2020 U.S. Open at Winged Foot

[boogielicious]

1 hour ago, ChrisP said:

Sorry, should have prefaced it as final round performances "by a champion." That's what I was referring to. But conditions were tough as in course conditions, not so much weather, although breeze and cool weather added to those tough course conditions. But NOT ONE player broke par today (only two shot 70) except one who shot a 67--BDC. To me that's pretty damn good and one of the best final rounds by a champion. Even Paul Azinger said as much. To shoot a 67 on that course in the heat of the battle like that was one of the best final rounds by a champion I've ever seen.

I thinks it was good, but there have been better. Tiger 2000 at Pebble Beach. He was -4 in the final round and beat the field by 15 strokes. And that’s just off the top of my head. 
 

Here are some others.

Ranking the 10 Greatest Performances in US Open History

---

Ranking U.S. Open performances is a bit like ranking Michael Jordan dunks or Mariano Rivera saves. They are all great—it’s the U.S. Open, for goodness' sake...

 

[Piz]

It must have been compelling television...because I dozed off while watching it.  

[ChetlovesMer]

Of course it wasn't the best all time final rounds for a US Open. It was impressive... which also made it kind of boring. I always enjoy the golf, but with out anybody even close to him it was kind of anti-climactic. 

Here's the skinny. Where ever this should rank all time it won't. Because people don't like the guy. If this should be the 10th best of all time, it will get kicked back out to like 15th. If it should be 15th, it'll be kicked out to 20th. Couple that with the lack of drama down the stretch and you are going to get a lot of folks poo-pooing the achievement. 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, ChrisP said:

I disagree. A 67 in these conditions when no one else could even break 70? It's like the equivalent to a 61 compared to Johnny Miller's 63 at Oakmont. Like I said, I'm not a fan of the guy, but I've got to give him props. That was an incredible round today. Top 10, in my opinion.

Meh. He shot 3 under par. Two others were within three of him, and a few more were within 4.

Johnny Miller's round had only four players shooting 70 or better: Johnny at 63, Lanny Wadkins shot 65 (2 worse), and Nicklaus and Ralph Johnston shot 68 (five worse). That was it.

It's not remotely close to "the equivalent to a 61."

[Wally Fairway]

3 hours ago, nevets88 said:

So - BAD is the favorite for The Masters now?

And the Masters is the next 2 majors on the schedule.
BDC (along with Wolff, DJ and a few others) will play that course as a par 68 (maybe 67) with all the par 5's reachable with a wedge or 9-iron, and #3 being 350 yards is reachable as well.

[ChrisP]

58 minutes ago, iacas said:

Meh. He shot 3 under par. Two others were within three of him, and a few more were within 4.

Johnny Miller's round had only four players shooting 70 or better: Johnny at 63, Lanny Wadkins shot 65 (2 worse), and Nicklaus and Ralph Johnston shot 68 (five worse). That was it.

It's not remotely close to "the equivalent to a 61."

Again disagree. Given how tough the scoring was today and him in the final group for him to shoot a 67 to me is more impressive than Miller’s 63. It just is. No one else on the course playing late shot anything close to him with the exception of perhaps English and his 72.  I know you don’t like the guy and I don’t either but I call it as I see it.

Edited September 21, 2020 by ChrisP

[saevel25]

8 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

Again disagree. Given how tough the scoring was today and him in the final group for him to shoot a 67 to me is more impressive than Miller’s 63. It just is. No one else on the course playing late shot anything close to him with the exception of perhaps English and his 72.  I know you don’t like the guy and I don’t either but I call it as I see it.

No it wasn't. Johnny Miller's 63 was an amazing ball striking round. He hit every green in regulation! And only had three putts that started outside of 30FT!!! 

Bryson hit only 61% of his greens in regulation. His putting caught fire. It's not even close to be equivalent. 

[iacas]

18 minutes ago, ChrisP said:

I know you don’t like the guy

Interesting how you can "know" something that's not remotely true. You're dead wrong here man.

But hey, if you have to rely on bullshit like that to justify why you think I am disagreeing with you, you've lost.

Johnny Miller's round was WAY more impressive.

[iacas]

Oh, @ChrisP:

Not even top three in the U.S. Open since 1960.

I not only also call it like I see it, the stats tend to agree with me. 😉

[Bonvivant]

17 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

No it wasn't. Johnny Miller's 63 was an amazing ball striking round. He hit every green in regulation! And only had three putts that started outside of 30FT!!! 

Bryson hit only 61% of his greens in regulation. His putting caught fire. It's not even close to be equivalent. 

I don't know if it wasn't worth responding to, but you didn't mention my comment. The game isn't judged on GIRs, LSW. In this case, BDC was 3 shots lower than closest, and 8 shots better than the field. I understand the value of ball striking but there are other parts to the game. 

 

1 minute ago, iacas said:

Oh, @ChrisP:

Not even top three in the U.S. Open since 1960.

I'd use your strength of field argument used in the Tiger vs. Jack thread here. The Johnny Miller round is certainly better than BDC's round today, but the fact that his SG to field was 7.9 when you consider the field strength, I think it is up there on all time great US open rounds, and clearly this tweet shows just that.

