David Barrett

Golf with David
June 19th, 2008

Long-time golf journalist David Barrett covered the U.S. Open for us this year.

- GolfObserver editors

Stirring drama on a proper stage

I heard all of the "greatest U.S. Open ever" talk on Sunday and Monday, but wasn't sure about it. I figured it needed a distance of a few days in order to be able to put it in perspective and not be overpowered by the excitement of the moment.

Photo: © Doug Pensinger/Getty Images Rocco Mediate and Tiger Woods provided more than their share of thrills.

Here it is, a few days later, and I have to say that it probably was the greatest ever. I say "probably" because it's so hard to compare championships from such vastly different eras as 1913, to mention the most prominent other contender, and 2008. Also because it's so subjective to compare tournaments that were great for different types of reasons.

The main two factors that make a tournament great are the drama provided by an overall storyline and the drama provided by the events of the championship itself. This championship, more than any other, had both in spades.

The overall storyline at Torrey Pines, of course, was Tiger Woods and his knee. It was compelling enough during the championship to watch Woods struggling through pain as he played in his first event since April arthroscopic surgery, and that angle has become only more compelling with the news that Woods will undergo reconstructive surgery and miss the rest of the season--and that his doctors told him not to play.

Even without that framework, this Open would rank near the top just on the events of the week. There was Woods' 30 on the front nine on Friday, his two eagles and a chip-in on the last six holes to take the lead on Saturday, and, of course, his tying birdie putt on the 72nd hole on Sunday. There was not only the presence of an amiable, well-liked underdog in Rocco Mediate, but also the fact that he threw three consecutive birdies at Woods on the back nine of Monday's playoff to take a one-stroke lead before Woods birdied the 18th hole to tie (again!).

This was one playoff that wasn't anticlimactic. The only bad news about this Open for those who would prefer a sudden-death or four-hole playoff (I actually think 18 holes is appropriate for the national championship), is that now there's no way the USGA will change it in the near future.

It came out as a virtual dead heat among four championships: 1913, young amateur Francis Ouimet's upset of British greats Harry Vardon and Ted Ray; 1960, Arnold Palmer's charge to victory in a final round when a dozen players had a chance; 1962, Jack Nicklaus defeating Arnold Palmer in a playoff to represent the changing of the guard; and 2000, Tiger Woods wins by 15 strokes in the all-time individual performance. (The 1962 Open came out ahead if you assign points on a 10, 9, 8, etc. basis, but it's tough to say it is considered the greatest since none of the eight experts picked it No. 1. In that regard, 1913 was on top with four first-place votes.)

After that, came a group of three: 1950, Ben Hogan's comeback from life-threatening injuries; 1930, Bobby Jones wins on the way to a Grand Slam; and 1982, Tom Watson chips in on the 71st hole to outduel Nicklaus.

Those championships all had compelling storylines. Most of them were close, and were won by legends of the game, but none provided the stirring excitement we saw at Torrey Pines. (I was surprised that 1999 wasn't up there, as Payne Stewart's putt provided the greatest 72nd-hole drama ever until this year, and capped a tension-filled final round.) And the legendary playoffs of 1913 and 1962 fizzled before reaching the last hole.

Interestingly, the majority of those top seven championships came down to a player or players parring the 72nd hole to win or get into a playoff. That's the usual Open opus moderandi. The exceptions were Woods' runaway victory in 2000, and Jones (1930) and Watson (1982) making birdie on the final hole to win by two (Watson in the final group, but Jones finishing his round well before runner-up Mac Smith).

Torrey Pines was different, thanks to the decision to play the 18th hole as a par five instead of converting it to a brutal par four. Also to play it two tees up in the 535-yard range instead of its full length of 573 yards.

Photo: © Ross Kinnaird/Getty Images The course set-up enabled Torrey Pines to put its best foot forward.

Decisions like that one made Mike Davis, the USGA's Senior Director of Rules & Competitions, the week's other big winner, along with Woods.

This was Davis' third year as the USGA's course set-up man, and probably the first that his ideas came to full fruition. He's the man behind the "graduated rough" scheme of intermediate rough for about 10 yards close to the fairway and then deep stuff beyond that. The idea is to penalize the more errant drives more severely, and also allow options--but by no means an easy shot--for players missing the fairway by a smaller margin.

This was the first time the plan worked as intended. At both Winged Foot in 2005 and Oakmont last year, the rough was so thick that even the shorter stuff was hard to get out of with anything but a wedge. This was due partly to weather and partly to memberships and superintendents that are zealous about making their courses play difficult.

Davis' other big idea is to vary the tees at a number of holes, sometimes depending on hole locations, others just to make the hole play differently and give players something to think about. This worked beautifully at Torrey Pines, which was listed at 7,643 yards but in reality played less than that every day the way it was set up by Davis and cohort Jim Hyler, chairman of the USGA championship committee. The tee variety and graduated rough turned what many considered to be a relatively dull Open site into an interesting one--and that played no small part in how the championship played out.

Let me say here that previous USGA course set-up honcho Tom Meeks was not to blame for all past woes. In fact, he was the one who pushed the USGA away from its brutal-rough policy, starting with 1999 at Pinehurst. It was his idea to give players a shot at the green from the rough, with the purpose of providing more interesting play without necessarily making things easier since hitting greens of Open firmness from the rough is highly problematical. He did make some notable set-up mistakes, such as not moving up the tees on the 10th hole at Bethpage Black in the second round in 2002 when it played into the wind, rendering many players unable to even reach the fairway.

Davis has taken the rough idea one step further with the graduated scheme and added flexibility in day-to-day set-up. He's done the latter in such a way as to bring birdies and risk-taking into the picture on certain holes. He likes the idea of driveable par fours so much that he moved up to the most forward tee on the par-four 14th, at 267 yards making it a par three-and-a-half where the majority of players went for the green (but only a minority of those who went for it made a three). That was his most visible move. But he's also been active behind the scenes, opening up lines of communication between the USGA, the club, and the superintendent in an effort to avoid the kind of debacle we saw in the final round at Shinnecock Hills in 2004.

Ironically, Davis' first two years resulted in the highest scoring we've seen at U.S. Opens in many years, with 5-over winning both times. I was afraid we would hear more criticism from media and players in those years. That we didn't might have been in part because Davis is one of the nicest and most accessible guys you'll ever meet. But it was also, I think, because people recognized the soundness of Davis' ideas and that the high scoring resulted from other factors, like really tough courses, advanced agronomy practices leading to firmer greens, weather conditions, and greens that were bumpy (2005 at Winged Foot) or just exceedingly difficult to putt (2006 at Oakmont).

At Torrey Pines, everything fell into place, and it helped lead to perhaps the greatest Open ever.

Will every Open be like this in terms of drama? Certainly not. But Davis is doing his best to provide the kind of stage on which drama can unfold.

Back to top