Talk:U.S. Open (golf)
Latest comment: 1 year ago by 68.146.201.246 in topic Summary by course, state and region
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 4, 2014 and October 4, 2016. |
Table
editGood work on the table, Osomec. One thought that I tried to put into effect was, after the first reference to something that could link to another article (golf course, town name, golfer), I thought it made the article far more "readable" to not have further links to it. Otherwise I feel like the article gets lost in a sea of blue-and-red text (cf. the PGA Championship article). Just something to think about while you're working on this fine table.
- I know that some people don't like having lots of links, but I don't find blue any harder to read than black. I really dislike seeing a table or list with splashes of black (ie missing links) which this one still has; I think it looks messy and incomplete, rather than neater. All the red in this table should be gone within a few months; I've been working on the U.S. Open champions without articles and I'm up to 1907.
Nationalities
editIf anyone has information that any more the early British born and raised U.S. Open champions became U.S. citizens before winning the U.S. Open please update the table and give details in the player's own article. Thank you. Osomec 2 July 2005 22:30 (UTC)
My proposed table compromise
editLook and adore:
edit
Comments on Table
edit- The table compromise looks good to me, but the controversy isn't about what the heading should read, but rather how to indicate the venue locations: by using the name of the actual town or city within which the venue is located vs. using the place name which the United States Postal Service (USPS) has designated as the "default" for use with the ZIP code within which the venue is located (quite a convoluted method).
- The former method is based on fact and avoids the USPS' bias for efficient mail delivery. The latter is problematic, because it 1) ignores those cities and towns that must share a ZIP code with a neighboring city or town (the USPS uses only *one* default place name with each ZIP code, and only creates new ZIP codes when there is growth in mail delivery, not to recognize the existence of other cities or towns); 2) remains frozen in the time (the 1960s) during which the ZIP code system was introduced, because the USPS never changes the "default" place name, even when it does not fit or apply very well anymore.
- It should be noted that most of the U.S. Open tournaments listed took place *before* the ZIP code system was introduced; it therefore is arbitrary to choose that as the "standard". It also is hardly a "compromise" to have the name of one place name link to a different one. Readers who, for instance, click on "Englewood, Colorado", are probably looking to find out more about that city. It makes little sense to have the article on "Cherry Hills Village" pop up instead. Isn't there some Wikipedia standard that says that links actually have to link to the article with the same name?
- Additionally, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia - a compendium of facts - with the goal of educating, not misleading the reader. Someone browsing this article should not get the impression that a venue is in one city or town, when it is actually in another. If the person is interested in mailing a letter to a venue, s/he will have to search elsewhere to get the mailing address anyway. It is then up to her/him to use whatever place name s/he wishes with the ZIP code that the venue is in, be it the "default" place name, another "accepted" place name, or even a "not acceptable" place name (the letter will invariably be delivered in this case, as long as the correct ZIP code is used).
- A final point: other articles that mention or list the venues here identify their actual locations; thus a venue may be "located" in one place in this article, but in a different place in another article. This is inconsistent and not "becoming" of an encyclopedia. I know of no Wikipedia standard that says articles should refer to locations based on the "default" place name of their ZIP codes, as defined by the United States Postal Service. Gellersen 23:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Isn't there some Wikipedia standard that says that links actually have to link to the article with the same name? - Not to my knowledge.
- My main goal is that the town/city/township/community should be listed, regardless of ZIP code. Cherry Hills is in Cherry Hills Village, right? Why don't we put Cherry Hills Village instead of Englewood? As for the Olympic Club and Riviera, stay tuned. --fpo 00:15, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
- When, in a publication for general consumption such as this one, you note where something is located, there is an implied message that you have made a good-faith effort to make that location as identifiable as possible. Picking a location that is overly localized or obscure insults the reader, while picking a location that is too far away merely to have a notable landmark is inaccurate. Furthermore, in recent decades in the United States, affluent suburban communities have made it an increasing habit to dissociate themselves from urban cores by playing up obscure local boundaries when referring to community identities. My solution to this is to use the USPS default town name for a given ZIP code. Whatever biases the USPS uses to establish these references, they are not driven by race, culture, or class. Furthermore, it allows us to avoid making a subjective judgment about what towns are adequately well-known to be referred to as the primary reference in a location chart, such as in the U.S. Open article. It is standard and consistent for all venues. As you note, this is an encyclopedia; we should not be using ad hoc methods for matters such as this, but instead should use a systematic approach. My approach balances these issues in a standardized fashion. AppleFan84 00:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
- RE: making things identifiable - this is an encyclopedia, and a hypertexted one at that. In the case of Cherry Hills Village, if someone does not know where that is, all they have to do is click the link, and they have an entire article that describes the place. Wikipedia is about educating.
