Jack vs. Tiger: Who's the Greatest Golfer?

[ChrisP]

I think the course was that tough. I mean they had a par 3 that was 240 yards, and the effective size of that green was a fraction of the total green size due to how fast, hard, and sloped the green was. There were some holes that if you were a foot too right and the ball ends up in a bunker. Look at Graeme McDowell, hit his tee ball on that par 3 about 4 yards more left, and about 2 feet shorter than Zach Johnson. Graeme's ball ended off the front of the green. Zach got a hole in one. Just say, less than 5 yards difference in landing spot is between a tap or chipping from the front of the green.

I think the play at this Open was typical of any US Open. It is a struggle to the end. Just because everyone wasn't making 65's all week doesn't mean poor golf was being played. That course is TOUGH!!!

The course rating for the US Open tees was a 76.4, 6.4 strokes harder than par. Given the PGA tour players can have a handicap ranging from +7 to +4, they were all shooting where they were suppose to. Kaymar just got hot. I would like to see his Strokes Gained on his long game. I think he hit a ton of greens this week. Honestly his ball striking was crazy good for the week, and he actually putted very well. He just put in a complete performance.

It was tough if you missed it in the wrong spots. But the greens were perfect, but outside of Kaymer, these guys could not putt. I just saw so many missed opportunities out there. I think scoring could have been better. The USGA set up some tough holes, no doubt, but they also set up some holes for scoring and the players weren't taking advantage of it. I feel like Thursday and Friday, you had soft greens, you had no penalty for missing the fairway and watching it on ESPN, player after player missed shots. At Merion last year, guys had wedges in their hands with soft greens in the middle of the fairway and player after couldn't get it close. I know a lot of people don't like Johnny Miller, but I personally have a lot of respect for him and he was shocked that players weren't scoring better.

In 1999 and 2005, you had heavier rough and much harder conditions and they didn't make the par-4s reachable, yet if you take away Kaymer's score, the scoring was pretty much the same. How? That's the part I don't get and why I question the top-10 in today's game.

[turtleback]

I guess I'm just letting off a little steam because I'm really angry at this U.S. Open. I like Kaymer...I think he's an elite player.....but I think the play in this Open was abysmal. I thought the players made this course look a lot harder than it was, and outside of Kaymer, the putting was really bad this week.

Or, maybe the course was just as difficult as the scores indicated.

[Jakester23]

Quit making sense turtle.

[ChrisP]

Or, maybe the course was just as difficult as the scores indicated.

Or maybe it wasn't.

[bplewis24]

I guess I'm just letting off a little steam because I'm really angry at this U.S. Open. I like Kaymer...I think he's an elite player.....but I think the play in this Open was abysmal. I thought the players made this course look a lot harder than it was, and outside of Kaymer, the putting was really bad this week.

Or maybe it wasn't.

What objective, quantifiable data do you have to support your assertion?  The scores clearly don't support it.  It seems like I was watching a different US Open than you were.

This was one of the most enjoyable majors I've watched in a while.  I felt like we saw a championship worthy tournament from one player who clearly separated himself from his peers on a championship stage.  You saw a guy who played good golf and everybody else stunk up the joint.  But that doesn't jive with how the US Open historically plays.  Most of the guys who play good golf are over par, and the guys who play the best are around even if not a few under.  The rest of the field, this tournament, still fell within those parameters.  Kaymer did not.  He outclassed them, for the most part.

My guess is that if we analyze the data, the metrics would show that this field compared pretty closely with most of the fields in the last 10 years or so of US Opens.  One obvious outlier would be the one Rory won, with not only one person being way under par and winning by several strokes, but with Jason Day also being several strokes under par, and a few others (IIRC).

To your subjective claims, you seem to think that those greens were easy to hold and putt on, apparently.  I'm not sure why.  Care to elaborate?  The common them was coming up short of a lot of the greens.  Long was dead, and the front of most of the greens had false fronts.  Unless you hit a number within about a 5 foot radius, the ball would fall away from the pin, most times no matter where it was located.  Maybe you think these guys should all be doing that regularly, but that's not realistic.

[ChrisP]

What objective, quantifiable data do you have to support your assertion?  The scores clearly don't support it.  It seems like I was watching a different US Open than you were.

This was one of the most enjoyable majors I've watched in a while.  I felt like we saw a championship worthy tournament from one player who clearly separated himself from his peers on a championship stage.  You saw a guy who played good golf and everybody else stunk up the joint.  But that doesn't jive with how the US Open historically plays.  Most of the guys who play good golf are over par, and the guys who play the best are around even if not a few under.  The rest of the field, this tournament, still fell within those parameters.  Kaymer did not.  He outclassed them, for the most part.

