Rory

[hawkeyewx]

I agree that it was "easier" than the typical US Open course but so what. Everyone played the same course. It doesn't take away what Rory did this week. I'm not saying that you are hinting at that but why do you care?

I care because I'm a golf fan who expects to see the world's best golfers thoroughly tested on a tough US Open course. There was a lot of great golf played, especially by Rory, but it felt too much like a regular tournament to me with the players having no trouble sticking the ball next to the hole all weekend.

 

[trapperjon]

Loved watching it.

Tiger is not done unless his knee never recovers. I think when he first had the injury and continued to play that he was risking his longevity and long term career. He was limping to every hole. Not good.

Can someone explain to me what the difference is between the PGA and the USGA. I'm feeling rather sleepy now and don't want to google it.

What's the Stross thread about?

 

[EddyP]

I care because I'm a golf fan who expects to see the world's best golfers thoroughly tested on a tough US Open course. There was a lot of great golf played, especially by Rory, but it felt too much like a regular tournament to me with the players having no trouble sticking the ball next to the hole all weekend.

I understand what you are saying but what I am saying is that doesn't diminish what he did this week. If everyone else was even and he was -8 would it have made a difference to you? They play the same course and he dominated the field from start to finish. Period.

 

[HawkPrdatr40]

Rory won the US Open and congrats to him. I agree with the poster who said it didn't feel like a US Open. IMO it did feel more like a regular tourny. Course was way to tame.


Rory played great and looked great all week. He was dialed in no question about it. However the things people are saying about him IMO are way overblown and way, way premature.

 

[tm3308]

I understand what you are saying but what I am saying is that doesn't diminish what he did this week. If everyone else was even and he was -8 would it have made a difference to you? They play the same course and he dominated the field from start to finish. Period.

This is true. He won a major tournament, and I certainly won't take anything away from him in that regard. But this performance doesn't exactly match up to Tiger's gimpy championship, or most other U.S. Open championships. A good major win, but this course made it apples and oranges when looking at past U.S. Opens.

He was by far the best in the field this week, but it would have been much more entertaining to see him compete on a typical U.S. Open course. Much more drama packed into every shot when the course is torturous, and with that drama comes much more pressure. Seemingly everybody was having their way with this course. When that's the case, McElroy will more than likely end up on top. But there is no faking it when the holes are longer, the fareways shorter, the rough thicker, the bunkers deeper, the greens faster. Which is the whole point behind that quote I used earlier.

 

[Hawkeye11en1]

The course would have been a lot harder had it not been for the rain. It really made the greens extra soft and there was really nothing the USGA could do about it. Yes, it was a bit easier, but there have been scores like that in the past Opens. It wasn't an anomaly. The rest of the field only got to -8 in the last round. The fact that Rory tore that course apart isn't because the course was easy, it was because he shot lights out. His irons were spot on and he was throwing darts out there. It was pretty ridiculous.

 

[tm3308]

The course would have been a lot harder had it not been for the rain. It really made the greens extra soft and there was really nothing the USGA could do about it. Yes, it was a bit easier, but there have been scores like that in the past Opens. It wasn't an anomaly. The rest of the field only got to -8 in the last round. The fact that Rory tore that course apart isn't because the course was easy, it was because he shot lights out. His irons were spot on and he was throwing darts out there. It was pretty ridiculous.

Again, McIlroy shot lights out. But to pretend that it wasn't easier to do so is foolish. He's a terrific golfer, maybe the next Tiger. But to say that this year wasn't an anomaly is not accurate.

Take a look at the leaderboards from the Opens in which the previous record was set/tied (bear in mind, that the TOTAL score is what counts for the record, NOT the strokes under par):

2003: Jim Furyk wins with a score of 272 (-8). Only three other golfers finish below par at -5 and -1 (x2).

2000: Tiger dominates the field, winning by 15 strokes with a 272 (-12). That's right, no other player finished better than +3.

1993: Lee Janzen wins with a 272 (-8). Nine other players finish below par, but only three of those players finish better than -2.

1980: Jack Nicklaus cards a 272 (-8). Runner-up finishes at -6, and three other players finish with -4. The rest of the field is no lower than even par.

This year, McIlroy cards a 268 (-16). NINETEEN other players finish below par, and of those, SEVEN finished at -5 or better.

It's not so much McIroy's score that has me saying this wasn't even close to a typical U.S. Open. It's the DEPTH of low scores. I mean 268 and -16 are really pushing the realm of "anomaly" anyway (Scores like that are VERY uncommon. The winner is typically -4/-5, with most of the field in the green. But TWENTY players under par?

