[Sean_A]

No offense to Graeme McDowell, because he is a most worthy champiion, but is it just me or are you a bit exhausted with watching all of this grinding and spitting up for four days, only to wind up with somebody who doesn't exactly get into the conversation of the top 50 golfers in the game today.  Is he destined to be Michael Campbell or will G Mac start racking up the victories?

Without meaning any offence, that is a very American-centric comment.  From the European (and global) perspective he is very much "somebody who  gets into the conversation of the top 50 golfers in the game today".  He made it in the the tournament because he is in the top 50 of the world rankings, was a member of the 2008 European Ryder Cup team and has been a very successful player.  Believe me if you are anywhere other than the US, he has been central to these type of conversations.

Dale

Nobody in my circles of friends talks of McDowell as anything special.  Perhaps top 50 in the world isn't special for most observers (put me in this camp).  What is special is winning majors.  That said, any inkling that tournies produce oddball champions because of set-up, poor greens or whatever is a load of tosh.  McDowell won because he hit one less shot than his closest rival.  That is how every medal tourney is decided.  If folks don't like it they shouldn't watch golf.  Besides, looking at the field, I would say the leaderboard had enough top (past and present) talent on it that nobody at the USGA should be worried. 

What is wonderful about McDowell is a month ago he was nowhere in Ryder Cup points, now he is a practical shoe in for the team.  That honour too is often bestowed upon players with a hot hand for a short period of time.  In a nutshell, this is essentially what pro golf is about.  A succession of wins by players on some sort of form.  These guys are good and there is a reason they became touring pros.

Ciao 

[Tim_Cronin]

McDowell won because he played smart. The 18th is the perfect example. Driver away from the Pacific. 9-iron (or thereabouts) when he knew he didn't need to make a 4. Wedge in. Two putts for a 5. Trophy.

Before that, he kept his wits when everyone else lost theirs, and, given that he was playing with Jack Lemmon -- er, Dustin Johnson -- that was a major accomplishment.

Overall, Round 4 of this Open brought with it the most amazing series of meltdowns since, I think, the 1975 Open at Medinah, which featured J.W. Nicklaus bogeying the last three holes. About a dozen guys left Medinah believing they kicked away the title, and the same was true today.

As Cary Middlecoff once said, "You don't win the Open. The Open wins you."

[Martin Toal]

Objection, your hono(u)r!

G Mac was my tip for this event on another forum and was definitely a good value bet.

He actually fits the profile for the US Open quite well. Good solid player, and at 37 in the world going into the event, not exactly a chopper. Good straight driver, hits a lot of fairways and green and a tidy short game. Used to playing in fast running conditions and wind. Not long but not short. Also won a few weeks ago and finished 4th the following week.

Andy North only ever won 3 events if I recall correctly, 2 US Opens and another Tour event. G Mac has won 5 European Tour events before his first major. I don't think he is finished yet.

[Tim_Cronin]

Objection, your hono(u)r!

G Mac was my tip for this event on another forum and was definitely a good value bet.

He actually fits the profile for the US Open quite well. Good solid player, and at 37 in the world going into the event, not exactly a chopper. Good straight driver, hits a lot of fairways and green and a tidy short game. Used to playing in fast running conditions and wind. Not long but not short. Also won a few weeks ago and finished 4th the following week.

Andy North only ever won 3 events if I recall correctly, 2 US Opens and another Tour event. G Mac has won 5 European Tour events before his first major. I don't think he is finished yet.

Kudos, Martin. I fancy he'll be the people's choice at The Old Course!

[Matthew Rose]

Andy North only ever won 3 events if I recall correctly, 2 US Opens and another Tour event.

1977 Westchester Classic..... swish!

[Mark Pearce]

He wasn't my pick for this but I have thought for a while that GMac was someone who could win a Major.  He has a good all round game and has in the past two or three years played consistently well in Majors.  Just the sort of player that might win one.

[Jon Wiggett]

Andy North only ever won 3 events if I recall correctly, 2 US Opens and another Tour event.

Yes Martin, but if your able to make 2 out of your 3 wins a major isn't that something exceptional as well. Hell I would take it wouldn't you?

Jon

[Martin Toal]

Andy North only ever won 3 events if I recall correctly, 2 US Opens and another Tour event.

Yes Martin, but if your able to make 2 out of your 3 wins a major isn't that something exceptional as well. Hell I would take it wouldn't you?

Jon

True, I have no US Opens, but am hopeful if I can get my handicap down from 8 to +5, maybe next year.

