[bstark]

  Shivas is right. What surprised me was how few guys tried to hit knockdown shots on #7 on Sat and Sun. Same thing with #13 ( I saw only Flesch try to run one in) . Very little imagination out there. Most guys tried the aerial route with no luck on Sun. I guess they got stuck in the same old PGA tour thinking, which is go high stay dry.
  As far as slamming my fist into the pillow, I nearly tipped the coffee table over when he got up and down on #14. WOW.

[Mike Hendren]

Brian,

Do you know that guy that kept getting on camera placing those little white flags by golf balls in the rough on the first hole?  I could have sworn he was sipping a Budweiser!

Mike

[bstark]

Mike,

  Had to be one of the locals as SGC marshaled #1. I'll go to the videotape.............

[Matt_Ward]

Shivas:

Pardon me -- but to borrow Ron Reagan's often used quote --"there you go again."

The reason the pros hit wedges and 9-irons into a number of the tougher holes was twofold:

1). The turf conditions in the fairway were running as fast as a pool table. Anything -- and I mean anything -- with any forward pace could easily run 30-40 yards or more.

2). The northwest winds that arose on Saturday and stayed through Sunday allowed for holes like #9, #10, #16 and #18 to play fairly short for those who managed to stay in the fairway.

Let me also quash this thinking that minimizes the putting aspect of the game because it's not pure form golf or some such thing. Putting is half the game -- it is also the aspect of the game in which players can stablize themselves if their ball striking is not razor sharp. But given the Open conditions who the hell was razor sharp 24/7 during the event? I didn't see it and I watched like a hawk a number of the key groups. Misses are a part of the equation and the player best able to handle the adversity will go a long ways to winning the event.

This idea that Retief simply putted his way to the championship minimizes the mental fortitude he applied when all others -- just witness the expression on Ernie's face during Sunday's round -- Ernie was like a fried egg on a boiling hot roadway!

Putting is not some lesser form of golf -- it is golf. It's no different than when a team in football succeeds not from its offense but creates turnovers from its defense.

The botton line is this -- golf is about managing your game and the US Open maximizes the kind of mental pressure that induces shotmaking mistakes. Yes, I was amazed at his continual ability to make putts down the stretch but other champions no less than Nicklaus and Watson have done likewise when they were the dominant force. Shivas -- just check out the final round when Watson snared his only Open win at Pebble. Tell me his putting round there made his victory in '82 less sweet and meaningful.

You say Retied didn't have control of where the ball was going -- guess again partner. When he landed in the crap to the right of #13 he made sure he would be far enough left to play his 3rd to the delicate pin location. In my mind that's smart and it demonstrates control.

At #14 you have to give the man credit for getting through the hole with a bogey -- others would have had DB or worse.

At #15 he made sure to control his 2nd shot to land in the front bunker because he could spin the ball to get near for a shot at par.

At #16 he made it a point to chase a 2nd shot down the fairway to set up a full SW for this 3rd shot and proceeded to hole for birdie.

You're right Shivas -- there was no method in his madness -- he was simply lucky with a capital "L" in winning his second Open. You, I and others should be so clear in the head to know how to maneuver around such a demanding test.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bstark,

...What surprised me was how few guys tried to hit knockdown shots on #7 on Sat and Sun. Same thing with #13 ( I saw only Flesch try to run one in) . Very little imagination out there. Most guys tried the aerial route with no luck on Sun. I guess they got stuck in the same old PGA tour thinking, which is go high stay dry.

I think you hit the nail on the head, they didn't know how, or wouldn't adjust to play the golf course as it needed to be played.[/color]

As far as slamming my fist into the pillow, I nearly tipped the coffee table over when he got up and down on #14. WOW.

Shivas,

When Mickelson had a one shot lead, and didn't hit the green on # 17, that was the critical shot.  Had he hit the green, the entire situation changes, and the pressure is placed squarely on Goosen's shoulders.

But, making a double bogie, on the 71st hole, was an incredible catastrophe, and NO BAD BOUNCES OR ROLLS WERE INVOLVED.

Blame the results of the tournament on that errant shot, not the golf course, because when all is said and done, it came down to the play of the 71st hole, a par 3.