To demonstrate just how insane that number is, consider this: If you combined the number of players below par in past tournaments, you would have to go all the way back to 1997 before you hit 20 players under par. That's right: there were more players under par in THIS U.S. Open than there were in the past thirteen U.S. Opens COMBINED! That, my friend, is an anomaly.

 

[hawkfarmer]

I think McIlroy was great, but one thing that bugs me is they are talking about a 72 hole total and comparing them. This was a par 71 and others were par 72s. That's a 4 stroke advantage to anyone so his 268 could be the same as someone's 272. Now I agree that his score of -16 is the best, no argument there.

However, what this tournament showed me, other than it was an easier US Open, is that Tiger isn't going to catch jack. He's over his prime. Even if he gets back to pretty good (he'll never be the same) he will need to win 5 majors to set the record. There are just too many good young players that can come up and win any given week. It wasn't like that when jack was 35-40 years old. I don't think it is going to be very likely for Tiger to win a major when he gets in his 40s. Not many guys even competing when they hit that mark.

 

[hawkeyewx]

I understand what you are saying but what I am saying is that doesn't diminish what he did this week. If everyone else was even and he was -8 would it have made a difference to you? They play the same course and he dominated the field from start to finish. Period.

Perhaps you'd like to see the USGA come to Twin Pines in Cedar Rapids next year. The worst player would be 20 under par and the winner would be 60 under par, but everyone would be playing the same course so who cares, right?

I am not diminishing Rory's win. He dominated. I hope he's the next Tiger. I just want to see the players have to work a little harder for birdies in the US Open.

 

[HawkPrdatr40]

The course would have been a lot harder had it not been for the rain. It really made the greens extra soft and there was really nothing the USGA could do about it. Yes, it was a bit easier, but there have been scores like that in the past Opens. It wasn't an anomaly. The rest of the field only got to -8 in the last round. The fact that Rory tore that course apart isn't because the course was easy, it was because he shot lights out. His irons were spot on and he was throwing darts out there. It was pretty ridiculous.

How this for comparison.

The USGA couldn't do anything about the weather but Congressional was a pushover. Rory McIlroy, of course, set the U.S. Open scoring record on it but unlike 2000, when Tiger Woods ran away at Pebble Beach, there was plenty of other red on the leaderboard.

Woods shot 12-under that year and the next-best score was three-over. To have won by 15, McIlroy would have had to been 23-under. The 8-under score of runnerup Jason Day would have been good enough to put him in at least a playoff of every previous U.S. Open played except for Woods' romp.

Twenty players broke par for the tournament and the average score was just under 73.



Read more: Congressional Country Club doesn't provide a U.S. Open-level challenge for Rory McIlroy and field

 

[pin2win]

there always has to be somebody beating down the champion after an amazing weekend

some ppl just love to bash the winners that they could never be

pathetic

 

[hawkfarmer]

This is a sidenote, but anyone else get tired of hearing about how poor the U.S. is in golf right now.

"There are so many foreign players" or the "U.S. is down"

I'm sorry, but it is 1 country versus how many. yeah the odds are there are that the champion isn't going to be an american. it's not like 1 european or asian player is dominating, it's a bunch of different players, and there are some good young american players too. Just because the U.S. has churned out more dominant players, Jack, Arnold, Tiger, Phil etc. doesn't mean that if they don't win every tourney they're bad.

yes there are more international players, but there should be, it's called probability. Bugs me everytime I hear it.

 

[HawkPrdatr40]

there always has to be somebody beating down the champion after an amazing weekend

some ppl just love to bash the winners that they could never be

pathetic

If you are reading what most are saying they talking about the course not Rory, far from Bashing Rory. Rory deserves this championship. I was very happy for him.

I'm bashing the record talk and how the course played. Major Golf is typically played at different courses and different setups except for the Masters. Some pars are 72, 71 and or 70 and yardages all vary, How is it possible to have records? and The Masters has even changed in the past 15 years with the lengthening on the course. Set the US Open at one course and then let's compare.

This US Open was not what we are a custom to seeing. Example #10- I Can't count how many times someone almost aced it yesterday. Anyone comparing Rory accomplishments with Tiger's at Pebble are completely lost as there is no comparison. Can't count how many times that was brought up yesterday, by so called experts.

 

[Clark]

I think Rory would have won it no matter how the course played because he rarely missed a fairway. I'll give the course the benefit of doubt that had it not rained, the greens wouldn't have played that easy. However, there is no excuse to have the rough cut that short. There was no penalty for missing the fairways for the longer hitters.