I think North is an anomaly, a one hit wonder who hit twice, if you like. His record in his other majors is rather sparse, with 3 other top 10s. He didn't seem to want to make the trip to the UK in July too often either. Zero points in 3 matches in his one Ryder Cup outing. I remember his drive at the 18th versus Sam Torrance. Looked like a man who knew he shouldn't be there. In my opinion he doesn't really belong in the same company as most other multiple major winners.

[Mark_F]

Anyone that thinks the Masters identifies the best players is not paying attention. The way the Masters identifies the best players is to invite who they think are the best players, and then surround them with a bunch of non-contenders.

Sounds more like an exhibition than a Major. 

[Steve Kline]

Probably not a fair thread title. The Masters seems to have the best winner's list looking back ten to twenty years. The US Open is probably second. Of the majors, the British Open is possibly in last place due to the Ben Curtis - Todd Hamilton - Paul Lawrie period.

The Masters has the most limited field as well. They don't let all the unlikely guys in to play. Plus with it on the same course every year experience plays a huge factor.

[archie_struthers]

 


I think the guy who played the best won....he leads the European Tourn in GIR's  and didn't make anything crazy while I was watching. The US Open wasn't a mini-golf tournament where the best putter won....although you always have to putt well to win

Perhaps the problem here in the states watching the outcome is why we don't like watching soccer ....even the World Cup , we're used to more sizzle birdies and shootouts are instant gratification...pars win US Opens

et tu Lou Graham..   Orville Moody.....Andy North...David Graham (18 pars at Merion last day)  et al     not real sexy but solid

[Jud_T]

Bring on the REAL Open Championship. 

[Gary Slatter]

No offense to you Terry Lavin, but your thread is not appropriate.   GM deserved to win while others were losing!

[Ken Fry]

Am I the only one who's tired of watching what happens to the outstanding courses most majors are contested on?

If the course is a worthy challenge to the best players in the world under extreme pressure, why go to the lengths to make the courses something they are not?  Shinnecock is a world class course and look how it was presented.  The top players are good.  REALLY good.  Let the course be tough without having to resort to the bunker preparation and green presentation Pebble endured.  Did this open help their image?

Ken

[rboyce]

Ken Nobilo made a comment early in the week that sounded just like something that would be posted to GCA. He said that these greens were built for stimpmeter speed of around six or seven. He concluded that the greens either needed to be modified a bit for the current speed or they can be left as is but slowed down.

[Terry Lavin]

No offense to Graeme McDowell, because he is a most worthy champiion, but is it just me or are you a bit exhausted with watching all of this grinding and spitting up for four days, only to wind up with somebody who doesn't exactly get into the conversation of the top 50 golfers in the game today.  Is he destined to be Michael Campbell or will G Mac start racking up the victories?

Without meaning any offence, that is a very American-centric comment.  From the European (and global) perspective he is very much "somebody who  gets into the conversation of the top 50 golfers in the game today".  He made it in the the tournament because he is in the top 50 of the world rankings, was a member of the 2008 European Ryder Cup team and has been a very successful player.  Believe me if you are anywhere other than the US, he has been central to these type of conversations.

Dale,

I meant no offense to the GB&I crew and I take no offense at your comments.  My question is merely meant to provoke dialogue of whether this sort of setup does what the USGA says they want to do and "identify the best player" or whether it allows the pluckiest player that week to win.  Either way, McDowell won the championship.  He didn't back into it, he won it on his own.  But he also won it with only a single birdie all day.  That sort of grinding golf is what I THOUGHT the USGA was trying to avoid to some degree with their new setup philosophy.  But it seemed to me that it was not that much different than watching the US Open at Pinehurst, with torture around the domed greens or at Shinnecock where the course was baked to a crisp.  McDowell is an unlikely winner by a number of accounts.  A European hadn't won in 40 years.  He won his last event and only Hogan and Woods had won their event before the US Open and then won the US Open.  He hadn't won a major.

All of these things made him unlikely, but not unworthy or undeserving.  He beat everybody else playing exactly the kind of root-canal golf that the USGA still favors.

[Bill_McBride]

If the greens had run at 10 or 11, it would have been a much better tournament.  As it was it was the standard survival contest for the U. S. Open.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

There were 5 68s in the final round- Kuchar,Curtis,Hanson,Van Pelt & Herman. Unfortunately, none of the were accomplished by the leaders. Els, Woods,Mickelson, Hevret and even DL3 all had their chances but mostly they couldn't make enough putts. I really thought Els would win but his poor tee shot on 10 cost him dearly as did his poor play on 17 throughout the tournament.