- I don't dispute Wikipedia is about educating. But consider this example: I live in Bath Township, Michigan. If I introduced myself to someone as being from there, or wrote that I lived there, even on Wikipedia, it would be needlessly obfuscatory. I would say I am from East Lansing, because that's the town name for this ZIP code. In that way, I don't need to judge how notable a municipality I need to live in before I can refer to it as such. I use the USPS standard, and if I am pressed for more information, I provide it. I recognize that the link should connect to the precise municipality, but the chart ought to use a more general standard.
- I don't know what the local conventions for referring to place names are in Michigan - but why not say you're from "Bath Township"? would you be laughed at? looked at quizzically? branded a social outcast? In any case, I don't think that's the point. What we say in casual conversation is different from what would appear in an encyclopedic article. If you were talking to someone living outside of Michigan, you might not even say you're from "East Lansing", but instead "Lansing" or maybe even "Detroit"! In casual conversation, you can choose how specific and deliberate you want to be - an encyclopedic article should, however, be specific and factual.
- I'd just come off as a jerk trying to show off his knowledge of little-known township boundaries.
- RE: who decides what is "overly localized" or "obscure"? The USPS gives thousands of very localized and obscure places their very own ZIP code - take Olympia Fields, Illinois for example, one of the venue locations. Doesn't using "Olympia Fields" insult the reader, making "Chicago" - a more identifiable place - a better choice?
- And so they have made the decision for us. We cannot be accused of showing favoritism to courses we know and are familiar with over those we are not. For example, nobody in this discussion has decided to take up the case of Brae Burn CC. My method treats all venues and communities even-handedly. If, in the opinion of the USPS, Olympia Fields is a sufficiently large town or well-known community that it is worthy of having its own ZIP code, we can point to their decision and say it is not for us to second guess them and make ad hoc decisions about what's notable enough and what is not.
- The problem is, the USPS does not apply an even standard and its methodology is fraught with problems. Consider this: immediately south of the Cherry Hills Country Club lies the city of Centennial, with a population of over 100,000 people. (There are only seven cities in Michigan that are larger.) Yet because the city was incorporated long after ZIP codes were introduced, all the ZIP codes in Centennial have "default" place names of other cities, that were applied to the unincorporated areas that now form Centennial. By your methodology, Centennial does not exist. And it is likely never to "exist" according to your standard, because the USPS doesn't change "default" place names. The USPS has, however, acknowledged the new political reality by introducing Centennial as an "acceptable" place name for the ZIP codes within the city limits.
- My methodology does not deny it exists but would (assuming your assertion here is accurate and I have no reason to dissent) use a different textual reference but link to the proper article. This is not as odd as you think; just in the golf area alone off the top of my head, many links to the International Federation of PGA Tours links to an article about tournament golf; a related notion, to be sure, but not the institution that is the International Federation.
- Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Because you aren't familiar with the locales of all of the venues, you would take it upon yourself to introduce *your* personally-defined standard and apply it across the board. What about someone like me, who is familiar with Colorado, who comes by and sees that Englewood is not the correct location for the Cherry Hills Country Club? Someone else comes by, and with their knowledge of another area, makes another correction. In the end, the most correct version would come about. As long as each time the correction is defended, and does not demonstrate "favoritism", why can't it stand?
- I sought consistency. Pure and simple. My aim was to develop a technique for geographic references that would not depend on local knowledge. To make geographic references objective. As I see it, your approach provides for grey area; while the Cherry Hills Village flap may seem clear-cut, how do we deal with unincorporated locales (like Gladwyne, PA or Medinah, IL)? How about the confusing nettle of localities and place names in Massachusetts? I sought a technique that would provide for no grey area.
- The USPS did not/does not base "default" place names on whether towns are "sufficiently large" or "well known" or not. Tiny villages of a handful of people get their own ZIP codes, while places like Centennial must use the ZIP codes of other cities. Thus the USPS methodology is not always a reliable means of establishing what is a legitimate place name and what is not.
- RE: affluent suburban communities. You may disagree with what people in so-called affluent communities do, exercising their right to establish governments within the laws of the state in which they are located, but if a certain independent municipality exists, then an encyclopedia should include it, not ignore its existence. What are you saying? "affluent communities" that are not part of an "urban core" should act as if they are, against fact? In the case of Cherry Hills, the "urban core" is Denver. It can be argued that Englewood has acted itself to disassociate with Denver, yet you are saying "Englewood" must be used!
