Hes a fuckin stud. Be mad at everyone else for not keeping it close.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.
Meh. I think Reed had it right about yesterday. A few bad pin positions and the greens got a little crusty on Saturday.Hopefully the USGA doesn't screw up Pebble this bad next year and we get a watchable Open.
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.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.
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.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.
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.USGA’s explanation of why 1-2 didn’t apply makes perfect sense to me. Where are they incorrect here?
Ok Mr. Duval.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.
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?Someone shooting a +1 on the back nine to win the US Open seems like it would be extremely appropriate. It’s the US Open it’s supposed to be hard.
Balance that out with the other 30+ tournaments each year not trying to challenge first class pros with par.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.
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.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.
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: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.
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.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.
Had the course and green conditions on Saturday resembled those on Sunday, the winning score would have been closer to -10.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.
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.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.
Justin Rose birdied 15 on Saturday, I know that much.No one birdied 15 on Saturday.
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.Justin Rose birdied 15 on Saturday, I know that much.
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.)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.
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.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.