Dumbest shot, worst break, and gutsiest putt I've ever seen from a leader

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Phil, standing on 18 tee with a 3 shot lead, calm wind, and a 40 yard wide fairway....just hit an iron off the tee.

Irrelevant, for more reasons than this, but it's a par five, and he could reach the fairway with an iron.

Update: 3 conservative iron shots, with a one putt for a 4, on a 530 yard hole.  Low risk, no good luck or bad luck involved.

Still wrong - just because he didn't seem to have any good or bad luck doesn't mean there wasn't a chance of it. He put himself behind the tree.

Erik, 17 fairway at Carnoustie is not OB for 18 and there was no-one behind.  That's where VdVs first 165 yard shot would have been hit to, taking the burn completely out of play.

Yeah, you see that play ALL THE TIME from people…? Not.

You and Sean, feel free to continue over-weighting a freak occurrence. It doesn't matter to me, and neither of us "know," we're just giving opinions. I think that 99 times out of 100 hitting driver there he makes double or better and wins outright. Only the freak occurrence of hitting the railing fixture just right put him in the bad spot to make a triple.

[Kalen Braley]

Erik,

How often do people come to the 18th hole at Carnoustie with a 3 shot lead on the 72nd hole?  Its all about context and I don't understand your inability to see it here.  Phil got it, he played 3 conservative irons to ensure his victory.  Jack has done same in majors on the last hole as have others... but all those guys were clearly off their noodle and VdV got it right by taking on all that extra and uneeded risk....

P.S.  And you still got the tee shot at Carnoustie wrong.  Go look at the aerials again, the burn wraps around the fairway on 3 sides and you think that's the right play 99 times out of 100? He was very lucky to not go in it with his poor tee shot. 


 

[JLahrman]

Was Tom Kite guilty of gross mismanagement when he hit driver on the 72nd hole of the 1992 US Open with a 2-shot lead?

[David Federman]

Phil has learned some since he played the 72nd hole at Winged Foot with a one-shot lead. Not as epic as VdV, but he was not thinking clearly.
 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

How often do people come to the 18th hole at Carnoustie with a 3 shot lead on the 72nd hole?  Its all about context and I don't understand your inability to see it here.

I don't understand your inability to not over-weight a one-in-a-million stroke of bad luck. I don't understand your inability to understand that if his ball is 1/4" in any direction at that moment in time, he's probably your Open Champion and nobody is debating the strategy it took him to get there. Few debate strategy when the guy wins.

Jack has done same in majors on the last hole as have others... but all those guys were clearly off their noodle and VdV got it right by taking on all that extra and uneeded risk....

I've not said any such thing, and you continue to attempt to put words into my mouth. Furthermore, you should know how little weight I give incredibly small sample sizes. And also that I could counter by pointing out times when a leader played the 72nd hole as they normally would in going on to win. But we don't debate those times… because the guy won.

P.S.  And you still got the tee shot at Carnoustie wrong.  Go look at the aerials again, the burn wraps around the fairway on 3 sides and you think that's the right play 99 times out of 100? He was very lucky to not go in it with his poor tee shot.

No, I don't have it wrong. I've looked at it in Google Earth plenty of times. I've said earlier that the "right play" is probably a three-wood. The fairway is about 45 yards wide at about 230 off the tee.

Was Tom Kite guilty of gross mismanagement when he hit driver on the 72nd hole of the 1992 US Open with a 2-shot lead?

Apparently, but like I just said… few debate strategy when the guy wins. Had the ball been 1/4" in any direction, I believe we're not having this debate at all because VdV wins.

[John Kavanaugh]

How about Paul Casey growing a set and saying no to playing in the dark? Solo second with a birdie on 18 this morning.That is an example of not dumb.


I so wanted Phil to blow it on 18 in total darkness. Hit the wrong ball or something. Glad it worked out for Paul.

[George Pazin]

What most people, even the smart guys like Kalen , don't notice, is that, even when the odds are in your favor, they don't always work. The person who wins the powerball had the same odds as the rest of us, but somehow managed to overcome that.


VdV had those same calculations on every shot, and I personally am one of the few, maybe along with Erik (don't want to speak for him) who believes he made the right choices, according to the odds. But that doesn't guarantee the outcome desired. Nothing does.


And I'd argue the same for Phil at Winged Foot. On literally the HOLE BEFORE, he hit a wayward tee shot, the SAME wayward tee shot, and scrambled effectively. On 18, he faced an almost identical recovery shot - isn't the prudent play to think, I just pulled this off, there's no reason I can't do it again? Almost anything other than the small probability but actual outcome and he wins, easily.


People get confused when it comes to probabilities and statistics. I can't blame them, I'm a math geek and it sometimes trips me up, too.

[JLahrman]

VdV had those same calculations on every shot, and I personally am one of the few, maybe along with Erik (don't want to speak for him) who believes he made the right choices, according to the odds. But that doesn't guarantee the outcome desired. Nothing does.

I think he made the right decisions as well, except possibly off the tee. Am I'm a probability & statistics guy too, though to me all of his plays (again with the possible exception of the driver) made perfect sense.

[Jim Nugent]

Phil has learned some since he played the 72nd hole at Winged Foot with a one-shot lead. Not as epic as VdV, but he was not thinking clearly.

Disagree about Phil at Winged Foot.  He thought clearly on every shot at the 72nd hole, and made the right decisions each time.  He needed 4 to win: his choices for both his drive and second shot gave him the best chances to do that.  His downfall was execution, not thinking. 

[Sean_A]

VdV had those same calculations on every shot, and I personally am one of the few, maybe along with Erik (don't want to speak for him) who believes he made the right choices, according to the odds. But that doesn't guarantee the outcome desired. Nothing does.

I'd be curious to know how the odds of winning increase for the second shot when using a 4 iron to carry water instead of laying up up with a wedge.  Keeping in mind that at the time with Leonard ahead of VdV, playing for a 5 was a sensible strategy.  People say there was a 3 shot lead, but I am not sure this was the case on the tee and even if it was the case, VdV may not have known that Leonard bogeyed 18 (I think VdV thought he needed 5 to win when on the tee...I might be wrong).  So I am fine with a driver off the tee.  Plus, I remain unconvinced that iron off the tee is any safer than driver.  Its the second shot which to me is the key.  VdV must have known by then that Leonard didn't birdie the hole (in fact Leonard bogeyed and VdV could play for a 6) and he could now comfortably play for a 5 to win.  By all accounts VdV was playing safely toward the sand/right edge of the green with a 4 iron.  Why not play even more safely to the fairway with a wedge? By the time the third shot was played VdV would surely have known a 6 wins the Open...yet he still risks water from a bad lie.  Again, explain how the odds say its better to risk the water rather than play back to the fairway when he had four more shots to win the Open?  I truly cannit understand the logic...especially for the second shot which is what caused all the grief.


Ciao