[peter_p]

Given the extreme hard and fast conditions, I wonder how many players changed golf balls before or during the tournament, opting for higher spin rates off of their irons, thus better stopping power.

The winner was determined by who had the better lie in the bunker on 17. Retief could spin the ball off a hard level lie,
Phil couldn't get the spin off the soft uphill lie.

[Matt_Ward]

Shivas:

You say Maltbie thought he was "dead twice." That's why Roger holds the microphone instead of the golf clubs.

No player in the field was completely razor sharp in their tee-to-green game. Let me enlighten you -- Retief was 5th in overall putting for the event -- Fred Funk finished first.

Let's also analyze you last paragraph -- Shivas if you want GUARANTEED results the simple answer is don't play golf. The bounce of the ball is part of the shotmaking equation because it requires a deft ability to gauge all the factors -- you can never eliminate, nor should you, the aspect that luck will play.

Let me also mention that Retief was 12th in fairways hit and Phil was 9th -- not that much apart between the two top finishers. You make it sound like Retief gave his rendition of Seve at Royal Birkdale and played from the parking lots. One other stat -- Retief was among the top ten in greens in regulation for the week -- 42 for the week.

Shivas you also tap danced around the examples I provided where Retief demonstrated course management in positioning his shots so that he could maximize his opportunity to make a par or even birdie. Do you think Retief lucked it out to win the Open? Hardly. He skillfully assessed his situation on the back nine and gave himself quality opportunities to hang in there when everyone -- save for Phil until the 71st hole -- imploded. To use your expression -- dem's da facts partner!

If you have any issue it's with the USGA and the way they permitted the course to quickly slide from playable to severe from the first two rounds to the final 36. Shinnecock is IMHO the finest championship test we have and did not need any outside help to make its case.

[Matt_Ward]

Shivas:

You midwest boys have a major league hard-on because your backyard courses -- Medinah and Olympia Fields -- got no respect from the press and whoever else. Send me the kleenex please!

Shivas -- Shinnecock would have been find if a modicum of sense prevailed. Do you think the boys would have shot -15 or some such number if the same conditoins from the first two rounds would have prevailed for the final two.

I don't.

The pressure in winning an Open increases tenfold as the weekend approaches and the pin placements were a tad more demanding as well.

You keep barking about what Maltibe said -- guess what Shivas -- that's why Roger holds the microphone and why he's not playing anymore. He sees situations that are DEAD FOR HIM!!! Maltie borrowed the same playbook from Bob Rosburg -- remember his famous, "Jim he has no shot" BS. The reality is that Rossie would have had no shot -- the guys playing can make shots others can't even see.

I explained the specific holes and how Retief managed to make the most of what he could do that day. You seem to think he played a half ass round and was quite fortunate to do what he did. I don't. Here you have a former Open champion keeping his wits about himself and executing to pinpoint perfection with the flat stick. Frankly, I don't know what your points are because it's nothing more than backhanded sour grapes about the adulation that Shinnecock receives.

Let me also mention the 17th hole. Landing the ball left was a smart play -- even if that meant being in the bunker because the slightest pull to the right would have been a probable bogey at best. To use Hogan's often quoted example on the 11th at Augusta -- it would be smarter to miss the green on that side to protect yourself for the next play and still garner a par.

Shivas -- you then ask "trust me." I see. Were you there? Have you ever played an Open in such demanding conditions? Might it be better to get Retief's direct comments on the situation rather than some left field analysis from an attorney from Chicago (no disrespect intended!)?

You ask me about the different set-ups with the Opens of the last 25 years and I can frankly say that weather conditions play a major role in the situation. Olympia Fields had wind conditions that came from an opposite direction for the first couple of days. This made the tough holes play a bit more easier and the fellows took advantage.

From my memory in '90 Medinah was not played at full length. Maybe you should ask the USGA why since that's your beef.
Let me also point out that in the '90 event the wind was down for the bulk of the week and only picked up considerably for the playoff between Irwin and Donald.

I can remember being at the '88 PGA at Oak Tree and the wind simply died for the bulk of the week and the PGA became a shootout like most other Tour events. To use the expression -- shit happens.

