[jeffwarne]

I grow weary of these "driveable" par "4's" that they hit fairway woods to and fly to a backstop.
And the shorter hitters drive easily too.
They're par 3's.......Really tough ones.


Then, along with 4 par 5's, we hear the multiple references to "most under par" rounds etc.
or saying Patrick Reed was putting to tie a US Open record for most under par in a round (8 under-maybe we should call Miller's round at Oakmont 9 under as he had to play the long par 3 8th as a par 3 and it no doubt played the same length as the par "4" 15th at EH as set up today)
65 is not 63 no matter what the "par" is...

[jeffwarne]

and there you have it
a 63

[Frank M]

I have never understood the infatuation with scores other than shooting the lowest one. Par is irrelevant. The point of the game is to go as low as you can go.

[BHoover]

I don't care whether the scores are low or high. You can't do anything about the rain and lack of wind (although I do hope for gale force winds on Sunday).


That said, the scores seem more akin to a British Open than a US Open.

[jeffwarne]

Who cares?


I have never understood the infatuation with scores other than shooting the lowest one. Par is irrelevant. The point of the game is to go as low as you can go.

Couldn't agree more.
My comment was about the discussion about whether 9 under 63 is better than 8 under 63.(that it is irrelevant)


You're right about the infatuation with par
63-ties low score in US Open simple as that.


and totally agree that with wind and no rain the scores would be very high.
Just like an Open ,the wind blows and it's tough-and the setup and green speeds have to respect that

[Mike Sweeney]

Justin Thomas hit a 299 yard three wood off the deck, that looked uphill and semi-blind to seven feet and drained a downhill putt for eagle to shoot 63, and at least put a muffler on Johnny Miller's 63


I am thinking that is a pretty good golf !!


I was fortunate to play Shinnecock last fall, and the precision needed into those greens appears to be more than Erin Hills, but that is okay to me. I swore off attending US Opens due to the logistics hassles, but I may have to take the train out and see how Shinnecock holds up.


#LoveErinHills

[jeffwarne]

Justin Thomas hit a 299 yard three wood off the deck, that looked uphill and semi-blind to seven feet and drained a downhill putt for eagle to shoot 63, and at least put a muffler on Johnny Miller's 63


I am thinking that is a pretty good golf !!


I was fortunate to play Shinnecock last fall, and the precision needed into those greens appears to be more than Erin Hills, but that is okay to me. I swore off attending US Opens due to the logistics hassles, but I may have to take the train out and see how Shinnecock holds up.


#LoveErinHills

Shinnecock with the rain of this week and the same lack of wind and scores will be lower-not in relation to par but lower overall.
but we're probably due for a goofy setup to "protect" par

[Mike Sweeney]

Shinnecock with the rain of this week and the same lack of wind and scores will be lower-not in relation to par but lower overall.
but we're probably due for a goofy setup to "protect" par

 


"In 1896 Shinnecock hosted the second U.S. Open. Many of the golfers broke 80 on a course which was playing less than 5,000 yards. This led to demands to make the course more difficult."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinnecock_Hills_Golf_Club

[Mike Sweeney]

maybe we should call Miller's round at Oakmont 9 under as he had to play the long par 3 8th as a par 3 and it no doubt played the same length as the par "4" 15th at EH as set up today)
65 is not 63 no matter what the "par" is...

I am not even sure those "chicken legs" could walk Erin Hills


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DisSQ8bFS0U

[Peter Pallotta]

I don't know what weighs more, but dropped on my head a pound of lead would sure *hurt* more.
I don't think that answers Jeff's question, but I wanted to mention it.

Great round for young Mr Thomas, stellar golf played throughout, amazing shot into 18 - a historic 63!
The only argument I could see from the Miller camp is: how good were their respective 63s relative to the entire field?

[Mike Sweeney]

The only argument I could see from the Miller camp is: how good were their respective 63s relative to the entire field?

Touche.


Johnny's was on Sunday for the win.

[Keith Phillips]

Awesome round by Justin...but Johnny's 63 was one of only FOUR rounds under par the entire day at Oakmont...vs. THIRTY-TWO today!

[Carl Johnson]

"As you know" --  -- par is irrelevant when you're playing for the the top (o.K., I'm prejudiced) golf trophy in the world.  It's easy for the commentators (including us guys) because it's just numbers.  What's tough is describing A vs B, etc. and who played better in the competition and why.

[Jon Wiggett]

Different course, different equipment, different weather so why compare. If the players are too low for some does that mean the course is too short or rough not hard enough? Who cares Jeff. Why not just enjoy how well the leaders are playing.

[jeffwarne]

Awesome round by Justin...but Johnny's 63 was one of only FOUR rounds under par the entire day at Oakmont...vs. THIRTY-TWO today!

Might want to check that stat
6 of just the top 10 in 1973 broke par the last day.
Par was 71.

[Tim_Cronin]

Awesome round by Justin...but Johnny's 63 was one of only FOUR rounds under par the entire day at Oakmont...vs. THIRTY-TWO today!

Might want to check that stat
6 of just the top 10 in 1973 broke par the last day.
Par was 71.

Plus it had rained the day before and the sprinklers were left on most of the night.

[Jim Nugent]

Awesome round by Justin...but Johnny's 63 was one of only FOUR rounds under par the entire day at Oakmont...vs. THIRTY-TWO today!

Might want to check that stat
6 of just the top 10 in 1973 broke par the last day.
Par was 71.

Plus it had rained the day before and the sprinklers were left on most of the night.

According to a 2013 report by Adam Lazarus and Steve Schlossman for Carnegie Mellon University, the sprinkler story is an urban legend that is not true:

"The oft-rumored but never fully confirmed reports of a pre-dawn sprinkler malfunction that soaked Oakmont's wickedly fast greens... occurred prior to Friday's second round, not Sunday's final round. "...the sprinkler malfunction occurred in the early hours of Friday morning... contrary to what many writers, players and even the two USGA officials we interviewed still claimed. 
"Scoring on Friday was notably different from the other three days – the only day in which differences in day-to-day scoring patterns reached statistical significance.  Gene Borek's Oakmont and U.S. Open record score of 65 on Friday is almost inexplicable otherwise. 
"… The sprinkler malfunction did indeed appear to have a direct impact on scoring by making the greens unusually soft and slow that day — but in Friday’s second round, not in Sunday’s final round.
 
"In short, Miller’s 63 had nothing to do with a sprinkler malfunction."
http://www.history.cmu.edu/docs/schlossman/LazarusSchlossman.pdf

[Jim Nugent]

And here's another spectacular claim the same report makes: it did NOT rain the night before Miller's last round in 1973:

"Contrary to a widespread but erroneous impression — as attested by the reports of the U.S. Weather Service and major newspapers in western Pennsylvania — the only considerable rainfall during the 1973 U.S. Open at Oakmont Country Club occurred in the early hours of Saturday morning, prior to the third round. As a result, play was delayed an hour or so. The ferocious storm that some writers have attributed to Saturday night—the night before Miller shot 63—actually occurred on Sunday night, after play was over."

If these guys are right, makes me wonder what other widely accepted 'facts' are false. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()