The US Open adopts Rota System?

The announcement this week regarding the future of the U.S. Open suggests the USGA is adopting a rota system similar to that of The Open.

As of today, Merion, Pinehurst No. 2, and Oakmont have been chosen as Anchor Sites for a bevy of future USGA Championships.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

One of the great charms of The Open (you know, the British one) is that familiar courses are placed in rotation so that every 10 years or so, we get another look at the clubs where Champions of the past had their triumphs.

St. Andrews, Carnoustie, Muirfield, Royal Troon, Royal Birkdale, and the lot – each boasts a century or more of Champions and memorable moments. It creates a rhythm to The Open. It promotes reflection of Opens-past, the history of the game, and player comparisons across generations.

In short, it works. It’s a hallmark of the Open that the courses rotate through and each year we get to see the world’s greatest walk the same fairways as Vardon, Jones, Watson, and Woods.

But does that system make sense for the U.S. Open?

Honestly, the answer is both yes and no.

First, America has more than enough great golf courses to create a stunning rota of 10-12 venues. There are Golden Age masterpieces like Oakmont, Merion, and Winged Foot as well as more modern works of golf architecture perfection like Whistling Straits and Torrey Pines.

There are literally dozens of courses that are worthy of hosting the U.S. Open.

And that’s part of the problem. By going towards a Rota System, or “Anchor Sites” as the USGA calls them, are some of the finest courses in the country at risk of being bypassed for historical favoritism?

Currently, Oakmont, Merion, and Pinehurst No.2 are the designated anchor sites. This means the USGA will build infrastructure and have a larger presence at these venues to make hosting easier (as opposed to going to a new site every year and starting from scratch.)

Of course Pebble Beach, Shinnecock, Bethpage Black, and others will see return visits in the future, too.

On that level, it makes a lot of sense. Some venues are just more suited to hosting a U.S. Open. With a larger USGA commitment in infrastructure at anchor sites, those venues can be better prepared and provide smoother operation.

On the other hand, does committing so many future U.S. Opens to the old guard favorites eliminate seeing the U.S. Open played at Kiawah? Or Whistling Straits? Or even Bandon Dunes?

I know the PGA Championship hits many of these newer venues. Maybe that’s one way the PGA Championship can begin to carve out its own Major brand. Let the U.S. Open have all the old courses and the PGA Championship gets the newer venues.

That could work.

The point is, it would be a shame to see newer tracks get squeezed out based on age alone.

Yes, Tillinghast, MacKenzie, C.B. MacDonald, and Donald Ross are a veritable Mount Rushmore of great American golf course architecture. I don’t want their designs lost to modern Championship golf.

However, Pete Dye, Tom Doak, David McLay Kidd, Coore and Crenshaw, Fazio – these are geniuses who have crafted the most amazing courses in modern golf.

A historically rich legacy has to begin somewhere. Places like Oakmont and Merion have, and will continue to build, on theirs.

I’d just suggest we start building a legacy for some of the newer courses that – in 100 years – will be viewed in the same light as we see Pebble Beach, Shinnecock, and other greats, today.