In the moment, I was as thrilled as everyone else to see Collin Morikawa hit that shot. To do it under the pressure of being tied for the lead was amazing, and none of the other contenders hit it anywhere near the hole.
He shot 65 and 64 on the weekend, and came from two back to win by two on Sunday, so I'm going to say that it was skill; the best shot in one of the great Sunday rounds in major championship history.
This thread is about the one shot, not the 65 and 64, which were indeed impressive. He was a very deserving champion.
But none of what you posted refuted any of my points.
Sure, every great shot has some element of randomness to it. Even his seven foot putt - taking its little left to right break into the dead center of the hole! - could have been messed up by a Poa seedhead in an alternate universe.
But we have argued for the last year or two here that these guys are not accurate enough with driver to even favor one side of the fairway over the other. To now argue that the guy is making his driver pull up seven feet short of the hole, is the opposite of that.
My point is really that the increased distance players hit it now make the results at the far end seem that much more random, to me. You can aim a 180-yard shot at an exact spot on the green, but can you really do the same from 290?
Isn't that just golf?
Jack Nicklaus hit a really great 1-iron approach to 17 at Pebble Beach once. Playing that shitty MacGregor ball, would it really have been a tangibly lesser shot if the same swing produced a ball that landed two feet shorter, sprang extra-hard off the downslope, missed the pin by half an inch, and bounded long into the rough? To me, one of the great things about golf is that the answer can be both "yes" and "no" at the same time.
Tiger's 2008 US Open win was both the luckiest and greatest major win I've ever seen. Make one fewer poa-plinkoing 96-footer, or 12-footer, or pitch-in from an embankment, and his entire legend looks a little different. But somehow, he made it around in fewer strokes than anybody else.
On the flip side, Tom Watson hit a pretty damn good approach shot that rolled right 2 yards past the Flagstick of Immortality into the Valley of What Might've Been. Maybe it's possible to win a major with nothing more than a sweet swing with a high-handed follow through and a chin dimple, but a little luck at the right time helps an awful lot if you want to it to be memorable.
We've all experienced the joy of hitting a shot that comes off exactly as intended, and it sure looked like Morikawa hit a perfect shot on 16. Of course some luck was involved, as on any shot. A bad bounce could've sent him into the bunker, a soft one could've left him short of the green, a firm one could've sent him rolling out to 25 feet instead of 7. If we're being honest, he probably was firing for the middle of the green and pushed it a perfect 3 or 4 yards right.
I'm lost as to how any of that makes his 2 on 16 yesterday any less impressive. He dialed up a great swing, got a near-perfect result, and still had the composure to drop the putt dead center. A hole like that usually happens somewhere along the way for guys who get big wins. Rub of the green works both ways, but in my experience, it tends to reward better shots.