My guess is that if we analyze the data, the metrics would show that this field compared pretty closely with most of the fields in the last 10 years or so of US Opens.  One obvious outlier would be the one Rory won, with not only one person being way under par and winning by several strokes, but with Jason Day also being several strokes under par, and a few others (IIRC).

To your subjective claims, you seem to think that those greens were easy to hold and putt on, apparently.  I'm not sure why.  Care to elaborate?  The common them was coming up short of a lot of the greens.  Long was dead, and the front of most of the greens had false fronts.  Unless you hit a number within about a 5 foot radius, the ball would fall away from the pin, most times no matter where it was located.  Maybe you think these guys should all be doing that regularly, but that's not realistic.

I'd be happy to debate it more in the US Open thread where I made some points. Bottom line is I'm not saying everyone should have been -8, -9 or -10 (far from it). All I'm saying is the first two days there were a ton of missed opportunities out there for scoring, and this is something that not only me, but Johnny Miller and Nick Faldo both said yesterday and today. I understand the course played tough Saturday and Sunday, but there were a lot of chances to go low Thursday and Friday with soft greens, wide fairways and for the most part, pretty generous pin positions. There were a lot of missed putts from makeable spots.

[iacas]

I'd be happy to debate it more in the US Open thread where I made some points. Bottom line is I'm not saying everyone should have been -8, -9 or -10 (far from it). All I'm saying is the first two days there were a ton of missed opportunities out there for scoring, and this is something that not only me, but Johnny Miller and Nick Faldo both said yesterday and today. I understand the course played tough Saturday and Sunday, but there were a lot of chances to go low Thursday and Friday with soft greens, wide fairways and for the most part, pretty generous pin positions. There were a lot of missed putts from makeable spots.

That's not really an argument: it's an opinion.

You could easily find several U.S. Opens contested in Jack's day where fewer players finished under par, and yet the course was playing "easier" in the opinions of many.

[MSchott]

I'd be happy to debate it more in the US Open thread where I made some points. Bottom line is I'm not saying everyone should have been -8, -9 or -10 (far from it). All I'm saying is the first two days there were a ton of missed opportunities out there for scoring, and this is something that not only me, but Johnny Miller and Nick Faldo both said yesterday and today. I understand the course played tough Saturday and Sunday, but there were a lot of chances to go low Thursday and Friday with soft greens, wide fairways and for the most part, pretty generous pin positions. There were a lot of missed putts from makeable spots.

Isn't this always the case? Pinehurst #2 is all about the greens and approach shots. It's easy to miss a wedge or longer iron by just a few feet causing the ball to roll off the domed greens. If all the pros could hit perfect approaches all the time the game would be boring. The course did exactly what it was supposed to do. It rewarded the man who hit the most fairways and greens and who did the best job when he missed those greens.

[turtleback]

Or maybe it wasn't.

The scores indicate otherwise, whereas you have adduced no actual evidence to the contrary.

[ChrisP]

The scores indicate otherwise, whereas you have adduced no actual evidence to the contrary.

I already said if you compare this US Open to 1999 and 2005, the greens in this Open were much softer, the fairways were much wider, there was no penalties for missing the fairways and the USGA even made par-4s reachable each round which they didn't do in those Opens........yet if you take away Kaymer's score, the scoring was almost identical. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. And if you don't believe it, I've got the tapes of both Opens. I can bring them buy your house whereever you live.

I find it funny how people are getting upset at the fact that all I'm saying that players missed opportunities to score on Thursday and Friday with soft greens and scorable conditions and I believe that the top-10 right now is not looking very strong. I'm not the only saying that...a lot of people in the game are. The game is down right now, and if you don't believe me, look at the ratings for this year's events, the lack of big names showing up on leaderboards and just the antipathy of golf in general. Tiger Woods has a lot to do with that, yes, but so does the fact that the game's best are not having a very good season.

[saevel25]

I already said if you compare this US Open to 1999 and 2005, the greens in this Open were much softer, the fairways were much wider, there was no penalties for missing the fairways and the USGA even made par-4s reachable each round which they didn't do in those Opens........yet if you take away Kaymer's score, the scoring was almost identical. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. And if you don't believe it, I've got the tapes of both Opens. I can bring them buy your house whereever you live.

I find it funny how people are getting upset at the fact that I'm saying that players missed opportunities to score on Thursday and Friday with soft greens and I believe that the top-10 right now is not very strong. I'm not the only saying that...a lot of people in the game are. The game is down right now, and if you don't believe me, look at the ratings for this year's events and the lack of big names showing up on leaderboards.

Who says the "Native Areas" were easier? Do you have stats to back that up? