2020 US Open
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
He is one of the slowest players on tour. He is also a dickhead.
His process is fascinating but it’s hard to overlook the dumb shit. Like a few weeks ago he got into it with a cameraman for taping him while he had a meltdown in a bunker because he thinks the cameraman should’ve been protecting his image. He is an ass .
Gotcha. He doesn’t seem any slower than other guys but I partially pay attention even when the major is on.
He's genuinely a dickhead. In all ways a person can be the head of a dick, he is. He whines, he complains, he acts like he's smarter than everyone, and he's obnoxious.
And his slow play is laborious and frustrating.
He’s been on his best behavior this week, and honestly, if this were how he acted most of the time I’d probably be a fan. (Note: this isn’t how he acts most of the time.)
Give the devil his due, he’s so powerful that he’s come close to taming the rough, which simply doesn’t happen at a US Open.
Decham is 13 strokes ahead of Reed now. That's an incredible swing over the course of 27 holes.
Feels over. It’s difficult and maybe he makes a bogey or two but there’s no serious trouble left.
Is it me, or has the announcing been almost painfully bad.
“All in all, not too bad.” (Spoken as ball rolls 40 yards down false front.)
“All in all, not too bad.” (Spoken as ball rolls 40 yards down false front.)
I owe you a beer, my friend!
I have this on my side TV, on mute. I just can't stomach an easy Bryson US Open win, with literally not an iota of drama. This is the worst case scenario.
2020 continually kicks you in the balls.
2020 continually kicks you in the balls.
You have to wonder how USGA will respond to the bomb and gouge. Import some of the wild rough from the British Open rotation? Make bunkers an actual challenge?
I doubt the USGA is going to do anything on a sample size of 1. I think an Open with [currently] only 2 players in red says they likely achieved their goal.
I mean, I can't remember the exact numbers when they put it up yesterday, but for round 1 the combined player score was 340+ (I think I remember 348) over par. For round 2 it was 680+ (I think I remember 684) over par.
I mean, I can't remember the exact numbers when they put it up yesterday, but for round 1 the combined player score was 340+ (I think I remember 348) over par. For round 2 it was 680+ (I think I remember 684) over par.
I dunno that it's as simple as bomb and gouge though. He hits it so straight for hitting it so far, he has been peppering fairways today and has 12 SG approach for the tourney which is mind boggling. This is a complete performance in all aspects of the game, he's played incredible.
View: https://twitter.com/JustinRayGolf/status/1307786985004765189
The NLU guys last night correctly diagnosed the issue in their podcast/live video: it no longer matters if you find the fairway. All that matters is swing speed and getting the ball as close to the hole off the tee as you can, because you can overcome 4-inch rough more easily with a wedge than you can with a 5-iron. And actually, you can almost always get closer to the hole with a wedge from the rough than a 5-iron from the fairway: gone are the days when there was actually a choice between taking an iron off the tee to (mostly) guarantee being in the fairway vs. being aggressive with the driver. Also gone are the days when a Corey Pavin could reach the upper echelons of the game with guts, guile and a great short game despite not being able to hit the ball far at all: pro golf has become one-dimensional, rather like the NBA's glut of three-point shooting has transformed basketball into a less interesting sport by most accounts. Golf was undoubtedly more interesting when distance was just one of many ways to win, not THE way to win. And to TFP's post...
Bryson has had an amazing week and is a very worthy champion, and he deserves every credit for figuring out golf's cheat code and putting all of his chips in that particular pot. But independent of the sort of person he is, do people really want to watch the sort of golf he's playing? Do golf chicks really dig the long ball that much?
...once the punishment for missing a fairway is largely minimized, it becomes that much easier to find the fairway, because the pressure you're facing goes way down.
Bryson has had an amazing week and is a very worthy champion, and he deserves every credit for figuring out golf's cheat code and putting all of his chips in that particular pot. But independent of the sort of person he is, do people really want to watch the sort of golf he's playing? Do golf chicks really dig the long ball that much?
Podcast/live video [that I did not watch] notwithstanding, this is just too broad a generalization for me to accept at face value. If for no other reason than not all roughs are created equal. Just one example: a links rough certainly is far different than anything Bryson would have faced at WF. Perhaps one of the advantages, as you allude to, is that Bryson is in that rough some 30+ more yards down range than his opponents player higher irons from the fairway.
