U.S. Open's Two-Hole Playoff Came After Talking To Stakeholders, With Excitement In Mind

Still not a fan here of a two-hole aggregate playoff, which is in play for the first time at this week's U.S. Women's Open and in two weeks at Shinnecock Hills, especially given the success three-hole aggregate playoffs have enjoyed in other championships.

I was reading the 2018 U.S. Open media day transcript and was interested in Executive Director Mike Davis's explanation, which emphasized the desires of stakeholders (TV?) and the probability of more excitement in two holes versus three. Davis said the main premise was to finish on Sunday and proceeded from there.

We also looked at it saying, we looked back in data and really the data suggested that whether it's three holes, which is our Women's Open used to be or believe it or not our U.S. Senior Open when we first went from 18 holes we went to a four hole aggregate, and that did seem to take a little too much time and sometimes it got to the last hole and it was already over. So we thought that by having two holes, that there would be more excitement, but it wouldn't necessarily be one shot over. And frankly, think about this week. If we needed, if we have a tie after 72 holes, we're going to play the par-3, 17th. Wonderful par-3. And then that great finishing hole 18. Next year at Pebble Beach, 17 and 18. How iconic are those holes?

Certainly iconic. But starting on a par-3 following decades of hearing about the importance of deciding a championship as important as the U.S. Open with a full-round makes two holes feel incomplete.