Since coming back from the Monterey, I've seen a couple of posts in different outlets/sites asking essentially the same question: is Mike Davis' setup philosophy producing mediocre US Open winners?  Geoff Shackelford and Steve Elling have raised the point this week.

Take a look at the US Open champions since 2006, when Mike Davis transitioned into the role abandoned by Tom Meeks following the '05 Open at Pinehurst #2.  The combined PGA Tour wins of the players not named Tiger Woods (who, etymologically, was mediocre because he only had one good leg) has been three. 

That is a bit of an unfair comparison because the champions since '06 have not been PGA Tour regulars.  Perhaps more accurate - and I say this with my teeth grinding - is the world ranking of the winners.  The highest ranked was Geoff Ogilvy at 17th in '06.  Lucas Glover was lowest at 71st.  Current champion Graeme McDowell was 37th, now 12th.

The only guy ranked inside the top ten to win the Open since 2005 has been Tiger.  Woods said that he feels Davis' setup has increased the number of true challengers to win the National Open.

"He's given more guys the chance to win the golf tournament. It's more open now. With the graduated rough, being firm and fast like this, it brings a lot more players into play who have a chance to win."

In a sense, Woods almost say it like it's a bad thing.  To him, it is.  He won more Opens under Tom Meeks than Mike Davis.  And Woods' comments should be taken with a grain of salt.  He did throw the grass under his feet under the bus, along with his caddy.

But, to a degree, Woods' words are true.  Davis eliminated the five inch rough just inches from the fairway and most of it from around the putting surfaces.  He implemented graduated rough, installed some chipping areas (the one at 14 last week was not so well-received), and widened many fairways.  Davis has installed tees that shorten holes to challenge the longer hitters, while bringing up fairways that previously couldn't be reached by the Corey Pavins of the world.  He made Shinnecock a long gone nightmare.

Despite the pedigree of the winners, it isn't as though Woods and Mickelson, et al, have lacked chances to win.  Woods did win in '08, and had legit chances to do so in '07, '09, and '10.  He just failed to win.  Mickelson should have won in '06, could have in '09 and '10.  The best still rose above the crop, but not all the way.

Perhaps the winners of the Opens in the Davis era say less about him than they do about the game of today's top players.  The two best players in the world and this generation - much less the five years Davis has shepherded the Open - have been at the door and unable to win against lesser players. 

Fifty years ago at Cherry Hills, a course which players and critics alike assumed would be obliterated by players for being too easy and fair, three best players in history contended for the Open.  Hogan, Nicklaus, and Palmer.  Jack Fleck was in it.  Mike Souchak was, too.  In the end, Palmer went out and won the Open in the final 18 with a round of 65.  No player complained that Cherry Hills was too fair.

Yes, Davis has implemented features that are more likely to be found on PGA Tour setups each week than the traditional slog of an Open track.  That does not mean, though, that the Open has become more that way.  The national championship has seen runs like this long before Davis.  1933-36. 1975-78.  How did Lee Janzen win two Opens but not much else?  Why did Scott Simpson win?  Steve Jones anybody? 

Democracy lives at the Open in the Davis era.  The best in the world wish it would be rigged like a Chicago mayor's race, though.