Being able to throw caution to the wind, while unwinding a 350 Yard Drive......cause you know that an errant result will be honored and forgiven rather than ridiculed and punished is not golf..........and it is not good for the game......

Tiger has gotten smarter in the majors.....Thank God...LOL......and lets just be real clear....Punishing those that believe they can get away with it.......IS CORRECT........

The game of Golf is about Skill....Mental, Physical, Touch, and of course the final ingredient is Power...But it is fourth...Not first as played out each week on the PHONY PGA Tour.....

Consider this.....Even I can Bust them 325 with the latest in Techno Crap.....and yea...I can keep about 30% in a 40 Yard Landing area. The rest ...Only God Knows...What do you wanna betThe best in the World cannot put even 60% of such Big Bombs in a 40 ydanding area...much less a 20 or less !!!

So the Open brings us back to Sober Reality...as it should be.........Cheers

Paul Casey's 66? Very nice. But 30 years from now he won't be crying over it.

It wasn't in the final round to win a major, but the statistics back it up: it was virtually as great a round of golf as Miller's 63. Not as compelling or as pressure-packed (for the same reasons), but every bit as "good," I contend.

It's also scary how good both rounds could have been. Miller could have shot 61 - he three-putted the eighth from 15 feet… uphill. Casey made a sloppy bogey at 18.

Watching the telecast it seemed to me that bounces and caroms had more to do than skill in determining the outcome. True there were obvious chokes. And that's not a lot of fun to watch either. Aaron, Steve, Bubba, et al, you have my condolences.

So in the last three year's we've had Michael Campbell, Geoff Ogilve, and now Angel. Hmm. That's certainly the start of a list of winners for the ages. The USGA may be so omniscient that they can be sure their direction in the U.S. Open identifies the best player in the world, but I'm not buying it.

I think the USGA needs to call the PGA and request some consultation on course set up. Of course, however, since they know it all, the USGA won't do that. As I write this the powers that be are on the corporate jet back to Morristown, NJ amid some celebratory cocktails.

Yuk. My father would roll over in his grave, but I'm about ready to consider bowling.

But let me tell you... each and every one of us should be so lucky in our lives to accomplish something so great as that round that when recalling it we must weep.

That round, ladies and gentlemen, was for the ages. And whether you like the announcer he has become or not, you'd best not forget that while you were children or not yet born, a golfer with a wooden driver and soft ball shot the best round that may ever be turned in on that ridiculous golf course.

Paul Casey's 66? Very nice. But 30 years from now he won't be crying over it.

This year, yet again, I don't think they're succeeding in that mission.

I'm going from memory here, but they seem to fail at about the same rate (if you use your criteria, which I don't personally have a problem with... Michael Campbell ain't "the best" by any stretch) every year. Lots of top players, if memory serves, fail at the U.S. Open. There's too fine a line, and the flavor of golf played is so different nobody is playing their normal game(s).

Jack Waddell said on June 16, 2007:

Instead I think they're identifying the hottest and perhaps luckiest players this week.

Again, I think you could say this every U.S. Open year. When was the last time a U.S. Open was contested with three big names all having a shot in the final round? I don't remember the last time.

Follow-Up on Casey's 66
Supposedly, Miller's 63 beat the course average by 11.8; Casey's 66 by 10.9. I'm not sure if that's the daily or weekly average for either, but any way you slice it, 63 is dang impressive.

Half gone? Perhaps this shows that there is more wrong with the world rankings than with the course set up.

Look at the top ten.

If the top ten include guys doing nothing this season it isn't much of a top ten. Furyk? Els? Goosen? What have they done this season?

If you look at th FedEx Top Ten. A ranking that is weighted more toward recent success, only three in the top ten were cut. Phil, KJ, and Adam Scott. And two of them were cut by Cabrera's birdie on 18.

I hope the "luck thing" is intended to be hyperbole. Paul Casey hit fairways and greens all day and scored, if that round would lead him to an eventual win (which I doubt) calling it a lucky win would be quite misguided.

This year, yet again, I don't think they're succeeding in that mission. Half the players in the top 10 of the world rankings did not make the cut. More than half of the top 15 (8) did not make the cut. 14 of the top 30 did not make the cut. If fact only 27 of the world's top 50 players are playing this weekend.

With so many top players gone, I don't think this course and this set up are identifying the best players. Instead I think they're identifying the hottest and perhaps luckiest players this week. I'll reserve full judgment until Sunday night. But right now I don't think I'll be considering the U.S. Open champion anything but lucky. Once again.

The fact of the matter is, in my opinion, that present day fertilizing techniques result in a much lusher growth than in the past. I see it at my own club where 3" rough is enough to cost a shot. That Phil chose to practice in rough that was eventually cut down may have been a poor choice. That he chose to speak out about it may have been poor PR. But he has a point.

A few things. One, I think the rough is too thick. I always do at the U.S. Open - I'd rather see some guys able to play towards the green than just pitch out. I'm not saying the rough should allow for much, but it's, say, an inch longer than I'd like to see, ideally. It's about a 0.7-shot penalty right now. I'd like it to be more 0.4 or 0.5.

Second, to get back to Phil, there is no rash of injuries and there almost never have been at the U.S. Open. Phil injured himself by hitting pitches and chips for an hour at every green. His comments are off the mark - guys aren't talking or thinking about career-ending injuries, and neither was Phil. Phil has managed to turn a pity party into a "shame on you" party.

Put another way: Phil's point about the rough being perhaps too dense and perhaps "too" anything would have been better received had it been framed differently. People aren't necessarily reacting negatively to the opinion itself, but to the way in which it was said.

For the past decade or so, if you asked me to name the one phrase that most typifies US Open coverage it would be "on the edge." Fairways, the roughs, and especially the greens. Everything at a US Open is "on the edge" and that has been best demonstrated by the fact that time and again the grounds crew, at the behest of the members, is sacrificing the golf course to host the tournament and live up to the USGA's standards.

But not this week.

This course is alive, and it is eating.

I am only seeing it on TV, maybe Erik can offer some better, on course, perspective, but this course is not on the edge. It is in it's prime, excelling, and knocking off "would-be's" one at a time.

This is scary-good. I can't wait for the weekend.