-
Registration is disabled due to constant spammers. Email [email protected] and we will temporarily re-enable registration for you.
CJ _24 Get to the Point Thread
- Thread starter DeadMan
- Start date
CBS sucks ass at golf coverage.
20 minutes on them fixing the hole. F that.
I'm glad Sergio puked it out. Hopefully now with #1 gone he can get a couple of more majors.
20 minutes on them fixing the hole. F that.
I'm glad Sergio puked it out. Hopefully now with #1 gone he can get a couple of more majors.
Damn this taek
CJ_24
Well-Known Member
Other than Tiger, I think Sergio is the best ballstriker of that generation. It is incredible how accurately he hits his irons. This Sunday, starting with his layup on 13, every single iron shot of his never left the flag stick. The layup on 13, the approach on 14, the second shot on 15, the tee shot on 16, the approach on 17, the approach on 18 and the approach in the playoff. Every one of those shots were dead on the flag (some a little short, or a little long, but dead on line).
To me, the shot of the tournament happened on Saturday. Sergio (I do not know how he ended up there) was at the bottom of the hill below the bunkers on 5. He hit a huge hook from well over 200 yards to 30-ish feet and makes birdie. Ridiculous. There is maybe, maybe, a 20% that a player makes par from where his tee shot was, and he made a 3!
To me, the shot of the tournament happened on Saturday. Sergio (I do not know how he ended up there) was at the bottom of the hill below the bunkers on 5. He hit a huge hook from well over 200 yards to 30-ish feet and makes birdie. Ridiculous. There is maybe, maybe, a 20% that a player makes par from where his tee shot was, and he made a 3!
Cool for Sergio.
I would've liked to see Spieth charge on Sunday, so people would stop asking about his meltdown last year. Or Fowler, because it'd be funny to have the young dude in bright colors and hi-tops win at stuffy ol' Augusta. But for Sergio to finally get that monkey off his back........good for him! He almost Sergio'd with his tee shot on 13, and his missed putts on 16 and 18. But he was perfect on the playoff hole.
I would've liked to see Spieth charge on Sunday, so people would stop asking about his meltdown last year. Or Fowler, because it'd be funny to have the young dude in bright colors and hi-tops win at stuffy ol' Augusta. But for Sergio to finally get that monkey off his back........good for him! He almost Sergio'd with his tee shot on 13, and his missed putts on 16 and 18. But he was perfect on the playoff hole.
Was listening to the local sports talk radio show on the way home this afternoon for my afternoon laugh and boy did i get it. Some guy called in blaming cops on targeting black men and that tiger shouldn't be charged with a DUI, or anything, because he wasn't under the influence of alcohol. No matter how hard the hosts tried to explain to the man that DUI doesn't mean ONLY alcohol...he just couldn't understand it
goblue96
Disney and Curling Expert
Immovable obstruction?
http://deadspin.com/blimp-catches-fire-crashes-at-u-s-open-spectators-sa-1796135599
http://deadspin.com/blimp-catches-fire-crashes-at-u-s-open-spectators-sa-1796135599
CJ_24
Well-Known Member
That shot on 18 was sick.Justin Thomas.
We 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?
adchester
A-1 From Day 1
Wisconsin
goblue96
Disney and Curling Expert
You asked for his thoughts @DeadMan
http://awfulannouncing.com/golf/joh...-still-chimed-minimize-justin-thomass-63.html
http://awfulannouncing.com/golf/joh...-still-chimed-minimize-justin-thomass-63.html
CJ_24
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
DeadMan
aka spiker or DeadMong
Shots under par is a useless number, especially since the USGA always changes one or two par 5s to par 4s for no reason. Winning score last year was 276. This year it will be 272. No one would complain about the score if the USGA changed it to a par 70 and Koepka was at -8 instead of -16, and yet nothing besides a made up number would change.
Course is one of the best US Open courses I've seen. Many ways to get it done, which is why you have a short hitter finishing second and a bomber finishing first. The strategy of the course makes it so the same hole can be the easiest one day and the hardest the next (with 15 this time). It threw up a leaderboard that had a ton of guys in position to win it today. Complaints based on score to par are bad opinions.
CJ_24
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
DeadMan
aka spiker or DeadMong
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.
Last edited:
People who don't think Erin Hills was an amazing venue for the US Open can get bent. That place was awesome, and exactly what the venues should be like.
-YTC
-YTC
CJ_24
Well-Known Member
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.
DeadMan
aka spiker or DeadMong
DeadMan
aka spiker or DeadMong
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.
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.
Last edited:
It was over on 14 because he was spectacular and hit great shots on 14 15 and 16 to seal it.
Whereas Harmon and all did not.
Whereas Harmon and all did not.
CJ_24
Well-Known Member
Pointing out that the USGA changed par 5's to par 4's does not tell the whole story. They do not simply change the number on the card, they adjust the tee boxes, landing areas, pin locations, etc. to make the hole play as a par 4. The simple fact that a hole used to be the length of a par 5 and now plays as a par 4 does not mean all that much. Length, to some extent, is inconsequential to what par is supposed to be. The USGA infrequently has par 3's that are longer than par 4's (at Oakmont one day they had the long par 3, the 8th I think, play longer than one of the short par 4's, the 17th I think. And I think they did the same thing at Olympic Club). It's about how the hole is set up to played, what shots capable of being hit, what shots are supposed to be hit, not simply the number. You know, all of that "high caliber golf" strategy that I "understand almost zero about."