On a day when nobody played well, Bryson played phenomenal. It wasn't a stressful final round but he certainly earned this one.
[insert puking gif here] The only thing I take comfort in is that Bryson's style isn't sustainable. He is almost certain to get hurt at some point.
[insert puking gif here] The only thing I take comfort in is that Bryson's style isn't sustainable. He is almost certain to get hurt at some point.
The rough at Winged Foot is right up there with the thickest and deepest rough pro golfers ever face. Most links courses do not have tougher rough than Winged Foot except in occasional patches which are usually well off the beaten path - and some of the most famous courses, e.g. the Old Course in St. Andrews, have virtually no thick rough at all. Most courses around the world, and certainly most PGA Tour venues, have *far* easier rough to play out of, and on those courses, what Bryson does (and DJ and Rahm and all of the other big hitters do) is even more obviously the optimal strategy.
Bryson played amazing golf today - with a rolled-back golf ball, he still would have been the comfortable winner, because his all-around play was that good. But there are *so* many good reasons to roll back the ball, and in such a way that the vast majority of amateurs who can't generate high swing speeds will hardly notice, that "nothing needs to change" is an absolute cop-out. But I'm done trying to change anyone's mind here. (Hell, I probably wouldn't have bothered writing these last few posts if I wasn't still incandescently angry about the Falcons game today...)
Oh no.
just when I start to like dechambeau he starts with thanking his sponsors and reading them off his phone.
just when I start to like dechambeau he starts with thanking his sponsors and reading them off his phone.
I don't know about Nicklaus, but I was just thinking that this was an awfully Tiger-esque win, in the sense that DeChambeau overpowered the course in a way that was beyond most of his competition.
Well, the dude does have a degree in physics, so maybe: same-length clubs; same lie and bounce angles; only loft angle left as the lone variable. Somehow, simplifying a swing in that regard makes sense. Lord knows there are so many other variables (e.g., swing path / arc) that can throw a shot off...why not eliminate as mush error-inducing effects as you can? At one point, the broadcast showed a video graphic of the triangle he positions at initial setup, then the backswing (with little to no wrist break) and then the return to basic triangle at impact. Pretty simple, if not awkward looking from the traditional swing.
Sorry...what is this list supposed to represent? (Apart from the proverbial "Three Men Who Have Never Been In My Kitchen", of course.)
#NotPatrickReed
Bryson also putted phenomenally, especially when he needed to make a putt.
That was a clinic.
Bryson also putted phenomenally, especially when he needed to make a putt.
That was a clinic.
Good for Bryson. He's not exactly the most likeable personality on tour but he's sure as heck more interesting than most of these guys and certainly put as much work in as anyone, if not more.
FWIW, Bryson was 7th in driving distance behind DJ, Wolff, Pendrith, Rahm, Neiman, and McIlroy. McIlroy seems to have been the best player off the tee this week, 3rd in fairways hit in addition to being 6th in distance. His putter just fails him too often.
FWIW, Bryson was 7th in driving distance behind DJ, Wolff, Pendrith, Rahm, Neiman, and McIlroy. McIlroy seems to have been the best player off the tee this week, 3rd in fairways hit in addition to being 6th in distance. His putter just fails him too often.
I mean, this solution is so unbelievably simple and straightforward, it astounds me that people are looking for other pathways, when this clean, obvious answer is staring everyone in the face.
He led the tour in driving distance by .1 over Cameron Champ. I've kinda come around that the rest of Bryson's game is more impressive than his distance. It's noticeable because he bulked up and swings out of his shoes but he's not 20-30 yards ahead of the longest hitters on the tour. In fact, he was consistently behind Wolff yesterday. Bomb and gouge doesn't work unless you can gouge and he's been excellent with his irons, wedges and short game.
The real issue is that the "bombers" are as accurate as everyone else even with their increased distance. It's not "long/inaccurate vs short/accurate" it's "long/accurate vs short/accurate" and long/accurate will win all the time (as it should). For example, Bryson and Wolff both hit the first two fairways today when the rest of the field made a mess of those holes. I mean ZJ hit one 220 yards dead left into the rough.
Bryson finished T26 in fairways hit this week and hit the same amount of fairways as Webb did. Webb doesn't stand a chance in that scenario, and he's a top 10 player in the world. It's absolutely silly how straight he hits it for how far it goes. I can only think of Bryson really missing big once, on 14 (I think) and he still scratched out a par. The rest he was pretty close off the fairways in the rough and in the right spots.
