When Spectating Becomes a Major Problem
by Ryan Ballengee on Sep 1, 2010 12:56 PM EDT
in Pro Golf
Email
PrintChambers Bay got the 2010 US Amateur practically sight unseen because of its stunning potential as a true American-style links golf course. Like Whistling Straits, it was molded with heavy machinery, imported dirt/sand, and terraformed into an environment very much different than its original state. (Can't say natural since Chambers was a quarry before a course.)
Similarly designed, each had comparable challenges for spectators looking to catch a glimpse of the action. As Geoff Shackelford notes, the number of spectator injuries went un(der) reported during the PGA Championship. Mostly ankle and knee injuries, and mostly minor, but injuries nonetheless did play a part in the spectator experience at Whistling Straits.
It appears that's again the case with Chambers Bay. One tournament official called the dune surfaces "like ice." Climbing the dunes will be a challenge at Chambers. They also prevent fans from having great intimacy with the course. The USGA will try to mitigate that in five years by constructing hordes of grandstands which will offer multiple hole views and try to keep people stationary on the property.
There's a big problem with that approach, though. Going to a major venue where fans are expected - and not merely invited - to sit still is a big risk. Golf fans love to follow the leader, and if that is a trying task on the weekend at the '15 Open, the major feeling in person and on television is somewhat diminished.
A second, smaller problem is the erection of a slew of grandstands will take away from the aesthetic charm of the course. With fewer spectators for the US Am, Chambers Bay looked amazing on television. Viewers could see the course for what it was - brown and beautiful. While not-so-secretly making the field guinea pigs for an Open many in the Am field will play in a handful of years, Mike Davis and company appear to have figured out how to play Chambers as a fair test while maintaining the rugged beauty that makes the setting so appealing in the first place.
If fans are left to sit still and take in just part of the property, the real star of the US Open could become just a cameo in the film.
The reasonable solution is to limit ticketing to the 2015 US Open. Chambers Bay does not appear prepared to handle 40,000+ spectators. Honestly, it looks like 20,000 was a good number - less than the crowds expected for Merion in 2013.
It's reasonable for fans and keeping the Ace bandage people from building a sprain clinic on top of a dune, but not good for the USGA bottom line. The Open makes the year for the Far Hills folk. They could jack up ticket prices to get more bang for the buck per customer. They could do their best to create and hide multiple tiers of hospitality tents in the hopes of keeping more people sauced and in place to avoid injuries. (Frankly, most people in the hospitality tent don't go for golf. They go for schmoozing, which is a-ok in a tent.) But there needs to be a way to accommodate fans who want to traverse Chambers Bay.
The USGA certainly reached a reasonable conclusion for the playing conditions in Tacoma, but we'll need to see what they were able to do for the thousands of peering eyes that will descend on the former mill in 2015.
33 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
“If fans are left to sit still and take in just part of the property, the real star of the US Open could become just a cameo in the film.”
The gallery is the real star of the US Open ?
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
No, I mean that the grandstands will take up spaces on the course instead of just showing its natural beauty without them.
Find me! Email: ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com, Twitter: http://twitter.com/waggleroom, or Facebook: http://facebook.com/waggleroom.
by Ryan Ballengee on Sep 1, 2010 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions
A big part of the USGA’s budget each year comes from the US Open. It’s difficult to cut back on ticket sales – or you’re forced to charge huge prices for tickets for fewer fans to get through the gates – then you have all kinds of non-golfers screaming that golf is an “elitist” sport. Lose-lose.
The obvious solution is to stop picking these pretty golf courses that are built for play the other 4 years and 51 weeks of play – not for 50,000 spectators to be walking around.
I would love to know if there are ANY major tour events that don’t have twisted ankles and knees, or bumped heads or some other sort of spectator injury. Wet grass and hills = people slipping. Should they put down pads and plow under any sort of hills so nobody can possibly get hurt ? Issue hard hats or erect massive “sneeze sheilds” to protect people from getting hit by an errant shot ? Where does this cradle to grave stuff end ?
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
It ends when we enact loser-pays tort reform in this country.