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, Bonvivant said:

I'd use your strength of field argument used in the Tiger vs. Jack thread here. The Johnny Miller round is certainly better than BDC's round today, but the fact that his SG to field was 7.9 when you consider the field strength, I think it is up there on all time great US open rounds, and clearly this tweet shows just that.

Johnny was nearly THREE shots better, and shot -8 to Bryson's -3 round, and this is AFTER the cut, so the depth/strength of field differences are minimized. A lot of the worse golfers miss the cut.

-3 to -8, and Johnny's round was IMPRESSIVE on multiple levels. He could have shot 60 or something if he made a few more putts.

Bryson didn't even have to put up with a crowd.

[Bonvivant]

29 minutes ago, iacas said:

and this is AFTER the cut, so the depth/strength of field differences are minimized. A lot of the worse golfers miss the cut.

So then we can put Jack closer to Tiger?

I still think J.M.'s round is the tops. I just appreciate that BDCs was way up there too.

[iacas]

24 minutes ago, Bonvivant said:

So then we can put Jack closer to Tiger?

Closer to? Sure. Put him as close as you want… Tiger's the clear #1.

Just as Johnny Miller's round remains well ahead of BDC's.

25 minutes ago, Bonvivant said:

I still think J.M.'s round is the tops. I just appreciate that BDCs was way up there too.

That chart has it as #4 in the U.S. Open since 1960. That's pretty high.

But it'd be outside the top 10 in majors since 1900.

[Zippo]

I guess I can relate more to Danny Lee than BDC:

 

Edited September 21, 2020 by Zippo
Fixed link

[Golfingdad]

DeChambeau is a weird one for me.  For me, he's the biggest current "needle-mover."  I love that he's at the top because I love watching him play and his outside the box thinking fascinates me.

But man alive does he seem like an insufferable jerk.  I was on the road during the day today so I'm watching the replay now, and in the last couple of hours I've lost track of the amount of times I've heard himself proclaim how great of a shot he just hit.  Combine that with his whole "my brand" rant after the issue with the cameraman several weeks ago and he's easy to dislike.

But I'm not going to root against him because I want to watch! 🙂

[Antneye]

I'm going to go out on a limb (not really too big of a leap here) and predict that BDC does not have long term staying power. He may win a few more majors, hard to say he won't because he is playing well right now, but he needs everything firing with the game he plays. He will eventually lose some of that and start tinkering and get inside his own head and everyone will be wondering what happened. I don't see his style having long term success. 

[ncates00]

1 hour ago, Antneye said:

predict that BDC does not have long term staying power. He may win a few more majors

Sounds contradictory.  Also, in most other sports, most athletes sizzle out after a while anyway.  I know golf is different than, say being a RB in football, but there's more than one way to skin a cat.  Maybe he thinks he'd rather go big or go home (literally and figuratively).  

 

1 hour ago, Antneye said:

but he needs everything firing with the game he plays.

That's true for everyone to win the last time I checked.  It's hard to win on the Tour.

 

1 hour ago, Antneye said:

He will eventually lose some of that and start tinkering and get inside his own head and everyone will be wondering what happened.

This could actually be true.  I think we're seeing it with Spieth.

9 hours ago, iacas said:

Oh, @ChrisP:

Not even top three in the U.S. Open since 1960.

I not only also call it like I see it, the stats tend to agree with me. 😉

No disrespect to the old-greats, but BDC also played on a harder golf course in harder conditions and against better competition.  Strokes gained data is only relative to the competition.  While Miller's 63 is better on its face than BDC's 67, I'd wager that BDC's round was better.  You point to the strokes gained, but are we going to say that the strokes gained analysis is accurate given how fields are more competitive now than in '73?  Yeah, Johnny had a better round against his peers than BDC did against his peers.  However, BDC's peers are also a lot better on the whole.  Therefore, the numbers are likely more similar.  You have said elsewhere on this forum that fields are a few shots better than yesteryear and have pointed to data.  Be consistent.  That applies here as well.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Antneye said:

I'm going to go out on a limb (not really too big of a leap here) and predict that BDC does not have long term staying power. He may win a few more majors, hard to say he won't because he is playing well right now, but he needs everything firing with the game he plays. He will eventually lose some of that and start tinkering and get inside his own head and everyone will be wondering what happened. I don't see his style having long term success. 

Everyone has to be playing well in all phases to win on Tour. He gained over a stroke a round in all four aspects to win this one.

18 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

No disrespect to the old-greats, but BDC also played on a harder golf course in harder conditions and against better competition.  Strokes gained data is only relative to the competition.  While Miller's 63 is better on its face than BDC's 67, I'd wager that BDC's round was better.  You point to the strokes gained, but are we going to say that the strokes gained analysis is accurate given how fields are more competitive now than in '73?  Yeah, Johnny had a better round against his peers than BDC did against his peers.  However, BDC's peers are also a lot better on the whole.  Therefore, the numbers are likely more similar.  You have said elsewhere on this forum that fields are a few shots better than yesteryear and have pointed to data.  Be consistent.  That applies here as well.

I already replied to this thought. It was nearly 3 strokes better. That’s HUGE. That’s not explained by strength/depth.

This is consistent. But nice troll job.