I'm really not sure what the solution is. It's likely some changes to the ball, but it's just cosmetic to make the players fit back into the courses. It won't change who the best players are. The same players will keep winning no matter what equipment there is, because they're the best golfers. They'll adjust to the new equipment and make that work too.
Last edited:
Yeah, and Wolff was tied for the fewest fairways hit all week. He shot a 65 on a day he hit 2 fairways. The announcers harp on fairways hit but it doesn't really matter. There are no penalty areas at Winged Foot to really be concerned about, the only penalty situations I can recall were Spieth losing one in the trees and English's lost ball yesterday. Wedging it from the rough is going to be better than a 6-iron from the fairway.
I think I'd support bi-purification but as you said, I'm not sure what that accomplishes. The long guys will still be the long guys.
Apparently Bryson is going to be testing out a 48-inch driver after the Masters so we'll see what that brings and if he can take the distance thing to another level.
I think I'd support bi-purification but as you said, I'm not sure what that accomplishes. The long guys will still be the long guys.
Apparently Bryson is going to be testing out a 48-inch driver after the Masters so we'll see what that brings and if he can take the distance thing to another level.
Some of that has to do with the incredible driving technology that makes the sweet spots on the club heads so much bigger. You have a lot more room to "miss" and still be accurate than you used to. This is one reason why I've argued that not just the golf balls, but the club tech, needs to be limited.
But on another level, these guys are just so good, not just at smashing the ball, but they've got touch around the greens and they can putt too. Years ago it seemed like you had two basic types of golfers: the long hitters who weren't super accurate and weren't great putters, and the shorter hitters who were deadly accurate and on the green. Different courses played to the strengths of these different types of golfers. Now, the best golfers in the world not only destroy the ball, but they're good around and on the greens too.
The pros don't "miss" though. They hit the sweet spot almost every single time. Their bad shots are due to swing path/club face angle, not mishits on the face. There's certainly stuff that can be done to the clubs to minimize some things, but Tiger was hitting it 320 with the old smaller metal drivers. The big difference now is that the ball flies forever with no spin, and is even being engineered to spin differently based on what clubs are hit. So driver impact is giving you high launch with no spin, and wedge impact is giving you controlled launch with more spin. You used to have to choose one or the other with your ball selection, now they do both because of the technology advances they've made. It's nuts.
I definitely agree here. They're really just too good.
But is it a bad thing? Last 15 US Open winners and scores:
2006 - Ogilvy +5
2007 - Cabrera +5
2008 - Woods -1
2009 - Glover -4
2010 - McDowell - E
2011 - McIlroy -16
2012 - Simpson +1
2013 - Rose +1
2014 - Kaymer -9
2015 - Spieth -5
2016 - Johnson -4
2017 - Koepka -16
2018 - Koepka +1
2019 - Woodland -13
2020 - DeChambeau -6
DeChambeau's -6 is pretty much in line with the average winning US Open score over the last 15 years (-4.1).
2006 - Ogilvy +5
2007 - Cabrera +5
2008 - Woods -1
2009 - Glover -4
2010 - McDowell - E
2011 - McIlroy -16
2012 - Simpson +1
2013 - Rose +1
2014 - Kaymer -9
2015 - Spieth -5
2016 - Johnson -4
2017 - Koepka -16
2018 - Koepka +1
2019 - Woodland -13
2020 - DeChambeau -6
DeChambeau's -6 is pretty much in line with the average winning US Open score over the last 15 years (-4.1).
The problem is in part that courses need to get longer to keep up. Winged Foot played 7,477 this year. 7,264 in 2006, and 6,930 in 1984. At some point the classic tracks run out of real estate.
I don't exactly think creating equipment rules/standards around the top 100 players in the world when millions play the game without this being an issue is a good idea though. The game is more fun than ever for us amateur types and it's in part because the equipment rocks compared to what was available even a decade ago.
The issue with changing the ball is the same as the issue with changing clubs. The equipment manufacturers will never allow it. One thing they mentioned on the broadcast that I thought had some potential is to limit the tee height. Right now, the limit is 4". Making it ~3" would stop them from just blasting it over the trees and make you really think about using that 5* driver without impacting any equipment manufacturers. It would also add a bunch more side spin so would likely reduce accuracy as well.