In the case of Shinnecock you had a major league cold front from the northwest that came through late Friday and throughout the weekend. Conditions that were solid for the first two days were whipped dry by the winds and when you factor in the pin placements that only increased with difficulty along with the mounting pressure it became apparent that all but the very elite players would fall quickly off the leaderboard.

The wind conditions that came up at Shinnecock were no different than when Tom Kite prevailed at PB in '92. Such is the case with Mother Nature but the issue is that the USGA could have done more to keep what it had for the first two rounds.

[Matt_Ward]

Shivas:

Name me the player who HAD THE ALL AROUND GAME you keep on barking about?

The sad fact is that on a very trying day Retief managed his game and did that superbly. End of story. Shivas -- let me point out something that seems to excape you. You don't win the Open as often as you lose it. Others did that and Retief, to his credit, fought the impulse to implode and managed as best as he could his game.

I have layed out the stats for the week and when you look at his numbers he was at the top of the charts in nearly all the categories. Please tell me how deficient Retief was? Last I checked -- he was leaving Southampton with a little hardware!

Shivas -- you may be an excellent attorney -- but the conspiracy theory of why Shinnecock gets one sort of treatment and why your BACKYARD courses in the Chicago area got left out is so patently clear of sour grapes and envy. You may poo-poo it all you want but please Shivas enough of the whining. Your better than that.

Shivas -- the wind was blowing quite strong on all of Saturday and much of Sunday. Was it to the same MPH level as it was at PB? Well, OK -- I'll concede it was a few MPH less but Shinnecock possesses the more demanding all-around layout compared to the California layout out west. The win speed was whipping quite well and simply becauss you didn't hear it through the sound equipment does not mean it didn't happen as I described. But then again -- what do I know I was there.

[Matt_Ward]

Shivas:

Love the use of the word "if"

Maybe you heard the expression "if the queen had balls she would be the king."

Such use of the word "if" is how they built Vegas because of suckers who thought they had "inside info" to take the house down. You see Shivas I don't place any stock on "if" I go by the actual result.

When the big moment arrived Phil did the ole Phil sort of thing. Right up until the 17th tee he looked like a shining knight. It reminded me of what happened to Smarty Jones at the Belmount. People wanted it soooooooooooooo bad and then when it didn't happen have to create some sort of excuse why the other guy / horse won.

Shivas -- I can understand home town pride but try to concoct some sort of better rationale in the Shinnecock v. Chicago area clubs argument.

One other think -- I have rated courses from around the globe and just because I happen to live in the greater NY metro area I can't help that by near unanimous opinions this area has the greatest depth of courses in the entire USA. I would say the same even if I lived in Montana because anyone who has indeed treked the country will say the same. I have rated plenty of courses as high as I can from other parts of the country -- in fact, I am a big fan of Skokie because it gets so little attention from what was done there during its recent restoration.

One last thing -- when you say who managed their game better I base my conclusion on the result because it's the result that determines the outcome. Your argument is akin to saying that a football team that moves the ball up and down the field is better than one that doesn't do the same but somehow makes the most out of its field position and wins the game with most points.

P.S. If you analyze the data for the four rounds -- not just the final round here is the data ... it is extremely close between the two men.

Putts average per hole / Goosen - 1.54 ... Mickelson - 1.61
Drive Distance / Goosen - 314 (6th) ... Mickelson - 295
Fairways hit / Goosen - 59% ... Mickelson - 61%
Greens in Regulation / Goosen - 58% ... Mickelson - 65%

[Matt_Ward]

Shivas:

You're the guy who inserted the word "if" into the equation. If you don't like my so-called "diatribe" then please don't insult my intelligence with all of this post mortem on "if" this and "if" that.

You ask how stupid these guys are?

Well, in Phil's case you have to somewhat thick in the head and leave your next shot above the hole when anything below it will give you a better opportunity to make the par putt on the 71st hole. he had a relatively easy uphill bunker shot and after knowing what could happen beyond or above the hole it's really foolhardy to hit it where he did and think such a putt is easily made.