 

[hawkfarmer]

If you are reading what most are saying they talking about the course not Rory, far from Bashing Rory. Rory deserves this championship. I was very happy for him.

I'm bashing the record talk and how the course played. Major Golf is typically played at different courses and different setups except for the Masters. Some pars are 72, 71 and or 70 and yardages all vary, How is it possible to have records? and The Masters has even changed in the past 15 years with the lengthening on the course. Set the US Open at one course and then let's compare.

This US Open was not what we are a custom to seeing. Example #10- I Can't count how many times someone almost aced it yesterday. Anyone comparing Rory accomplishments with Tiger's at Pebble are completely lost as there is no comparison. Can't count how many times that was brought up yesterday, by so called experts.

I think Rory would have won it no matter how the course played because he rarely missed a fairway. I'll give the course the benefit of doubt that had it not rained, the greens wouldn't have played that easy. However, there is no excuse to have the rough cut that short. There was no penalty for missing the fairways for the longer hitters.

You both nailed it. The course was the problem. Rory deserves it because he played the best on the course. I personally like switching courses every year, but you shouldn't compare the courses. The only score that matters is under par. Rory had the best under par score ever in the U.S. Open, he gets that record, but to say he was as dominant as Tiger in 2000 just doesn't work. There are way to many variables to make an accurate comparison.

I will say that I like Rory's game better as someone else says his swing is amazing and it's not the violent swing that Tiger had.

 

[Hawkeye11en1]

Again, McIlroy shot lights out. But to pretend that it wasn't easier to do so is foolish. He's a terrific golfer, maybe the next Tiger. But to say that this year wasn't an anomaly is not accurate.

Take a look at the leaderboards from the Opens in which the previous record was set/tied (bear in mind, that the TOTAL score is what counts for the record, NOT the strokes under par):

2003: Jim Furyk wins with a score of 272 (-8). Only three other golfers finish below par at -5 and -1 (x2).

2000: Tiger dominates the field, winning by 15 strokes with a 272 (-12). That's right, no other player finished better than +3.

1993: Lee Janzen wins with a 272 (-8). Nine other players finish below par, but only three of those players finish better than -2.

1980: Jack Nicklaus cards a 272 (-8). Runner-up finishes at -6, and three other players finish with -4. The rest of the field is no lower than even par.

This year, McIlroy cards a 268 (-16). NINETEEN other players finish below par, and of those, SEVEN finished at -5 or better.

It's not so much McIroy's score that has me saying this wasn't even close to a typical U.S. Open. It's the DEPTH of low scores. I mean 268 and -16 are really pushing the realm of "anomaly" anyway (Scores like that are VERY uncommon. The winner is typically -4/-5, with most of the field in the green. But TWENTY players under par?

To demonstrate just how insane that number is, consider this: If you combined the number of players below par in past tournaments, you would have to go all the way back to 1997 before you hit 20 players under par. That's right: there were more players under par in THIS U.S. Open than there were in the past thirteen U.S. Opens COMBINED! That, my friend, is an anomaly.

Maybe anomaly was the wrong word, but my point is that it has happened before. The anomaly was that Rory was SO far ahead of the field. This is just one example, but the Golf Channel outlined that is has happened 4-5 times in the history of the Open. Now don't get me wrong: I DO think, and stated, that this was a bit easier due to the softness of the greens. I think Rory goes more like 10 under if the rain doesn't come into play nearly every night. He was able to throw darts at those pins. BUT you have to put the ball on the correct tier of those greens, and you had to still make your shots or the course would make you pay. And he did that.

1990 US Open -Hale Irwin wins in playoff

2 players tied at -8.
2 players tied at -7
3 more at -5
6 more at -4
7 more at -3.

That's 20 players at -3 or better.

The cut was at +1. So 68 players were +1 or better after 2 rounds. This years cut was +4.

I think the cut line is a good example of how players are playing the course as well. Yeah, you could have guys that were running away with it but the cut line will tell you how the field in it's entirety is playing the course.

2003 - +3
2009 - +4 (where guys were -6 to -8 after 2 rounds, but fell back after rain made the course extremely long and that rough was ridiculous)
1993 - +4
1988 - +4

So while it hasn't happened often and this was one of the easier US Opens (especially in recent history), it wasn't like this was the first time it has ever happened. There was NOTHING the USGA could do about the rain and it made the course 3 to 4 shots easier IMO

 

[Hawkeye11en1]

I think Rory would have won it no matter how the course played because he rarely missed a fairway. I'll give the course the benefit of doubt that had it not rained, the greens wouldn't have played that easy. However, there is no excuse to have the rough cut that short. There was no penalty for missing the fairways for the longer hitters.

