‘That Mythical Edge’:
USGA’s Fay Discusses Open Prep

David Fay, executive director of the United States Golf Association, answered questions from visiting journalists during Media Day at Pinehurst Resort on April 11.

Here is an edited transcript of the exchange:

DAVID FAY: Clearly, we are delighted to be back at Pinehurst. Just for the record, this is the sixth-year interval from the last Open. The last time we saw a period that short was in 1940 and 1946 when we were at Canterbury. And that was sort of by mistake, because coming out of World War II, the USGA wasn’t really sure where it was going to hold the 1946 U.S. Open.

I can assure you, this was not a mistake. We are delighted to be back so quickly.

It’s really hard to build on the success of one of the most successful open championships of all time in 1999. Anyone who was watching it remembers the high drama, the way the activity, the action unfolded, culminating with that unbelievable putt that Payne [Stewart] made. So the question is, well, what are you going to be doing this time? Essentially we are in the same wonderful house, and we have just changed the interior decorating of a couple of the rooms just a little bit.

If you were to look for the major changes for this year’s Open, it would be on the second hole, a new back tee that looks as if it’s been there forever. It adds about 22 yards. The fourth hole — again, I believe that back tee looks as if it’s been there forever. Plus 15 yards. The 11th hole is plus 23. And the 14th is about 32 yards longer.

One of the things with Pinehurst, unlike some of our Open Championship sites, is that wind isn’t necessarily going to be a big factor. And because of the relative flatness of the fairways, and the ability of these players to hit the ball straighter than perhaps was the case 25 years ago, maybe even six years ago, the fairways by and large have been narrowed an average of four yards on the fours and the fives.

But other than that, it’s the same great golf course that we saw in 1999. One of the items that was given to you is the U.S. Open Championship philosophy. I’m not going to go through the 14 points, and there’s nothing really mysterious about the U.S. Open philosophy, but we felt that we’d better do a better job of articulating what it is. ...

I would imagine that probably the thought that’s on the minds of many of you, is: Based on what happened last year, which was a fabulous championship where we named a great champion, a repeat champion, Retief Goosen, what’s going to be different? Is this going to be a kinder, gentler USGA, a kinder, gentler U.S. Open?

Let me tell you that nobody at the USGA was happy with what happened on Sunday [in last year’s U.S. Open at Shinnecock Hills, N.Y.]. We simply weren’t. Frankly, I wasn’t all that pleased on Friday night when, after the first two rounds, the course, in my judgment and in the judgment of my colleagues, wasn’t playing the way we wanted it to. ...

Those of you who were there or were watching it may recall that Shinnecock on Thursday and Friday, basically had the teeth out of it. The rough wasn’t penal at all. It was playing a little on the soft side. And, in fact, I think a number of members of the media and even the players were saying, “You know, this isn’t the Shinnecock we remember from ’86 and ’95.

What happened on Sunday? It got away from us. But one thing I can assure you is that we still want the U.S. Open to be a tough, fair championship, with emphasis on the word tough. Because that’s the history of the U.S. Open. It’s not a history of 25 years, it’s a history of over 100 years.

Think back to the early years of the 20th century, at Myopia Hunt Club, the toughest golf course in the world. Then you go to Oakmont beginning in 1927, the same thing. You go to Oakland Hills in 1951, the monster of Ben Hogan’s. You go to Olympic in ’55. You go to Winged Foot in 1974.

We’re not trying to provide a tricked-up layout. That’s not what our intent is. But we want a thorough examination of every facet of the players’ game. And that’s what we strive for. And in attempting to get to that tough edge, that mythical edge, sometimes we fall over on the other side. It’s not by design. ... It’s science, yes, but a lot of it you just have to do by feel.

I have complete confidence in the people who are setting up this year’s Open Championship. And my hope is it’s going to be another great one. If we had the weather we had in ’99, I would be ecstatic. But I’m not that greedy. I think I would say if we get somewhere between the ’94 Senior Open weather and the ’99 Open weather, then I would be very happy.

Q: What was it back in ’99 or before ’99 about Pinehurst that led you to decide to come here after so many years?

A: I think the best answer to that was you have to go really back to 1972. That was the first time the U.S. Open was played other than in a major metropolitan area, when we went to Pebble Beach. Then we moved on to 1986 at Shinnecock.

We learned that you could go to a great golf course, and there’s no doubt that Pinehurst No. 2 has always been regarded as a great golf course. There was that period of time where [it was poorly] maintained and ownership far removed, and then — thank you, Bob Dedman, No. 2 was brought back to its greatness. We realized that had you didn’t need to be in a major metropolitan area.

And thanks to an entity called the President’s Council here in the Carolinas, all of the things outside the ropes that you sometimes worry about, selling corporate tents, getting the involvement of the business community, the civic community, that was all taken care of.

So I know that before ’99 there were a number of people, maybe some of you in this room, who were saying, how is it going to work at Pinehurst, North Carolina? Well, it worked exceptionally well because every one got behind it. So we knew what the golf course was; it was great. And we also knew that we were able to take the U.S. Open to — I won’t call this remote, but not a major metropolitan area.

Because one thing we learned, even in the ticket sales, is this: While it’s the national championship, many of the people who come here are the same year-in, year-out. I’m not going to say that if we had the U.S. Open in Nome, Alaska, it would be a sellout. But I think the strength and the appeal of the championship goes a long way.

