Embrace Debate

The U.S. Open, historically, provokes the strongest feelings and opinions of the golf year. It can come on setup, rules, certain players, courses, the host organization, or all of the above. But there are takes, and always have been. They’re often exaggerated. They’re often, in the hindsight of calmer moments, silly. It had been this way for decades. Then, you add the instant reaction megaphone of social media to this already opinionated cauldron, and woo boy…it’s quite a mixture. This has often put the USGA on the defensive, which is a place they’d probably prefer to avoid but are quite comfortable with by now.

The 2023 edition was not immune to this, as you well know. Early in the tournament, it was the lower scores posted at LACC. Those went away but the narrative took root. Later, it was the lack of “buzz” or “juice” on the ground due to limited general admission tickets. At the the wire, it was one tee shot that seemed to condemn the entire setup of all 18 holes and the golf course itself.

Reader, I am here to admit I got caught up in this last bit of agitation. When the shot tracer of Wyndham Clark’s drive cut across my screen as he instantly looked back to his caddie for more direction on where it was sailing, and then it landed comfortably in the fairway…well I ran to grab my pitchfork. I was bothered by it. I was also amused because I knew what was coming. But it still felt like a ref missing a call late in a game. That swing, that shot, that ball…did not deserve that friendly whistle or flag! I did not think the championship had been tainted or it was any comment at all on the merits of the golf course. But I was bothered by it in the moment. My Twitter feed—from hot take artists and carnival barkers to level-headed pros and journalists I respect—provided the affirmation I wanted. In the moment, anger was consensus. I took a screenshot of these three appearing in succession in my feed.

By the time we were set to record the Shotgun Start a few hours later, I had settled down and fully appreciated the circumstances that created the consensus uproar. The rooting public wanted Rory McIlroy to win, or they at least wanted a playoff. Wyndham Clark provided hope for that down the stretch with a couple loose swings and bogeys. The 18th tee shot appeared to be another one…Yes! We sports fans are going to get some more drama and excitement! It was all set up for people to lose their shit, adding a bookend to the first impression in the opening hours of the tournament that the course and setup were too easy.

There was a lot wrong and unfair in some of the grand proclamations based off this one shot. The wholesale condemnation of the course and the setup is obviously stupid and one I cannot accept. It’s not fair to Clark’s work on the preceding 71 holes—he’d been hitting a cut to various degrees for much of the weekend, including a big sweeping one at the much narrower (artificially by the USGA) 12th hole, where others were hitting irons on a straighter line up the hill. It’s ALSO not entirely fair to Clark because of what was left to be done on that hole alone! More than 80 percent of the players hit that fairway, but only half hit the green and it was playing over par, among the toughest of the 18 holes on Sunday. Most players were finding the fairway, but what came next had been the harder question and one that Clark answered quite well. That was lost in the anger over one shot tracer image. The whiparound to the caddie was, at least in part, due to playing into the setting sun. I think the championship had the right outcome, or at least, certainly not the wrong one based on one tee shot.

And yet! I am still thinking about it. Is it ok to be fine with where it landed but still less comfortable of the path it took to get there? I accept the defenses for the 18th fairway width. I’m also not yet ready to say the people bothered (the level-headed ones, not those condemning the entire course for it) by that shot landing comfortably in the fairway are wrong. Does that make any sense? Maybe I’m just being a gutless “both-sideser,” but I’m open to the entire discussion and I think some of the most strident defenders of the course and setup should not feel personally offended by someone suggesting that it was a not a great swing, or a reckless shot undeserving of its fate. There is also a modern equipment component to this we could set aside for another day. I don’t love seeing Titleist ads touting Clark saying, “When you miss with the Titleist it stays within the parameters that I need to play good golf.” How much of a miss? Is there any penalty for any real miss? Does the fairway width need to try and make up for that equipment aid? No, of course not, but that doesn’t make me less irked by the major winner trying to steer it in over some shaky final holes then touting the equipment-aided miss.

The right team won. But I’m still thinking about a possible missed call and didn’t find the debate over it all that unreasonable. How are you left feeling about it?