But part of that problem WAS the soft greens. They were able to stop it out of the rough. The rough has been longer in past US Opens, for sure, but they have all been (with a few exceptions, I know) able to get out of it. The problem is getting it to stop on US Open greens. Usually it would run out and go off the back and leave them with tough up & downs. This year it stopped for them. If it didn't do that the players would have had a much tougher time out of the rough. But like you said, Rory rarely missed the fairway and he did a phenomenal job of getting up & down when he did (and he had to chunk it out of the rough at least once).

 

[hawkfarmer]

Maybe anomaly was the wrong word, but my point is that it has happened before. The anomaly was that Rory was SO far ahead of the field. This is just one example, but the Golf Channel outlined that is has happened 4-5 times in the history of the Open. Now don't get me wrong: I DO think, and stated, that this was a bit easier due to the softness of the greens. I think Rory goes more like 10 under if the rain doesn't come into play nearly every night. He was able to throw darts at those pins. BUT you have to put the ball on the correct tier of those greens, and you had to still make your shots or the course would make you pay. And he did that.

1990 US Open -Hale Irwin wins in playoff

2 players tied at -8.
2 players tied at -7
3 more at -5
6 more at -4
7 more at -3.

That's 20 players at -3 or better.

The cut was at +1. So 68 players were +1 or better after 2 rounds. This years cut was +4.

I think the cut line is a good example of how players are playing the course as well. Yeah, you could have guys that were running away with it but the cut line will tell you how the field in it's entirety is playing the course.

2003 - +3
2009 - +4 (where guys were -6 to -8 after 2 rounds, but fell back after rain made the course extremely long and that rough was ridiculous)
1993 - +4
1988 - +4

So while it hasn't happened often and this was one of the easier US Opens (especially in recent history), it wasn't like this was the first time it has ever happened. There was NOTHING the USGA could do about the rain and it made the course 3 to 4 shots easier IMO

Golf is the toughest thing to compare because technology is always changing, and courses are so much longer now then they were even 10 years ago. I find records in golf to be stupid. The only thing that matters is the number of wins. Who cares if you won by 10 or if you shot +6 to wint he Open. Ogilvy has as many U.S. open championships as Rory. The courses were ultimately different. I also don't like the cut line as a number for many reasons. It's very dependent on the course and how it plays. More players shooting better scores can change that.

Moral of the story: why compare golf from year to year or course to course. It is dumb.

 

[Hawkeye11en1]

Golf is the toughest thing to compare because technology is always changing, and courses are so much longer now then they were even 10 years ago. I find records in golf to be stupid. The only thing that matters is the number of wins. Who cares if you won by 10 or if you shot +6 to wint he Open. Ogilvy has as many U.S. open championships as Rory. The courses were ultimately different. I also don't like the cut line as a number for many reasons. It's very dependent on the course and how it plays. More players shooting better scores can change that.

Moral of the story: why compare golf from year to year or course to course. It is dumb.

Look I am not comparing Rory to Tiger or anyone else that was not in this year's US Open. I am comparing him to the people he just played against. And he beat them soundly.

Of course the cut line is dependent on the course and how the players play it. That's why it's the cut line. I don't get that argument. It's not like if there are 5 guys that are -5 and the rest of the field is +6 they are going to cut the rest of the field. It doesn't work that way. But if there have been cut lines that have been similar in the past, then it means that other courses have played similarly in toughness. You can easily compare golf courses. I really don't know how you can't. Some are longer, some narrower...the list goes on and on.

 

[hawkfarmer]

Look I am not comparing Rory to Tiger or anyone else that was not in this year's US Open. I am comparing him to the people he just played against. And he beat them soundly.

Of course the cut line is dependent on the course and how the players play it. That's why it's the cut line. I don't get that argument. It's not like if there are 5 guys that are -5 and the rest of the field is +6 they are going to cut the rest of the field. It doesn't work that way. But if there have been cut lines that have been similar in the past, then it means that other courses have played similarly in toughness. You can easily compare golf courses. I really don't know how you can't. Some are longer, some narrower...the list goes on and on.

I wasn't saying you were comparing Rory and Tiger, that was a general statement.

what I'm saying is you can't compare the way courses scored even cut line. The way they set the courses up on Thursday and Friday are much different than Sat/Sun. So how can you compare the courses within each year. There is also a confounding effect with technology etc. You can compare the courses, but how do you compare the scores between the courses. That is what I meant.

Also, it is like you said the cut line can be very deceptive for comparison. If 1 guy is under par and everyone else is at +6 or if there are 20 underpar and spread the rest of the way it is very different.