Could have picked like 100 dudes to win this over Sergio and I can name like 12 golfers.
Fucking faggots at the bar so happy for Sergio. They must love to eat their faggots ass.
That shot on 18 was sick.Justin Thomas.
WisconsinWe are having huge thunderstorms all day with constant rumbling thunder in the distance. Ahhhhh flipped this shit on for a perfect Sunday nap and I had to turn it off because nearly every shot, some asshole is screaming "GET IN THE HOLE!" with every fucking shot. How is that still a thing?
“Taking nothing away from 9 under par – 9 under is incredible with U.S. Open pressure,” Miller told GolfChannel.com by phone. “But it isn’t a U.S. Open course that I’m familiar with the way it was set up.”
“It looks like a PGA Tour event course setup,” he said. “I’m not sure where the days of the 24- to 29-yard-wide fairways that we played every time went. It’s interesting to see where the USGA has gone with the U.S. Open, being a little more friendly than in years’ past.”
“A 63 for a par 72 is a heck of a score,” Miller said, “even if it was the Milwaukee Open.”
To be fair, Erin Hills proved itself unable to meet the challenge required for a US Open. I think there are currently 6 players who are double digit under par. 6! That is shameful for a US Open. Even when it rained a Congressional the year that Rory decimated that course, he was the only player double digit under par.
It is awesome that the US Open came to Wisconsin. Erin Hills is certainly a beautiful track. But that course, as it is currently designed, should not host another US Open.
I agree that total score matters more. But, to a certain extent it should make some difference because theoretically a course that is a par 72 should play 2 shots harder than a course that is a par 70. Here, you have a par 72 course that played a total of 4 shots easier than Oakmont's par 70 layout last year, and Oakmont played relatively easy last year (by Oakmont's standards at least). To say that "there's nothing to see here" because the winning total is only 4 shots less than last year elides the point that the course this year should have played a combined total of 8 shots more difficult. Hence, if the course this year played similarly to the course last year, the score would have been around 280, not 272.
Prior to this year, in the entire history of the US Open, only 2 players reach double digits under par. And only 1 other player reached -8. There were 11 players in this year's Open that shot -8 or better. 11! You can argue, as you have, that it is a par 72 so there are extra shots that inflate the numbers. But again, if the course truly is a par 72, then it should play to that number and the relationship to par would be comparable to a par 70 course.
I do agree with you that course offered an assortment of players on the leaderboard, a packed leaderboard, and a number of holes that afforded the USGA the ability to tinker with the setup over four days in ways that are a lot of fun.
First paragraph is a masterclass in how not to argue. That's just a bunch of nonsense conflicting with your original statement.
Your real argument is that it was too easy this year. Which is wrong. Congressional normally plays as a par 72 and played as a par 71 during the 2011 US Open. In reality, 6 golfers finished double digits under par. Pinehurst plays as a par 72 normally and it was a 70 for the US Open. Kaymer was really 17 under par. That's what I mean when I say par is a made up number.
And the fact that the US Open is so tough is why it's the 3rd best major. It takes skill to hit a 25 yard wide fairway and then hit to the middle of the green and 2 putt for par. But it's boring. It's unthinking. There's no strategy or decision making involved. The reason links golf is superior to parkland golf is because links golf allows choices and strategy to matter a lot more. That's why Erin Hills is so great.
Plus, I have no time for people who think difficult courses are better courses. It makes the game less fun and less accessible.
I will say this as a caddie, and as someone who watched the shootout on Saturday with no wind whatsoever: I've never seen or experienced a U.S. Open without fear until this week. Fear that a good shot would be repelled by a rock-hard green. Fear that a good drive would roll out just one yard too far on a firm fairway into five-inch thick, heavy, hackout rough. Notice I said "good" shot. Not "great," not "perfect," but good. U.S. Opens to me have always demanded great. They've always demanded as close to perfect as possible. No matter how well you were playing, swinging, thinking, and controlling your emotions, there always existed that fear in the back of your brain that this shot, that any shot, could spell disaster. That didn't exist this week. There was no fear. Erin Hills dry, firm, windy and fast might have brought fear. But once the weather didn't cooperate, there was no backup plan that could be done with the setup.