- Which is precisely why using the USPS notation is the safe choice. Professional civil servants have made the decision to use those designations. As I noted above, I do not dispute that we ought to link to the precise locality, but that the chart ought to have the link text use the USPS designation. Again, in this fashion we cannot be accused of showing favoritism to this or that venue or community that we are familiar with; the geographic reference was arrived upon in a systematic way.
- The people who set up the ZIP codes would be more accurately described as statisticians and mathematicians. "Professional civil servants" and elected public officials, on the other hand, preside over places like Cherry Hills Village. The USPS answers to no one, really, as it applies its ZIP codes across the land. You put a high level of trust in the postal officials, who care a lot about efficient mail delivery but little about reflecting political boundaries.
- My entire position is based on the notion that some political boundaries are worth recognizing and some are not, because some political boundaries are meaningful to large numbers of people and some are not. And I am more inclined to assume statisticians and mathematicians will make a decision I trust than the typical elected official.
- As noted above, it seems ridiculous to have a link going to (surprise!) some other place than would be expected. What is the casual reader supposed to make of it? is it a broken link? are there two different names for the same city? at least there would have to be some disclaimer explaining this oddity.
- Anyway, to rephrase the same question I've posed before, how is it showing favoritism to use the actual name of the city or town in which a venue is located? Using the default ZIP code place names shows favoritism to the USPS technocrats. Why are they deserving of this honor?
- RE: biases. You are suggesting that the existence of the City of Cherry Hills Village, for example, is driven by race, culture, or class. How do you know that? But even if it is, the fact is, it DOES exist, and the Cherry Hills Country Club is located within it. Using some other place name is not any less racist or classist - but it is incorrect. And how do you know that the existence of the City of Englewood is NOT based on race, culture, or class?
- That's precisely what I want to avoid. Maybe Cherry Hills Village is like that and maybe it isn't. Maybe Englewood is and maybe it isn't. But my intent is to avoid making a decision on those merits in this case, so that all other circumstances don't have an implicit judgment hanging over them. When we do it the same every time, they're treated equally.
- Another rephrase: how is it not treating things equally, by using the actual name of the city or town in which a venue is located? By using your methodology, every single entry has the "judgment" of the Postal Service hanging over it. Why does it have the last say?
- Why does this article have to be your personal crusade against so-called racism? does the act of not using the names of supposedly "racist" or "classist" cities or towns in this article somehow make the world a better place? It only makes the article less correct.
- I haven't accused any of these towns of being "racist" or "classist". I've never been to most of them, and never will. I am totally unable to evaluate them. Which is why I seek a method that balances relevance with impartiality.
- Why is it up to you to evaluate all of them, or find a methodology that will do that for you, since you can't? Why not allow other Wikipedians to participate with their evaluations until an end result is generated that most closely reflects REALITY, and not necessarily the national ZIP code directory?
- Finally - note that the majority of the venue locations listed ARE affluent communities! Using your rationale, the list still hasn't been rid of all the suburban communities that may act to disassociate themselves with "urban cores".
- When a community has been granted its own ZIP code designation, and we choose to abide by the same, we can avoid criticism on those grounds and instead encourage our critics to "take it up with the Postal Service." We subordinate our own judgment to that of professional civil servants, which is common practice (e.g., Census data; we use those data because they are official, even though we know they are not accurate with metaphysical certainty).
- As noted before, the USPS is inflexible and isn't particularly interested in aligning its ZIP code boundaries, which are based on how to deliver mail at the lowest cost - with political boundaries, which are based on the will of the people. The so-called "professional civil servants" at the USPS don't even really employ judgment, they simply implement a scheme that was decided upon decades ago, which now has a life of its own. If I walk into the Cherry Hills Village city hall, a "professional civil servant" would provide an official and legal document showing the city limits, with which I can then verify whether or not the Cherry Hills Country Club is contained within them. If I walk into the 80113 post office, will I find a "professional civil servant" who will verify the city of an address that the post office delivers to? would the clerk even understand the question? I imagine you use the USPS' online ZIP code locator to make your "judgments". Where are the "professional civil servants" that created this database? have they been to all of the places that they have made their "judgments" on?
