Oakmont: The great equalizer?

[Phil McDade]

We're (finally) halfway through the U.S. Open -- anyone else think this is a remarkably undistinguished leaderboard? Hardly a major winner to be found; in fact, more noteworthy for guys who have thrown away majors (D. Johnson, Sergio, Westwood) than won them. You have to look pretty hard for guys with distinguished records in majors (Furyk -- 1; Oosty -- 1, with 3 near-misses; Scott -- 1; Z Johnson -- 2). Landry, Piercy, Bourdy, Summerhays, Sullivan, Slattery, Kokrak -- who are these guys?


Does Oakmont play a role in all of this? Despite some low rounds, this course during its easiest time of play has humbled some pretty good players -- Rory, Mickelson, Rose, Els, Goosen, and a few other solid golfers.


Is it the architecture? Or the nature of the U.S. Open, which has long had a history of sometimes off-beat leaderboards?

[Cliff Hamm]

Hard to disagree, but let's see what the leaderboard is in 24 hours...

[Terry Lavin]

They gave the players a cupcake setup for the third round, probably to get everybody off the course so they have as "normal" a Sunday as possible. As for the "equalizer" argument, I'd venture to say that the setup for a US Open is usually responsible for the nutty leaderboards one sees. Anybody can get hot and anybody can go into the toilet. Summerhays is currently hot and McIlroy is shot.

[Tom_Doak]

The U.S. Open setup guarantees that no one who's playing erratically can last to the end.  The world's top players can usually post a decent round even if their games are off, but it's much less likely at the U.S. Open.


The surprise to me is that there are several guys near the top who are notorious for struggling with the putter.  It's hard to imagine that will hold up on these greens, but I am curious to see.  Now that I think about it, though, Johnny Miller was an erratic putter as well.

[Nigel Islam]

The U.S. Open setup guarantees that no one who's playing erratically can last to the end.  The world's top players can usually post a decent round even if their games are off, but it's much less likely at the U.S. Open.


The surprise to me is that there are several guys near the top who are notorious for struggling with the putter.  It's hard to imagine that will hold up on these greens, but I am curious to see.  Now that I think about it, though, Johnny Miller was an erratic putter as well.

Isn't that part of the reason great iron players tend to well at ANGC? If you can keep the ball below the hole you can score, bc nobody is hitting downhill putts.

[Jim Nugent]

I think Oakmont is a great equalizer on the greens.  They are so difficult, the great putters lose much of their advantage.  Pretty sure Cabrera said words to that effect after he won in 2007. 

[David_Tepper]

"I think Oakmont is a great equalizer on the greens.  They are so difficult, the great putters lose much of their advantage.  Pretty sure Cabrera said words to that effect after he won in 2007."

Agreed! 

[Mark Chaplin]

Also players with imaginative short games are taken out of the frame, but then that's standard for US Opens.

[Ally Mcintosh]

For me, this is one of the greatest leaderboards I've seen near the end of Round 3.

Three of the best players never to have won a major (DJ, Westwood, Garcia) and another Irishman (Lowry). I'd be delighted if any of those 4 won.

Like the idea that the greens are an equaliser. If so then more power to Oakmont.

[Phil McDade]

The U.S. Open setup guarantees that no one who's playing erratically can last to the end.  The world's top players can usually post a decent round even if their games are off, but it's much less likely at the U.S. Open.


The surprise to me is that there are several guys near the top who are notorious for struggling with the putter.  It's hard to imagine that will hold up on these greens, but I am curious to see.  Now that I think about it, though, Johnny Miller was an erratic putter as well.

Miller's famous 63 at Oakmont was less about overcoming erratic putting (which, in fact, he suffered from throughout his career), and moreso about great ball striking -- I read somewhere he had something like 6 birdie putts of 10 feet or under that day, and most of those were 5 feet or closer.

[Tom_Doak]

Miller's famous 63 at Oakmont was less about overcoming erratic putting (which, in fact, he suffered from throughout his career), and moreso about great ball striking -- I read somewhere he had something like 6 birdie putts of 10 feet or under that day, and most of those were 5 feet or closer.

Yes, I was attempting to note that it didn't matter that Johnny was an erratic putter ... he won by other means.


But so far this thread seems to be coming to the conclusion that iron play [and not straight driving] is the key to playing well at Oakmont, and in the U.S. Open generally.  Though of course, you can't win if you're not hitting those iron shots from the fairway the majority of the time.

[Phil McDade]

Miller's famous 63 at Oakmont was less about overcoming erratic putting (which, in fact, he suffered from throughout his career), and moreso about great ball striking -- I read somewhere he had something like 6 birdie putts of 10 feet or under that day, and most of those were 5 feet or closer.

Yes, I was attempting to note that it didn't matter that Johnny was an erratic putter ... he won by other means.


But so far this thread seems to be coming to the conclusion that iron play [and not straight driving] is the key to playing well at Oakmont, and in the U.S. Open generally.  Though of course, you can't win if you're not hitting those iron shots from the fairway the majority of the time.

I think this is mostly true. Players with multiple U.S. Open wins -- Hale Irwin and Curtis Strange come to mind immediately (and it goes without saying that Hogan, Jack and Tiger were as well) as really solid iron players who won the championship more than once.


What's interesting to me -- and I'm thinking this is more akin to the random outcomes that happen all the time in golf, due to its nature -- is that Oakmont, since local boy Park's win in 1935, has never really produced a flukey winner: Hogan, Jack, Miller, Nelson, Els and Cabrera are all multiple major winners, and most of them among the top players in the game in their primes (and two of them among the five or so all-time greats). The odds look pretty decent that'll change this time around.

[Cliff Hamm]

In the end DJ is going to win...When we look back, we'll only remember that DJ won...very deserving and not a long shot


BTW let the USGA take a shot away from DJ and make further fools of themselves and unfortunately the game of golf