You are correct. The first sentence is wrong, the rest of the paragraph is right. I attempted to agree but qualify, only the qualification could not be had.
You are correct. The first sentence is wrong, the rest of the paragraph is right. I attempted to agree but qualify, only the qualification could not be had. Total score is relative to the course. If course A and course B are theoretically equal, but course A has 2 shots less on it than course B, then the total score for course A should be 2 shots less than the total score for course B. If Erin Hills and Oakmont are theoretically equal, then Erin Hills total score over 4 rounds should be 8 shots more than Oakmont's, not 4 shots less.
I disagree that par is a made up number because I disagree about the USGA's arbitrarily changing par on a hole. They also adjust the set up on the hole to reflect the change in par. As far as I know, they adjust the set up/par to reflect how they want the players to play the hole. Based on those factors, I do not think we can simply say "Pinehurst is actually a par 72, so Kaymer actually shot -17." Kaymer did not play the default Pinehurst layout, he played the adjusted one the USGA set up. But if you take the position that par is made-up in general (which I am inferring that you do), then we are arguing at cross purposes because we do not even agree on the premise. Based on your premise, total score is the only thing that matters so course design and par are essentially immaterial. I, on the other hand, take the position that par is important because it tells us what number the course is designed to play to.
I disagree that there is no strategy in the US Open. Players are walking on eggshells the entire time because the margin of error is nill, the courses are set up to demand perfection. That gives anyone who's playing well a shot at winning, because it only takes one bad shot to change the entire tournament. This year, once Koepka got to 14 the tournament was over, because even if he hit an average shot, the course was not going to yield a bogey down the stretch. That's not fun. And that's not all different from every other tour event throughout the year. Yes, for one tournament a year I would like par to matter, and I want to see the pro's execute incredibly difficult shots. I think Matt Kuchar's caddy expressed the idea of the US Open in golf.com's Tour Confidential better than I can:
And I am not all that confident that a firm and windy Erin Hills would have played 10 shots more difficult. Erin Hills' primary defense is that it is obscenely long. But Long golf courses are not a defense against the pro's because they hit their 7 irons 200 yards. And Long golf courses make the game inaccessible, just as much as difficult courses (granted, for amateurs those two are usually one in the same). Only a tiny % of golfers are capable of playing on a long course, they require a ridiculous amount of space and incredibly expensive to maintain.
Erin Hills had a few holes that gave the USGA options on how it would set up the course. It was interesting to anticipate how they would set up 2, 8, 9, and 15, for example. I do not know, however, how much of an effect it had on the players' decision making because I did not see a great deal of variation in strategy. I know Rickie laid up a great deal the first three days, and some guys laid back a little further on some of the longer par 5's. Most players, however, hit driver on just about every hole because the fairways are so wide. I also do not recall seeing a great deal of variation in the type of shots players hit, compared to the different styles employed on the links courses.
I disagree that par is a made up number because I disagree about the USGA's arbitrarily changing par on a hole. They also adjust the set up on the hole to reflect the change in par. As far as I know, they adjust the set up/par to reflect how they want the players to play the hole. Based on those factors, I do not think we can simply say "Pinehurst is actually a par 72, so Kaymer actually shot -17." Kaymer did not play the default Pinehurst layout, he played the adjusted one the USGA set up. But if you take the position that par is made-up in general (which I am inferring that you do), then we are arguing at cross purposes because we do not even agree on the premise. Based on your premise, total score is the only thing that matters so course design and par are essentially immaterial. I, on the other hand, take the position that par is important because it tells us what number the course is designed to play to.
