairway.
• Club members were also not thrilled by the added difficulty of the hole.
• Some of the frustration was legitimate. Players felt the fairway bunkers were placed to lure you up the left and should not have rough behind them. Fair.
• Others simply felt it was a contrived contour on a setup otherwise free of them. Also fair.
• The USGA listened. The team of John Bodenhamer, Jeff Hall and Scott Langley made the decision to go back to the original width in March, 2023 after consulting many parties (including yours truly who agreed with their desire to not have the finishing hole be a source of unnecessary controversy.)
• They are sincere in their setup philosophy of reflecting the architectural intent and remained so in making the change back.
• And here’s the most vital fact: the right side where Clark hit his final round drive was always intended to be fairway for this U.S. Open.

Feel better?  And the hole was hardly a pushover, especially on Sunday:

• Round 1: 482 yards, 4.100 scoring average with 23 birdies, 98 pars, 32 bogeys, 3 doubles to rank T11

• Round 2: 490, 4.150 with 18/102/31/5 to rank 10th

• Round 3: 491, 4.200 with 5/44/14/12 to rank T9

• Round 4: 502, 4.320 with 4/38/21/2 to rank T3

I think we can chill on this one, especially given that Rory's drive on the same hole was far snarkier and ended up in a far better spot.

One last bit on the ticket program, which seems quite disgraceful to this observer:

The USGA limited ticket sales to 22,000 per round, although only 9,000 were general admission while 13,000 were left for LACC members and/or spectators and businesses that purchased private suites or pavilions. “We could’ve sold 40,000 tickets a day,” said USGA chief Mike Whan, “but we sold 22 [thousand] to make sure the experience here is still a quality experience for those that get on the golf course.” Some players felt the vibe lacked energy, with defending champion Matt Fitzpatrick calling the atmosphere “very poor.” What do you think? Did this feel like a U.S. Open? Or should the USGA have made more tickets available?

Marksbury: I guess it depends on your definition of “quality experience.” Here in Arizona, we have hundreds of thousands of people who descend on the WM Phoenix Open and it’s one of the Tour’s premier events. LACC certainly looked like it could comfortably accommodate more people. More fans make it more fun, in my opinion. That said, I’m sure the USGA had their reasons for doing what they did.

Melton: The energy seemed to be lacking, at least based on what we could see on TV. Major championship crowds should lean more rock concert than library. Next time they’re at LACC, I hope they open the floodgates.

Sens: In the early rounds, I thought — this is a bummer. Way too stuffy and sleepy. But by the end I’d come to realize that it was nice not to hear knuckleheads hooting inanities after every shot. Pick your poison, I guess

Bastable: When there are seemingly as many pavilions and “chalets” on the course as grandstands, something feels awry. The sloping topography and hemmed-in greens undoubtedly posed a challenge in terms of fan placement, but I still think the USGA could have let 5,000-10,000 more general-admission spectators in the gates. On the days I walked the course, there was plenty of available real estate for fans to roam and park themselves. As I understand it, there was also much resistance from members who didn’t want masses of fans overrunning their club. Here’s hoping both sides can get on the same page the next time the Open visits — in 2039.

Barath: Having experienced the course on the grounds Monday to Wednesday and then the rest of the event from home I see both sides. The grounds at LACC are very hilly and some of the walkways and paths were narrow to the point of being potentially dangerous if crowds were moving too fast or trying to get ahead of groups. If the goal was to maximize fan movement and experience, I think they did the best they could. On the other side of things, a LOT of the grandstands were purchased by corporate hospitality, including around the first tee, which prevented more fans from being in busy areas to offer “juice” to the atmosphere. Considering it was a first time venue I still call it a win.

Hirsh: As a Philadelphia native, I’ve been reminded how this was the same number of fans let in at Merion in 2013, which is also a tight, poor spectating golf course. However, I don’t recall the same lack of energy. I think it’s clear we’ve started to overdue the hospitality experience at golf tournaments. What’s the point of going to a golf tournament and sitting in the air conditioning to watch on TV when I can do that from home or a regular sports bar and save $10 a beer?

I can't comment on the 22,000 limitation, because I just don't know the logistical constraints of the venue.  But I thought I saw elsewhere that only 4,500 slots per day were available to the general public, so I think it's cute when they lecture us on growing the game and then take care of their friends...

What story from this U.S. Open didn’t get the attention it deserved?

Marksbury: I’ll pick the low-hanging fruit here and go with the ball rollback. USGA CEO Mike Whan did address it, but it seems like it was still a topic that was far from front and center.

Melton: Xander Schauffele’s collapse! He opened with a 62 and then didn’t break par the rest of the week. I think we’re all asking when he’s going to finally break through.

Barath: Has anyone mentioned that Wyndham Clark was using the same putter as Rickie Fowler? (Yes, I kid, since it was a popular topic on the broadcast). Beyond that, my real answer has to be the new emerging identity of the U.S. Open created by the USGA. By focusing less on the idea of par and letting great courses showcase their design features, it’s slowly helping to educate more casual golfers about course architecture, and a more educated golf audience is a great thing.

Sens: It’s not a U.S. Open story but, man, that news about Jay Monahan faded from the conversation pretty quickly. Almost any other week, that would have lingered longer in golf-world headlines.

Bastable: Um, what’s going on with Justin Thomas?

Hirsh: Stole mine, AB. Hello, Jon Rahm backdoor top-10. The buoy remains unsinkable.

So, Rahm is guilty of cultural appropriation....from Rory?

I was planning to ease us gently back into LIVistrata but, upon further review, I don't see why that can't wait until Thursday.