Phil played extremely well but the fact of the matter is not who hit the ball better but who scored better. You see Shivas I count putting as golfing your ball. You seem to think that putting is some sort of separate game -- akin to Hogan's tired thoughts. Retief kept maximum composure when just about anyone else was losing theirs. I was quite amazed with his uncanny ability to look adversity in the eye and not blink.

Phil blinked.

Typical of lawyers we get the semantics of position "A" v "B."
The reality is that if you saw the 17th hole in person landing in the bunker was as good as being on the green minus a straight uphill putt which was a very limited landing zone given Sunday's pin position.

Shivas -- I outlined a number of instances where Retief was able to successfully manage his game despite the tremendously demanding conditions on Sunday. He made it a point to get to certain positions on the course that maximized his scoring opportunities and he executed to nearly pinpoint perfection with the flatsick.

[George Pazin]

Shivas -

Pavin and Floyd were both fantastic putters in their prime, easily the equal of Goosen.

I don't think there are too many tournaments anymore where simply the best ball striker wins, no matter how much you want it to be so. Putting is just too big a part of the game, and fields are just too deep with good ball strikers - one of them is bound to putt well. Combine that with today's technology, which minimizes poor ball striking, and course setups which favor the aerial drop and stop game, which again minimizes poor ball striking, and you have tournaments being won by the hottest putter. Many older players say Hogan would have been winning well into the 60s if he could have had virtually anyone else putt for him.

I'm completely going on instinct here, but I'd venture to guess virtually every tournament won for the last 30 years has been won by someone who was among the putting leaders - fewest putts, best PGIR, whatever.

I don't recall anyone 2 and 3 putting his way to the title because he had such superior ball striking he was able to overcome it. Even Miller at his prime had to hole putts to win.

[Matt_Ward]

Shivas said:

"The lesser ballstriker and better putter won on a course where the best ballstriker was supposed to win."

Shivas -- before I start laughing too loudly can you understand what I write or do you lock yourself into lawyer arguments?

The best player is the one who SHOOTS THE LOWEST SCORE. How elegant the ball striking is for the other player is wonderful stuff to mull over and admire, but in the end analysis it's the final totals that matters to me. They don't hand out an Open trophy on the beauty of the ball striking alone.

Let me also mention you are the guy constantly barking about Goosen being only able to make putts. Look partner you're the guy who's minimizing that part of the game. In my way of thinking it's the totality that counts.

Shivas -- it's clear your a Phil-fanatic which is fine. I like Phil too, but let's make sure to complete the record that after Phil birdied #13, #15 and #16 he once again did the El-Phil-Foldo with a disasterous three-putt from no more than 6 feet.

You say he didn't mean to blast beyond the hole but his FAILURE is what set up the three putt. He could not go beyond the pin with an easy uphill bunker shot and that's exactly what he did. Better to be below the hole 20 feet and have an uphill go at it. Goosen, on other other hand, when faced with delicate situations always managed ont he back nine to keep his ball in the most favorable position in which to score.

Shivas -- let you in on a secret with Phils' blunder -- that's poor management and execution when it counts the most. Phil was so close to being the golf story of '04 with back-to-back majors but because of his poor manegement skills and execution he takes the 2nd prize once again. A true pity.

I agree with George (that's a first!) that putting is crucial to winning championships and rarely does a player win such an event without being able to make the crucial putts when they count. Goosen did that -- time after time - after time.

Shivas you equate ball striking with hitting all fairways and greens to demonstrate superiority. Hello? Take the glue jar out of your nose and remember the US Open is always about misses and the player most able to successfully manage himself around such delicate dilemmas will be the one standing at the end. They all miss at a US Open -- even Phil did numerous times. The difference is that Goosen rose to the occasion despite no fan support, or very little, and just when Phil seemed ready to leap over and grab the brass ring he once again failed.

End of story.

[Philip Gawith]

if you step back from the last tournament and look at the year to date stats, mickelson is number one in ball-striking and goosen number three (last year they were 101 and 22nd respectively). as for putting, they are 7th and 10th respectively, with nearly identical averages of 1.736 and 1.738 (last year mickelson was 14th, goosen 76th). all in all, not much in it.

as a matter of interest, can anyone recall how many putts mickelson had in the last round at augusta? i seem to remember that not missing a putt on the final day was pretty central to his winning performance too.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()