Moving along, I had not heard of friedegg, so thank you for passing it along, it is a really cool site.
That said, those are not novel concepts and I am familiar with them. You have to be in the proper position off the tee to have the correct angle to hit the proper shot shape into the correct quadrant of the green. And the hole will provide options as to whether you decide to hit one kind of shot to one portion of the fairway (layup) which will require a certain shot to the green from there, or another kind of shot off the tee (driver) which will often require another type of shot into the green. These design features are an integral part of literally every single well designed course.
One of the reasons people love Augusta is because it accentuates those designs. For example, you have to hit a fade for the second shot at 13 when the lie begs for a draw. But if you lay up, you are on flatter terrain, and the 2nd and 3rd shots are must simpler. On 15, the farther you hit your tee shot the more the fairway slopes to the left to help the ball roll toward the trees on the left so they may be affect the second shot. On the second shot you have to hit the ball high to hold the green but the fairway slopes down hill. Holes that give the players multiple options, and make players think about what they are going to do and how they are going to do it are a feature of every single US Open set up. Raving about how Erin Hills 10th one day was set up to give players at the top of the hill a better angle than those who drove it further is what the course is supposed to do, and it is besides the point of what Erin Hills failed to do. Erin Hills failed to really penalize players for being out of position unless they were 60 yards off line. The US Open traditionally demands more precision than that.
You may content that Augusta has wide fairways too and is not a US Open Site. Fair points, I used them Augusta because it is familiar and did not require me to do any extra research to come up with the examples. Off the top of my head, there's a double-dogleg par 4 on the back 9 at Bethpage (dogleg's left off the tee, right to the hole) with a big hill at what would be the layup-off-the-tee area, and a speed slot down the hill if you hit driver. If you layup at the top of the hill: you have a flat lie, a wider, flatter fairway where you can work the ball either way, facing the wider portion of the green, and have a clear look at the green. If you hit it driver: you can get it down the hill, but the fairway narrows, the green is angled so that you're hitting to a narrow portion, the shot is blind, and I think the ball lays at an angle. The point is, if we really wanted to dig through the data, we could find examples of that "high caliber golf" strategic design that I "understand almost zero about" at every single US Open venue, and probably every single course that hosts a professional golf tournament. Erin Hills is not special, and is not different in that regard.
That all flows into why I do not buy this argument: A course like Erin Hills -- which possesses width to allow for strategic angles to come into play -- is far superior because it identifies the best player that is also attacking the golf course in the strategically correct way. Again, every major championship venue is designed with similar strategic angles in mind, different shot shapes from different portions of the hole, and terrain and angles to the green that either help or hurt that shot shape. They do not require 40-50 yard fairways to do. 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.
DeadMan
aka spiker or DeadMong
Your entire argument can and should be boiled down into this. Christ. I hate wading through your horrendous writing - 900 (!!!!) words to come to this - to find your actual argument. The rest is just drivel that doesn't support this point, and doesn't respond to what I'm saying. 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. In other words, it's how golf is normally played, not whatever happens in one tournament a year in the US Open. It also translates better to lower level golf (amateurs cannot consistently hit a 25 yard wide fairway, but a 50 yard wide fairway is a much more reasonable ask). That is why this venue was good.
CJ_24
Well-Known Member
A great deal of it was needlessly responding to the potshots you took at me. I would have omitted all but the first and last paragraphs if you had not asserted that I do not understand anything about golf.
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.
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.
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.
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.
DeadMan
aka spiker or DeadMong
DO YOU EVEN READ?
It didn't punish it to your satisfaction, okay. But that's a bad opinion, which I've said over and over.
There is some kernel of truth here. Courses that are long are more expensive, which is not ideal. They are not inaccessible to amateurs, though. Just because Erin Hills could be played at almost 8000 yards doesn't mean a regular joe golfer has to play it at that length. You go play there and you will not be forced to play it at US Open length. I'd bet that Erin Hills doesn't allow most golfers to play from the back anyways (this is how it works at Torrey Pines). Play the right tees and the length is a non-issue.
CJ_24
Well-Known Member
Yes, I did read. Under your definition of "mishit" a when a player makes a par, they have likely hit a shot that was a mishit. great shots, and some good shots = birdie. The typical US Open requires more precision than that. Great shots = par.
When Fowler was on 13 (and two back at the time, I think) I thought to myself "he needs to birdie 14, 15, and 18 to even have a shot, because the leaders will birdie some of those holes." I do not like that. I do not think that when a player is 2 back with 5 to play he is required to make at least 3 birdies just to keep up. Making par should not be a bad score, and that is essentially what happens when tournaments turn into birdiefests. It is your opinion that my opinion is a bad opinion. I get it you, you like courses that yield birdies. I don't. I generally get bored when that happens because it turns the tournament into an arms race. Different strokes for different folks.
When Fowler was on 13 (and two back at the time, I think) I thought to myself "he needs to birdie 14, 15, and 18 to even have a shot, because the leaders will birdie some of those holes." I do not like that. I do not think that when a player is 2 back with 5 to play he is required to make at least 3 birdies just to keep up. Making par should not be a bad score, and that is essentially what happens when tournaments turn into birdiefests. It is your opinion that my opinion is a bad opinion. I get it you, you like courses that yield birdies. I don't. I generally get bored when that happens because it turns the tournament into an arms race. Different strokes for different folks.