Q: When you talk about taking the golf course and making it tough, what specific challenges does this course present where you push the edge here? Is it the greens?

A: The greens, the greens, definitely the greens. I mean, that’s the last line of defense on No. 2. And that’s the thing that we’re going to have to be very careful about. I think it would be safe to say we would like to basically take the hole locations that we had in ’99, use that as the standard template — but recognizing that the weather that we had in ’99 was a little on the cool side, a little on the wet side. So we may have to back off a couple of those hole locations.

I sure hope we’re not going to back off the hole location of the 72nd hole. That is, there’s too much history there. But definitely when Mr. Ross designed this green and over time the way it’s evolved, the greens are the last line of defense.

Q: If the weather is more June-like, how is that going to make the golf course play, and how is that going to affect scoring?

A: Well, I’m not sure what June-like is like. Because I could have told you June-like in 1994 was very hot, very humid, with thunderstorms. Then we had ’99. So we have to be nimble. That’s what we have to be.

Q: The seventh hole at Shinnecock was the focus of a lot of the controversy there. Is there any hole on No. 2 that you’re going to have to pay particular attention to in that respect?

A: Because of the greens and the crowned greens here, we’re going to have to regard just about every putting surface here very gingerly. There are good hole locations. There are enough hole locations for four rounds. There are enough hole locations even if we have a playoff on Monday. But we have to be exceedingly careful. ...

Q: With apologies for looking ahead past this Open already, are there plans or are you looking into bringing it back again after this one? And if so, would the turnaround be as quick?

A: I’m not Carnac. I can’t tell you that. (Laughter)

Q: Would you like to?

A: Well, I don’t believe that we ever go to a U.S. Open course with the idea that it’s going to be a one-and-done. Because if that was the approach, just take it to a golf course one time, then one could question why we’re going there the first time.

Certainly, in the eyes of most people who follow the game, this is in that top tier of U.S. Open golf courses and U.S. Open golf areas now.

Q: Can you talk a little bit about last year and how it was so hard to make corrections on the fly from the first two rounds to the weekend? What have you done philosophically or physically to make sure that that doesn’t happen again this time?

A: Even though we have put a lot of attention into the philosophy of the setup, as I said earlier, these points really are not different than the points we have operated under for as long as I’ve been with the USGA. We’re just going to have to be more sensitive to changing weather patterns.

Q: That seemed to be the biggest problem at Shinnecock last year, that they couldn’t anticipate the weather conditions. Yet there were people up there that had been up there for over a year that kind of knew those weather conditions. Are you doing anything different in regard to that part of the equation for this U.S. Open?

A: No. No. We certainly rely on the sophisticated weather equipment, but we’ll also rely on the judgment of those who live in the area. I don’t think, though, that we’re going to be dealing with ... places like Shinnecock hills, which can change quickly.

Or take places like Pebble Beach. Remember, not just in 2000, but also in 1992, and 1983 or 1982. And 1972. Things changed out on the peninsula. We all probably remember how the conditions were when Tom Kite won the Open at Pebble Beach and just how horribly tough they were. He was one of the few people who solved the riddle. There was a solution, and he was one of the few who solved it. There was a solution last year, and it was tough, and Retief Goosen solved it. And Phil Mickelson solved it for 16 holes.

We’re going to take in any and all information. But I don’t think that the challenges here are the same as at a course where the wind off the ocean and you can get dramatic changes in the weather.

Q: Assuming that there will be a par-70 layout again ... maybe you could just go over the philosophy again of changing a par-72 to a par-70, when it’s basically a cosmetic change.

A: Sure. That’s a good question. It’s not something relatively new. I remember there was an article in one of the national publications following the Open at Oakland Hills. It was an open letter to Ben Hogan, and it said, “Can you believe it, Ben, they played 18 as a par-4.” Well, I’m sure Ben could have said, “Yeah, I can believe it, because they played 18 as a par-4 in 1951.”

It goes back over 50 years, and if I were to summarize it, it would be the following for the greatest players in the world: If you have a choice between a borderline ho-hum par 5 and a very stern par 4, we’ll by and large go with the 4 every time. Whether it be the 18th at Oakland Hills, whether it be the 17th at Olympic, whether it be 9 and 16 at Winged Foot West, whether it be 7 and 1 at Baltusrol.

Q: Is that more of almost a psychological test for them as well, because you have changed it?

A: For the players, I guess it can be psychological. You wonder why, because it’s just a number. But I think it is good in today’s game where you do see players using long iron and maybe occasional wood into a par 4.

Q: Are there any specific plans for the rough? Because talking to the players in the last two U.S. Opens, they say that sometimes the way it’s cut the ball just goes down somewhat, not all the way down, and that’s why they were taking a driver and saying, “Who cares about the rough?”

A: Yeah, that’s a good question. And that was definitely on our mind Friday night at Shinnecock. Because we had that. But again, it’s not an exact science. But I do believe that three inches of Bermuda, which is what we’re planning to grow here, will get almost that mythical half-shot penalty, where it’s not pitch-out, but you’re not going to be controlling your ball very well.

And if you don’t control your ball, and you don’t have a certain amount of spin trying to get it onto these greens, it’s going to be very vexing.