Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Sports' started by Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat, Jun 10, 2018.
and it will be an over-par winner again.
I wish that putt was for the win. Everyone would have been on the edge of their seats.
I love Koepka and he's a tremendous golfer but he's pissing me off with these academic US Open wins.
Hes a fuckin stud. Be mad at everyone else for not keeping it close.
Winning b2b US Opens is remarkable. Hats off.
What an approach shot on 16 for Brooks. The wind never really was a factor in the afternoon. Great experience being at a major.
Koepka won this with three incredible saves on the back nine. A deserving champion.
Meh. I think Reed had it right about yesterday. A few bad pin positions and the greens got a little crusty on Saturday.
Other than that, this was a great tournament, and the play this afternoon made Mickelson’s
tantrum a non-issue.
More major wins then regular tour wins. Angel Cabrera approved.
Hell of a weekend from Brooks. He was nails.
That wasn’t an all timer of a us open but it was a good tournament. A beautiful historic course, some of the biggest names in contention throughout, very tough conditions that tested these guys in multiple aspects of the game and a compelling Sunday that came down to the final few holes. Seeing a repeat champion is pretty cool
On top of that we get the bonus of a guy that many have long thought to be a jackass shit his pants and further expose himself as a jackass.
People complaining about this us open are the type that will never love anything unless it achieves some impossible to reach standard. There were a couple of poorly placed pins on Saturday and the wind caught them off guard but in retrospect I’m not sure how much that actually affected the outcome.
If you didn’t have fun watching this golf tournament then that just sucks for you. You missed out on something fun.
In the end just frustrating all around, you know that Fleetwood, DJ, Finau, Reed and others are not going to sleep well tonight with the number of opportunities they missed.
Koepka just made the putts no one else could when it was money time
A link to my column about the US Open, if you're interested:
(Note that this is for a bimonthly publication and is meant to be a general look at the tournament rather than a Monday morning game story as such - my UK-based American audience won't be reading this for another week or two at the earliest.)
Very nice write-up. Because of other pressing matters I spent little time watching the event and liked your appreciation of the course. I agree with you about Phil - I'm a fan, but there's no excuse for remaining in the tournament after what he did. Calling it unprofessional does a disservice to amateurs; and lying about his thought process afterwards (I've always meant to do this to take a 2 stroke penalty(??)) only made him look worse.
Joe Posnanski had a write-up on the Mickleson ridiculousness, and I absolutely agree with him, as I think Phil should have been DQ'd for what he did. I think he pretty clearly violated 1-2, not 14.5, as it was clearly purposeful. I think the USGA screwed it up pretty badly, but I won't lose any sleep over it.
USGA’s explanation of why 1-2 didn’t apply makes perfect sense to me. Where are they incorrect here?
If you actually read rule 1-2, it’s crystal clear he shouldn’t be DQed. The exception clearly states rule 14-5 takes precedent. Additionally, under 1-2, DQ is reserved for serious breaches, which is where the action gives the player a significant advantage or puts the opponent at a significant disadvantage. I think Phil easily makes less than 10 if he plays the ball as it lies, so he didn’t gain an advantage at all. The handwringing around this is ridiculous. He made an action on the ball, took the appropriate (and harmful) penalty, and moved on. I think it was dumb for him to do, it’s a bad look, and it cost him a few extra strokes...but it’s not cheating and it’s not worthy of DQ at all.
If he really wanted to be the smartest guy in the room, he would’ve taken an unplayable and just re-hit the original bogey putt for a triple.
I agree that they should have applied 1-2, but I don’t think they should have DQ’d him. He clearly acted out of frustration and not with the intent to gain a significant advantage. No sane person would think that they’d get away with hitting a moving putt on the green in front of hundreds of live spectators and millions more television viewers. He lost his cool. I think DQ’ing him under 1-2 wouldn’t really have been in the spirit of that rule, as he wasn’t trying to cheat. Whether he should have just dropped out on his own or not is another question.
Well he certainly shouldn't have tried to look smart after the fact with that bogus explanation. In part because it is a bald lie, and in part because he seems to open the door more widely to gamesmanship through his smart-aleck post-hoc response.
Yeah, I don’t know why he did that. I guess he thought he looked “smart” for saying he was exploiting a rule, even though that would definitely have been grounds for a DQ. Anything to avoid admitting he blew up and did something unprofessional and embarrassing. The USGA apparently didn’t buy his explanation. Maybe that’s why they tried to officially penalize him under 14.5, because his statement would have resulted in a DQ under 1-2.