- RE subjective judgments. There isn't a problem - if a place is not well-known, the reader is at the right place! S/he can click on a link, and find out about the most obscure places! How does Olympia Fields, Illinois (pop. 4,700) make the cut, while Cherry Hills Village, Colorado (pop. 6,000) does not? How is Olympia Fields adequately well-known, enough to be included in this location chart, but the larger Cherry Hills Village is not?
- Because it has its own USPS designation. We don't have to make a judgment. We let the USPS make it for us. If they decide to give a town its own ZIP designation, my approach assumes that as the standard to meet to satisfy the "relevance calculus".
- As above, I don't see why the USPS is so highly qualified to make this judgment.
- RE systematic approach. How is simply using the actual name of the venue's location not systematic? There's nothing to "balance" - if it's in Olympia Fields, it's in Olympia Fields! If it's in Cherry Hills Village, it's in Cherry Hills Village! No consulting the USPS ZIP code finder, just look at a map - it's either inside a certain city's boundaries or not! Gellersen 01:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
- It does not strike me as socially conventional to refer to locations by their hyper-technical locality.
- To return to the first point, what is said in conversation (i.e. is socially conventional) is different from what would appear in an encyclopedic article. And using Cherry Hills Village, for example, is hardly "hyper-technical": the USPS *does* identify it as an acceptable place name and it is no more obscure than any number of the other venue locations.
- As it is, I start a new job tomorrow that is likely to preclude my further involvement with the Wikipedia project. So if this is how you want it to be, it's going to end up that way.
FYI - my new compromise isn't going to happen. Let's work with what we have. If someone doesn't know where Cherry Hills Village is, or where Edina is, then they can learn about it! As for Olympic Club... --fpo 15:25, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Comment I've been asked to comment on this, and I have to say that from my British perspective the dispute is out of proportion to the importance of the issue. Only Americans take local boundaries this seriously, so my comment is that I'm really not bothered, and I don't think many other non-Americans would be either. I would just say that since I believe we have articles about every location in the U.S., thanks to Rambot, there should be no red links. But there aren't any at the moment, so that is good. Osomec 14:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Who decided to miss-up with this page, and the template above does not even match the other three major championship articles on Wikipedia, so why did you all do this because everything is suppose to be the same throughout on wikipedia. Bluedogtn (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
This template is suppose to match the template of the PGA Championship Stroke Play winners.Bluedogtn (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- This chart is suppose to have the winners score as well! It did before somebody deleated it!Bluedogtn (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Its suppose to include the flag in the Country Section please look how I did it.Bluedogtn (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Ted Ray
editTed Ray (winner 1920) is the same person as Edward Ray from Jersey (1877-1945) who won The Open Championship 1912 (runner-up 1913 and 1925). He went to USA for the first time in 1913 along with Harry Vardon but they lost to Francis Ouimet. He was the man who first suggested the Ryder Cup to Sam Ryder and he was the Ryder Cup captain in the first match in 1927. He was a long hitter and his drives often were 250 meters. He was a notorious pipe smoker and he smoked all the time when he played. At first he was the club professional at Ganton Golf Club and between 1912-1940 at Oxhey Golf Club.
I don't want to write the Edward Ray article since my english is not that good. //StefanB sv 21:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, it was George Duncan that first suggested to Sam Ryder that Ryder Cup should be an annual tournament. //StefanB sv 15:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Title - United States Open?