Time will tell if McDowell will be another Steve Jones. Perhaps he'll win the The Open. Golf is a hard game to predict.

I don't think the viewing public,unlike many here,likes an event where the best golfers in the world struggle. There was just no excitement. I long for an event like Nicklaus v. Watson at Turnbury in 1977 or even Watson at Turnbury last year.

By the way, why can't television highlight the hole with a white or yellow dot? It was impossible to find the hole while watching tv with those spotty greens.

[Mac Plumart]

In reference to Ken Fry's comment.

Am I the only one who's tired of watching what happens to the outstanding courses most majors are contested on?

If the course is a worthy challenge to the best players in the world under extreme pressure, why go to the lengths to make the courses something they are not?  Shinnecock is a world class course and look how it was presented.  The top players are good.  REALLY good.  Let the course be tough without having to resort to the bunker preparation and green presentation Pebble endured.  Did this open help their image?
Ken

+1

[Terry Lavin]

In reference to Ken Fry's comment.

Am I the only one who's tired of watching what happens to the outstanding courses most majors are contested on?

If the course is a worthy challenge to the best players in the world under extreme pressure, why go to the lengths to make the courses something they are not?  Shinnecock is a world class course and look how it was presented.  The top players are good.  REALLY good.  Let the course be tough without having to resort to the bunker preparation and green presentation Pebble endured.  Did this open help their image?
Ken

+1

Agreed.  And it also appears to be antithetical to the "new" setup philosophy of the USGA, because there's no question that they were defending par with the setup.

[Patrick_Mucci]

No offense to Graeme McDowell, because he is a most worthy champiion, but is it just me or are you a bit exhausted with watching all of this grinding and spitting up for four days, only to wind up with somebody who doesn't exactly get into the conversation of the top 50 golfers in the game today.  Is he destined to be Michael Campbell or will G Mac start racking up the victories?

Terry,

Isn't that what they said about Lee Trevino ?   

Retief Goosen ?

If the tournament was about who was supposed to win, they'd list those names and just draw a lottery to determine the champion.

Graeme outplayed the best golfers in the world and is a deserving U.S. Open Champion.

[Joel Zuckerman]

By the way, why can't television highlight the hole with a white or yellow dot? It was impossible to find the hole while watching tv with those spotty greens.

Agreed.  I don't watch televised hockey, but I recall that some years ago the networks started to put a tracer on the puck so it was easier to follow.  I think golf coverage would benefit greatly if the hole was highlighted in the same manner.

[Bruce Katona]

Nah....handicapping this event earlier in the wek, the USGA had the event set up for PAR to be defended and PAR to win or be in a playoff.  The USGA won, as usual.  GM's name is on the trophy & rightly so.  He played smart and made the shots when necessary.

Bring on The Open, where the R&A allows is not offended if a score below par wins.   The Open is just makes for a better all around event, whether it be in person or watching on TV.

[Jud_T]

I did like watching Tiger's ball roll over the cliff on #6, and I'm a fan.  The best success of the setup was the shaved down rough around the cliffs and bunkers....

[Terry Lavin]

No offense to Graeme McDowell, because he is a most worthy champiion, but is it just me or are you a bit exhausted with watching all of this grinding and spitting up for four days, only to wind up with somebody who doesn't exactly get into the conversation of the top 50 golfers in the game today.  Is he destined to be Michael Campbell or will G Mac start racking up the victories?

Terry,

Isn't that what they said about Lee Trevino ?   

Retief Goosen ?

If the tournament was about who was supposed to win, they'd list those names and just draw a lottery to determine the champion.

Graeme outplayed the best golfers in the world and is a deserving U.S. Open Champion.

The allusion to Retief Goosen is very apt.  Before he won his two US Opens, he was a pretty good player, but those two victories confirmed that he had the steely insides to win under extremely difficult conditions, especially at Shinnecock.  G Mac has done it under similarly difficult circumstances even though he was surely a longshot to win the trophy.  Do you think he'll continue to compete at the highest level or will he be another Michael Campbell?  I think he's got the right stuff, but you never know.  As for "deserving"---of course he's deserving, he did exactly what the setup demanded of him.  He played conservative, gritty and grinding golf for four days, especially on Sunday when he won despite being several shots back and despite carding only one birdie and shooting an over par score.  He deserves the win.  Will he hoist another major trophy?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()