Pretty interesting is the fact that he made a stroke at the ball and that kept 14.5 in play. Had he just reached over and stopped it with his putter he would have been DQ'd.
Obviously the moving ball rule normally comes up when a ball inadvertently moves due to its lie or wind conditions, but chasing it down, running around it, and playing a stroke is definitely within the rule. We'll see if they modify this anytime in the future.
It will be the Mickelson amendment and will be written in scarlet ink.
You might want to read Posnanski's article linked in the post above yours. You may not agree with those arguments, but they seem pretty compelling to me.
On the one hand, I do find this disturbing, and I do think less of Mickelson for this, and I do think it affects his legacy (at least slightly). On the other hand, children are currently being separated from their parents and held indefinitely in cages by the American government, so I'm struggling to really care about an act of petulance and silliness at a golf tournament.
In fairness to Posnanski, he’s used to not caring about children getting fucked so I guess it makes sense that he’d care so much about what Mickelson did.
Ok Mr. Duval.
Golf is showing it’s inbred snobbery here, and having too much time to fill on Golf Channel. Phil may be an ass, but I didn't see any bodybags on the course.
This was a brain fart for a guy who was not a factor in the tournament (he played a little green hockey) and the correct rule was applied for his actions on the course. His post-round synopsis is exactly what you'd expect from a guy who should have spent some time in the clink for insider trading, but as far as golf is concerned, move on.
Rule book worshipers get over it and focus on the real problem... the pace of play!
This Phil crap is also distracting from the abomination of spending another weekend watching FOX attempt to do golf. Looking at Brooks while hearing DJ hit his shot, but not seeing it was so FOX.
As Napkin points out, if only Posnanski could have been so clear with his "vision" of righteousness and justice when he was kissing Joe's ass and speed writing his attempt at a definitive book on a "legendary" subject. He did more skating from the truth in trying to protect (and neuter) his precious book than Eric Heiden did training for Lake Placid.
On deck... Cromwell!
Unfortunately Sammy will not be singing for us, but it will still be fun.
That’s all well and good but it impacted the paychecks of every guy that finished behind him. Granted it was only like a dozen guys, but those are probably the guys that needed it most. It doesn’t mean being a ‘rule book worshiper’ to think he should have been DQed.
Pace of play really doesn’t come into play much on the tour, so not sure what your issue is there. It’s up to the network to fill time. Fox isn’t great, but they all have their holes and I’ll sacrifice having to listen to Joe Buck as a trade for having Tracman on nearly every shot. None of the networks is perfect.
Pretty ironic hearing someone on a baseball site complain about pace of play in another sport. In a golf tournament there are literally dozens of fabulous golfers playing at the same time. If the broadcast is tedious, it's the fault of the broadcast team, not the lack of interesting material. My biggest beef, by the way, is all the time spent watching players line up puts when the real drama is the long shots into the green, most of which don't get broadcast.
Par's supposed to be the average for first class pros playing the hole, right? Google seems to confirm that—is there another accepted definition of par?
If not, it seems to me like if +1 among US Open final round players wins, that basically means that the course/tournament designers screwed up setting the par line correctly.
Balance that out with the other 30+ tournaments each year not trying to challenge first class pros with par.
I'm OK with +1.
No, no, no. Par is just a guide. The course is the course and the total number of strokes to complete a round is all that matters, for which conditions can make posting certain numbers easier or more difficult. The numbers slapped on each hole just help people wrap their head around the game but certainly aren't some metric that can be used to determine whether course/tournament designers adequately set up the course. The measure of proper set up is whether the course plays well, which is a subjective question.
The US Open is supposed to be hard. It's the national championship and not some worthless typical tour event. These guys should be beaten up by the course. +1, +10, whatever. They should go out there in the Open, on a tremendously difficult course, and the best to survive it should get the trophy.
Par is arbitrary and unimportant. What's important is that the test that the course imposes bear a strong resemblance to golf. If a pro gently taps a ball on the putting green and it runs 80 feet downhill, that's not golf.
The idea that an intentional stroke at a moving ball is somehow a less egregious offense than a deflection of a moving ball seems to be slicing the onion a bit finely here, especially when:
1. The distinction is meant to cover intent. (A deflection of a currently moving ball is presumed to be intentional, whereas a stroke taken at a moving ball is, in most circumstances, presumed to be unintentional.)