editShouldn't this article be titled "United States Open" considering that is the formal title (with US open redirecting here)? -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 08:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Go to US Open official website and see how many times, if at all, the USGA refers to the tournament as the "United States Open". I think the only time United States Open is used is on the trophy. I think it's fine the way it is. Crunch 12:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- The New York Times, a liberal newspaper with a "conservative" manual of style, generally does not abbreviate country names. 207.210.134.83 (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
2007 link in table and 2007 US Open detail page
editPresently, the year "2007" in the Winners table links to the detail page for the 2007 tournament, whereas previous years link to "200X in golf". I would recommend that 2007 be linked to "2007 in golf" in order to be consistent with the other years, but I would further recommend that an additional link or table (to be filled with further pages) be added to the detail page. I believe 2007 is the first year to have one, though I believe future years will receive the same amount of attention as this year. Therefore, I would personally recommend developing some way to link to the detail pages on this page - I don't at this time know what the best method would be, however. Stewunit 01:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Olympic Club
editThe Olympic Club's clubhouse and road entrance is in San Francisco. The Lake Course is entirely mostly within San Francisco, I believe, though it's possible at some times the course straddled the boundary. Here's a map:
--ABIJXY (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Further research suggests that various media sources give the mailing address as either San Francisco or Daly City. The club's website says it is in San Francisco.--ABIJXY (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Gender exclusivity
editUnfortunately I can't find the source at the moment, but I remember reading that the U.S. Open was an example of a strictly gender-separated tournament, i.e. men are not allowed to compete in the women's tournament and women are not allowed to compete in the men's tournament. And apparently there has been a least one woman who has qualified for the main (men's) tournament, but was told she was not allowed to participate. The article, however, currently says that the tournament is open to both male and female golfers, although no citation is offered. Perhaps the qualifications have changed over the years, but it would be good to find out for sure. Kaldari (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Michelle Wie advanced to a second stage in qualifying for the U.S. Open in 2006, but did not advance from there. Hard to believe she would be allowed to compete in qualifying if she was not allowed to compete in the final tournament. Is there a reference for a woman who did qualify for the U.S. Open? Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds like Isabelle Beisiegel has apparently tried to qualify for the U.S. Open as well (she has played in the PGA Tour Q-school, and got a card on the Canadian men's tour last year).[2] I don't see anything which says that women are excluded. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm going to see if I can dig up some more info. The qualification wording on the application forms is ambiguous. It doesn't explicitly say you have to be male, but it says that you have to have a "men’s Handicap Index not exceeding 1.4". The wording on the women's application also doesn't say you have to be a woman, but it says if you are transgender you have to get special clearance, thus implying that men would not be allowed. Kaldari (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- I found a source, but it's extremely old, and the woman didn't actually qualify, she was barred from applying.[3] It sounds like if they are allowing women to compete in qualifying, they must have gotten rid of the exclusion. Kaldari (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm going to see if I can dig up some more info. The qualification wording on the application forms is ambiguous. It doesn't explicitly say you have to be male, but it says that you have to have a "men’s Handicap Index not exceeding 1.4". The wording on the women's application also doesn't say you have to be a woman, but it says if you are transgender you have to get special clearance, thus implying that men would not be allowed. Kaldari (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds like Isabelle Beisiegel has apparently tried to qualify for the U.S. Open as well (she has played in the PGA Tour Q-school, and got a card on the Canadian men's tour last year).[2] I don't see anything which says that women are excluded. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Male or female, ref added, 2012 entry form. Babe Zaharias tried to qualify in 1948, but was rejected. - Tewapack (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't see that. Strange that they mention it in the Age section! Kaldari (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Now I'm curious to find out when the qualification rule was changed, but I suppose that would take a lot of digging :P Kaldari (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting... though not surprising for that era. I doubt they had to have a standfast rule, but could deal with occasional application. If there was ever more than one :-) That newspaper article says it was an informal application; maybe they could have declined under grounds that Zaharias' handicap was based on the women's tees at the time, not men's, though that would probably have been easy to fix. Unlikely there were many attempts between then until more recent decades, though she had a quote in that article, "maybe next year it will be different". Wonder if she ever tried again ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Now I'm curious to find out when the qualification rule was changed, but I suppose that would take a lot of digging :P Kaldari (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
1988
editThe 1988 championship was played at oak tree national in Edmond Oklahoma not massachusetts and was won by Jeff Sluman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.206.47 (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
- Wrong, that was the 1988 PGA Championship. Tewapack (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Addition of current broadcast information
editI have twice reverted the addition of (unsourced) information relating to this years broadcast. This content seems like a clear violation of WP:NOTTVGUIDE and also has WP:RECENTISM issues. This article is about the US Open in general and all detail should be in some way relevant to the tournament as a whole, not just one (current) edition – we have a separate yearly articles for such detail. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have twice reverted the reverts of the troublemaker above. I specifically asked, in advance, not to undo the information I added about the network coverage, information which is in fact added every single year!!!!! But of course, he felt the need to undo a perfectly good edit, as he always does. Felt the need to undo an edit that, each year, no one ever has a problem with. The information is easily verifiable and has no need to be removed. If it were a bad addition each year, someone would have removed that information each year. But it has never been removed, until now, by someone who likes to go around removing everything and has established a reputation for doing so over the last few months. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- I've removed it. If it is to be included anywhere, it would be at 2020 U.S. Open (golf). -- Calidum 15:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Low amateur
editWhy isn't there anything about lowest-scoring amateur status? People keep track of it, and it's mentioned on Jordan Spieth's article etc. AnonMoos (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Summary by course, state and region
editUnless I’m mistaken the totals for the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast regions appear to be off. The Mid-Atlantic total should be 50 (20+17+8+5) and the total northeast should be 61 (50+11). 68.146.201.246 (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)