Erin Hills had a few holes that gave the USGA options on how it would set up the course. It was interesting to anticipate how they would set up 2, 8, 9, and 15, for example. I do not know, however, how much of an effect it had on the players' decision making because I did not see a great deal of variation in strategy. I know Rickie laid up a great deal the first three days, and some guys laid back a little further on some of the longer par 5's. Most players, however, hit driver on just about every hole because the fairways are so wide. I also do not recall seeing a great deal of variation in the type of shots players hit, compared to the different styles employed on the links courses.
This year, once Koepka got to 14 the tournament was over, because even if he hit an average shot, the course was not going to yield a bogey down the stretch.
I disagree that there is no strategy in the US Open. Players are walking on eggshells the entire time because the margin of error is nill, the courses are set up to demand perfection. That gives anyone who's playing well a shot at winning, because it only takes one bad shot to change the entire tournament. This year, once Koepka got to 14 the tournament was over, because even if he hit an average shot, the course was not going to yield a bogey down the stretch. That's not fun. And that's not all different from every other tour event throughout the year. Yes, for one tournament a year I would like par to matter, and I want to see the pro's execute incredibly difficult shots.
I'm just going to pick at a few of these, because that post is just a complete waste of everybody's time. Anyways:
Pinehurst played with 529, 502, and 528 yard par 4s that are normally par 5s. The USGA changed those to par 4s because they always do it. There's no fidelity to the original design or anything like that. The course doesn't get easier or harder because a couple of numbers magically changed. Par is a number that does not matter in golf tournaments, period. You win by shooting the lowest score. The point is that you can't compare numbers under par between various tournaments. 8 of the world's top 12 missed the cut. The top 3 players in the world missed the cut. And you're whining about the course being too easy!
By the way, Erin Hills is a tougher course than Pinehurst. Which is why Koepka's score was higher than Kaymer's. How about that.
For fuck's sake, actually read something outside of the cesspool of golf analysis that is golf.com (with some exceptions) or GolfDigest (without exceptions). This comments reveals that you understand almost zero about high caliber golf and golfing strategy. Harman got around the course brilliantly all week. Patrick Reed was in the mix going into the final round. And then you had pure ball strikers like Fleetwood and brutes like Koepka. The reason for that is that all of these people could maneuver around the golf course, playing to their own strengths.
Here a good primer on why you're so wrong: http://www.friedegg.co/golf-courses/erin-hills-strategic-design
Other good articles to read: http://www.friedegg.co/golf-courses/erin-hills-favoring-none and http://www.friedegg.co/golf-courses/erin-hills-course-thoughts
15 was the hardest hole on Sunday, and Koepka birdied it to essentially seal his win. And 14, 16, 17, and 18 were all gettable. The tournament was not over when he got to 14. Koepka just played brilliantly, and Harman faded just at that point.
Finally, none of this is strategy. That's just pressure, caused by the USGA setting up courses where there is only one option and you have to execute that perfectly. I think that style of golf is terrible, boring, and not fun to play. I'm glad that they appear to be moving away from that.
And again, the wide fairways do not accentuate strategic play, they minimize the penalty of mishits. Every point made in that article is something that is expected from every major championship venue. The wide fairways argument is propaganda to paper over what it really accomplishes: minimizing mishits.
Even now, we're still dickering over the definition of "mishit." The point I am making is that at Erin Hills the only mishits that are punished are the mishits that are so bad that the player ends up 60 yards off line. At a traditional Open you to be more precise than that.
Erin Hills did in fact punish mishits, but it didn't punish them with double bogeys like other US Opens do. It punishes them with par or bogeys, which is how every golf course works, except for a few venues during the US Open.
While I agree that, as a general matter, wider fairways are good for amateurs, longer golf courses are not. It would be better for most amateurs to be in the rough with an 8 iron than in the fairway with a 4 iron. Erin Hills is a prime example of this stupid arms race to lengthen golf courses. They had a 681 yard par 5. That is stupid, it is expensive, and it make the game just as inaccessible as a traditional US Open "set up" does. What is worse is that length does not actually make it difficult for the pros. At least with a traditionally difficult course, it is difficult for everybody. With an extremely long golf course, it is only difficult for those who are not in the top 5% of the world's golfers.