Stop talking about the under par records, pluuuze!

[mike_malone]

 The USGA created an artificial par this week. It could have been lower or higher if they wanted it to be. But the discussion of Rory's record under par rounds just shines more light on par . That he tied (I believe) the lowest score for 72 holes is enough for me to call his performance brilliant. That he won by 8 also expresses how magnificent he was.

   

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

The USGA created an artificial par this week. It could have been lower or higher if they wanted it to be. But the discussion of Rory's record under par rounds just shines more light on par . That he tied (I believe) the lowest score for 72 holes is enough for me to call his performance brilliant. That he won by 8 also expresses how magnificent he was.

   

He actually beat the Open scoring record (well, US Open) by 4 strokes. I thought it was a really great performance.

[mike_malone]

 It was a great performance. I think the number of shots he won by best expresses his accomplishment because it compares him to all those who competed on the same course at the same time. For that reason it is comparable to Tiger in '00. He won by a large margin. My point is that using under par is the weakest way to express his great week.

[David_Tepper]

How quickly everyone seems to have forgotten that Oosthuizen won the British Open by 7 strokes last year!

[Kalen Braley]

How quickly everyone seems to have forgotten that Oosthuizen won the British Open by 7 strokes last year!

But he wasn't anointed as the next prodigy to chase down Tiger.  How dare you mention him in the same breath as Rory!! 

[Kalen Braley]

P.S.  Given these accomplishments I would say his -16 looked rather <yawn>...pedestrian.


33-under
• *Steve Stricker, 2009 Bob Hope Classic, 255 total, par-72

31-under
• Ernie Els, 2003 Mercedes Championship, 261 total, par-73

30-under
• *Pat Perez, 2009 Bob Hope Classic, 258 total, par-72

29-under
• Joe Durant*, 2001 Bob Hope Chrysler Classic, 259, par-72
• Tim Herron*, 2003 Bob Hope Chrysler Classic, 259, par-72

28-under
• John Huston, 1998 United Airlines Hawaiian Open, 260, par-72
• Mark Calcavecchia, 2001 Phoenix Open, 256, par-71
• Stuart Appleby*, 2003 Las Vegas Invitational, 259
• Phil Mickelson, 2006 BellSouth Classic, 260, par-72

(*First four rounds of 5-round tournament)

[D_Malley]

If he had played the same golf in the last open at congressional he would have been 12 under

[Adam Clayman]

Kalen, Those courses weren't re-worked to be the test that a U.S Open typically expects to be. Perhaps typical is the problem and there's been a shift in what constitutes the best test?

Mayday, Just like Dub's Dread, Rees' re-dos don't make the golf harder or more compelling for the best in the game. Only, for us suckers who would pay the freight to get beat up there. So, if there's one positive about the mentioning of sub par numbers, it would be for Mike Davis to use his newly anointed power, vergist Mr. Jones' methodology, and return the championship to courses that are interesting, compelling and at times difficult, even for the pros. And if they can't find one, go spend some of that usga booty and build one. But, in  principle, I agree, Par is too complex for the media to begin to understand how they don't understand.

[Sam Morrow]

How quickly everyone seems to have forgotten that Oosthuizen won the British Open by 7 strokes last year!

Thanks God! I am sick of every prick in the world talking like Rory is the second coming. Someone was talking about that at the course today and I reminded them of last years Open and they acted like I made it up.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mayday,

What's next, 20 under par ?

Par is a meaningful number when you're attempting to identify the best golfer/s in the National Championship.

One simply can't ignore history and tradition and the demanding challenge that should be presented to the best golfers in the world when they're competing for the National Championship.

[mike_malone]

 Pat,

   I disagree. The 1/2 par holes require a decision that is irrelevant to play. Should it be a 4 or a five? In the end all the players compete on the same course . I'd prefer them to use the rating for the course. That way we can even compare eras. I'm not a great player so I can't get in the mind of a tour player but I bet that "par" is a secondary thought to the challenge presented by the shot at hand and the score that they want to make on the hole.

[Phil Benedict]

How quickly everyone seems to have forgotten that Oosthuizen won the British Open by 7 strokes last year!

I saw some stat geek's analysis of Rory's performance compared to other lopsided victories.  Basically measures his score relative to the entire field.  Oosthuizen's performance at the Open was more impressive than Rory's according to this analysis.  The best ever by a fair margin was Tiger at Pebble in 2000.

The obvious difference is that Oosty came from out of nowhere while Rory has been the new new thing for a while.  Hence the hype for Rory, who also has the 'it' factor.  Oosty's swing looks great but most experts seem to think he's a 1-hit wonder.

[David Kelly]

How quickly everyone seems to have forgotten that Oosthuizen won the British Open by 7 strokes last year!

I saw some stat geek's analysis of Rory's performance compared to other lopsided victories. 

Measuring scores based on the standard deviation above the mean is not exactly stat geek stuff.  It's pretty simple really.

Here is the analysis to which you referred:
http://espn.go.com/espn/grantland/story/_/id/6680477/relative-dominance

[Jim_Kennedy]

McIlroy earned the praise he is receiving, but there has never been a more impressive win than Tiger's 2000 triumph at Pebble..