2. Phil's actions were deliberate by his own account.
I'm not too bothered by it because Phil exposed himself as the ass we've all known him to be. And sending out Amy to clean up after him ("He offered to withdraw!") only makes him look more pathetic.
It's a fine line - setting up a course of the razor's edge can make the action even more compelling. (The Masters is an example of this.) However, to your point, you need to balance the potential disaster with potential reward, and the back 9 at Shinnecock doesn't have many opportunities.
On Saturday, the balance tipped too far in the direction of train wrecks and the USGA deserves criticism for it. The Sunday setup was more than fair.
Had the course and green conditions on Saturday resembled those on Sunday, the winning score would have been closer to -10.
I think they need a mix between the 2 days. Saturday was too hard, Sunday too easy. No one birdied 15 on Saturday. That's nuts.
It's a fine line, plus when you consider they map out pin placements for each day well in advance of true conditions, then it gets difficult. On top of the fact that US Open courses are rotated, so it isn't as easy as setting up the Masters or courses they are on every year. Even as dry and hard as it was Saturday, moving some pins onto flatter areas would have made a difference, but that may have effected where they wanted to put them on Sunday. Then you have the situation with the early v late tee times and they didn't want to make it too accessible for the early players. But since this is happening every 3 years or so, they really need to come up with a solution to find consistency from one day to the next if the conditions are similar. 1992 at Pebble is going to happen every now and then, but this could have been avoided.
I did read it, and they weren't compelling to me. 14-5 clearly governs when a player makes a stroke at a moving ball, and stroke is very clearly defined in the rules ("forward movement of the club made with the intention of striking at and moving the ball"). Phil made a stroke at a moving ball (regardless of intent) and therefore 14-5 is the rule. If 14-5 is the applicable rule, 1-2 clearly is not based on the exception built into it. The parentheses at the bottom of the 14-5 only talk about deflecting or stopping a ball, which is different than making a stroke at it. If he had walked over and stopped it with his foot, then 1-2 applies. But he made a stroke at it, 14-5 is the governing rule, and the USGA ruled correctly.
I personally think this is crystal clear. People are inserting assumptions, interpretations, and alternate definitions into the rules to change their decision. For example, in plain English, hitting the ball with your putter would count as "deflecting" it. But in the rules, it's making a stroke, which has a clear definition. Deflecting it is doing something else (aka not making a stroke).
I think it's all dumb that Phil has everyone arguing rules minutiae for something that probably cost him 1-3 strokes in the end rather than the tournament...but Phil's gonna Phil.
Justin Rose birdied 15 on Saturday, I know that much.
Heard that stat on the radio coverage Sunday morning. Hole stats indicated it was 14 that wasn't birdied on Saturday. So I may have heard that wrong. I'd love to know the last time a hole wasn't birdied for an entire round on a tour event. But I don't have the time to dig.
Update: A whopping 2 months ago (and I just checked obvious tournaments). 11 wasn't birdied during R3 of the Masters. Apparently not as much of an outlier as I expected.
I was at the Open on Sunday. Having watched (on TV) the bloodbath that was the 7th green the last time the Open was at Shinnecock, we figured it would be a good place to watch a bit. I think I saw about 10 groups come thru, although very few hit the green, I think I saw only one bogey, and all the rest were pars.
Yeah, the way #7 played was certainly an improvement relative to 2004. That said, the hole location was very similar for all four days, and they never put the pin all the way in the back left to allow the Redan design concept to work as it's supposed to. And I only think I saw one shot miss the green to the right all tournament, which is indicative of an unwillingness or inability to put the flag on the right side of the green, which I believe is possible for member play but not in US Open conditions. Pity, because that shot from the right of the green is really fun to watch - almost like missing the Redan 15th green at North Berwick to the right. (Or for that matter, the 16th green at North Berwick to the right - one of my favorite "you're dead" spots to miss any green in the world.)
Did anyone have audio dropouts during the FOX coverage? I was watching OTA on the FOX affiliate in JAX and streamed some stuff on FS1 and noticed the same thing.
It seemed as a putt was going to the hole the audio went dead and the audio delay was being hit in the truck, but it happened too consistently for it to be a fleeting f-bomb.
Maybe I need to upgrade the audio equipment, but I thought I'd ask here first. Thanks.
It was happening all the time. I think the downside of having all the mikes in the holes was that they were picking up everything.