In the world of golf, today begins the U.S. Open, one of the four major tournaments in professional golf. This year, it’s being held at the historic and extremely difficult Oakmont Country Club, in Oakmont, outside Pittsburg. A hundred and twenty-five golfers qualified to play in the Open, and after two rounds, the field will be cut to sixty (plus any others who tied for the last spot) for the last two rounds. The winner will take home $4.3 million, while even the 60th place finisher will pocket something like $43,000.
Apparently, some of the professionals who qualified to play in the tournament have been complaining about the length of the rough (the grass outside the comparatively manicured fairways).
My sympathy for those complaints is ambivalent. First, the rough is there to penalize golfers with less control of their game. Second, the rough is there for all players. Third, by design golf is a game/profession designed to test those who play it because there are so many variables that can affect a player, and they’re often capricious. The wind can pick up or die down at times. Rain between rounds can change how fast the green is or how heavy the sand in a bunker might be.
Every golfer faces those varying factors, and professional golfers work extremely hard to sharpen their game to minimize their impact. But when a single stroke can make a difference of anywhere from thousands of dollars to over a million dollars, it can be difficult to be philosophical.
One young and moderately successful (and single) young pro golfer actually posted what it cost him to play the pro tour, and his rough estimate was $6,000 a week, and that was with comparatively basic costs. Given that the PGA tour consists of something like 32 tournaments and seven other events, there is certainly a fair amount of mental strain as well.
All of which might also explain why I gave up golf young, especially since, despite all my efforts, I was a high handicap amateur.
I thought having a high handicap in golf meant one was a less skilled player. Am I mistaken?
You’re right. I was a less-skilled golfer for many reasons. I’ve re-written the last line to clarify.
LEM,
Glad you posted this. I was an avid golfer and golf tournament fan for many, many years as I grew from young adult. I eventually gave the game up for other hobbies – in part due to the time involved playing a round on a typical course. Nevertheless, I still watch a tournament or two on TV.
Today’s pros have intense competition, but I can’t share much empathy regarding the courses they play. The game’s modern tools (highly engineered clubheads, shafts, and balls are designed to go farther than most golf courses were initially designed. Many tournaments now rely on severe rough outside narrow fairways with wicked fast greens to keep the frequency of ridiculously low scores in check.
I fondly recall Player, Nicklaus, Weiskopf, and others have the ability to hit a long irons and even drivers from the short grass. An occasional pro sometimes carried a 1 iron in the bag as the course dictated. Now, most sets bottom out at a 4 iron and I’m not sure the pros use those ‘long’ irons very much. Even the ladies tour has a number of the best women driving the ball routinely 300 yards.
Except for the marketing attraction from these long games, I’m surprised that the PGA hasn’t reformed the ball specifications to return the game a bit more toward it’s roots. How hard could that be? When I started there were two ball specs – US and British (the smaller of the two).
Just an old fart rambling here