Like the UK has now.
by Charles Boyer on Sep 1, 2010 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions
lol – true – just be sure you’re right before you go into the court room. (can you imagine how many lawyers would be on the soup line if loser pays was ever passed ?)
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
that’s the theory, at least. We have too many juries in this country who find for the plaintiff under the idea that the company being sued has lots of money, so it’s ok to find for the plaintiff regardless of the accusation. A while back, some lady spilled coffee on herself and sued McDonalds for serving hot coffee “too hot”. The jury awarded her $2 million. (I’m sure McD’s appealed, but I never heard what happened)
the anti side says that some of these companies with lots of lawyers will just tie the case up until a plaintiff in the right can’t keep going and quits.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Well, we have it now already...It
falls right up there with Jury shopping,,,judge shopping, etc….Court, Mickey D’s did indeed appeal…..the lady got $1K and of course, a hot Pu**y….One of the favorite tricks of the suits, is to keep the paperwork flowing back and forth between the parties…..All the suits get bigger fees, via more billing hours, and of course both Plaintiff and Defendant lose…..I like the contingent fee my self….The Suit gets 30 percent of whatever he can squeeze out of the other side…..jist sayin…..STUB
2 million for spilling coffee down herself ?
Now you know why the world sometimes things Americans are nuts :)
Hey, can I sue Court
for making me put soda in my G & T? Oh wait, he hasn’t got $2 million, you say? Never mind.
No lime in my lager, no lemonade in my beer
& definitely no soda in my gin. 3 simple rules – cheers!
Stupid joke from a TA friend of mine
Q. " Been to the shores lately, Wendy". Reply “What shores?” Answer “Mine’s a pint, thanks”. Only works once, of course.
The McDonald's coffee case is not a frivilous lawsuit as most people believe.
the victim, seventy-nine year old Ms. Liebeck, placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup to add cream and sugar (now they add the it for you prior to serving). As she attempted to remove the lid, the contents of the cup spilled onto her lap. The coffee was estimated to be somewhere between 180 to 190 degrees. Ms. Liebeck was wearing sweatpants that day, which absorbed the scorching coffee, holding it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon diagnosed Liebeck as having suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. These third degree burns extended through to Liebeck’s subcutaneous fat, muscle, or bone. While she was hospitalized for eight days, Liebeck underwent skin grafting, and later underwent debridement treatments. Liebeck was permanently disfigured and disabled for two years as a result of this incident. Testamony at trial indicated that caffee at this temperature (water boils at 212 degrees) can cause 3rd degree burns in 2-3 seconds. McDonalds had received over 700 claims of damage prior to this suit but did not change their procedure.
Ms Leibeck informed McDonald’s of her accident and requested McDonalds pay for her medical expenses, totaling approximately $11,000. McDonald’s refused. McDonald’s countered with a generous offer of
$800. As the trial date neared, Liebeck’s attorney offered to settle the case on her behalf for $300,000 and reportedly would have settled for half that amount. A mediator recommended a $225,000 settlement on the eve of
trial, but McDonald’s again refused any attempt to settle.
The amount of $2.7 million was arrived at based on evidence the jury heard that McDonald’s daily coffee revenues amounted to approximately $1.34 million. These exemplary damages represented about two days worth of McDonald’s coffee revenues. Judge Scott ordered the parties to engage in a postverdict settlement conference which resulted in a settlement of the case for an undisclosed amount (less than $600,000)
which remains confidential.
Like in golf, sometimes the avoidance of a two-stroke penalty leads to a more serious penalty such as a DQ.
by sports medic on Sep 2, 2010 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Ms Lelbeck tried to do all of this WHILE DRIVING – ‘nuff said for me. You’d think that at age 79, she would have a touch more common sense than to try something like that. The idea that McDonalds should be held responsible for the stupidity of a customer is incredibly assinine.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
I'm sorry for the severity of Ms. Liebeck's
injuries, but I still don’t see how it was McDonald’s fault unless the server had thrown it over her. Shook my head over the story the first time I read it.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Have a golf story tip? Contact editor Charles Boyer and he will follow the story! Thanks!
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
