by Hal Watson
While my comments are probably redundant, I had to put my two cents worth in. First, the National Open is not about entertaining anyone, particularly the typical TV viewer, it is about determining our national champion. The USGA's duty is to put on a championship that does that, even if no one watches or comes. The USGA is fortunately the one governing body in sport that recognizes that its constituency is the sport first, its club and member golfers second, and that the "public" doesn't count. Bravo to the guys in the blue blazers.
Second, I think that the USGA has done a pretty good job over the years in accomplishing this. As another commentator noted, virtually every great golfer of every generation (Sam Snead excepted) won the National Open. Of course there are the Sam Parks, the Jack Flecks, etc., but while I haven't done a statistical analysis, my guess is that the National Open has been won more consistently by players universally recognized as "great" than any other tournament with the possible exception of the Masters, particularly when compared with the average PGA tour event.

by tripp champion
I guess if the "public" doesn't count according to the USGA, then the tournament shouldn't be televised on "public" airwaves. Instead the network should run I Love Lucy during the US Open time slot - if the men in the blue blazers are true to their mission. But, they may have to weigh the impact of their decision to be elitist curmudgeons against the loss of ad revenues and prize money. I'm sure the USGA would be whole-heartedly behind the concept that the National Open is not about entertaining anyone -especially when it hits them in the wallet.

by Alan Windom
There are plenty of us PGA tournament followers who had rather see somehting other than a driver and a wedge on every hole. That is boring. Golf is full of bad bounces. That's part of what keeps you coming back. Stop bashing a tough set up. It is good to see the pros express a little frustration and humbleness for a change.

by Mike Mcconnell
I agree wholeheartedly with the open set-up. These guys make 20 million a year with three clubs, driver, wedge,and putter. Let then see how the rest of us struggle.

by Jim
Making the course more difficult for the Open actually brings more players into the mix. Every other tournament favors the guy that can drive the ball 340 with little premium on accuracy or shot making. Accuracy, shot making, and putting are mandatory at the Open.

by Duanne Harvey
I agree with you. It seems that every
year they try to make the Open harder
and harder. WHY? As far as I am concerned, the USGA should have nothing
to do with golf. They haven't done anything constructive to help the golf
game in over 40 years. What a bunch of
stuffed shirted idiots.

by Matt P.
The USGA is far from perfect, but it is absurd to say that they have not done anything constructive in 40 years.
They have provided tens of millions of dollars to support golf for juniors, for persons with disabilities and for the disadvantaged.
They have made the Rules of Golf more effective and easier to understand (with more work needed there).
They worked with manufacturers to put reasonable limits on balls and clubs.
They have led our golf courses to more responsible maintenance practices.
They have funded research that has produced new turf grass varieties that are less costly to maintain.
They have worked with the NCAA and other groups to make the rules of amateur status fair for a greater number of golfers.
They have lobbied clubs throughout the USA to end discriminatory membership practices.

by Russ
The USGA is the symbol of ruling body on the world of golf. They take $20 Buck from about say 20M people each year to run the handicap system.
There are no better documented handicaps on the face of the earth than a PGA Tour player. They average abour +3 to +5 on their handicaps.
Why does the USGA want to have their showcase event where each player is shooting at least 8-10 shots HIGHER than their handicap each round?
I asked a USGA Official this after our Saturday round at Pinehurst a few years ago. His reply was classic USGA: "The USGA only expects you to hit your target handicap once in every four rounds." I then asked he he was expecting a lot of 65 and 66's on Sunday since no one had done it yet that week.
He turned around and walked away.
I agree that the US Open is a joke, but there is not a schlub out there.

by Gene
You just don't get it, do you? The US Open has always differed from the other pitch and putt tournaments, and I hope it always will. I would rather see the Open played on a course where par is valued, than on a course where there is no premium on accuracy and a score of 15 under par finishes somewhere in the top ten. And, who cares if the "casual fan" doesn't watch on TV? Is that the measure of the quality of a golf tournament? Let the casual fan watch their indoor football or extreme fighting or some other nonsense on TV. I'll take the US Open where golf is being played as it should be played, not as it is played in the usual PGA style from week to week.
By the way, here are some of the "schlubs who hold absolutely no chance of winning any other major" that have won US Open titles:
Jim Furyk, Tiger Woods, Payne Stewart, Ernie Els, Tom Kite, Hale Irwin, and going back further, some schlubs named
Tom Watson, Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, Johnny Miller, Lee Trevino, and Gary Player.
Gee, what a bunch of Schlubs.
Gene C

by mike michael
I disagree with you. I find nothing exciting about watching guys hit 360 yard drives and pitching wedges to greens and shooting 22 under. That is boring...This is a test whether you agree or not.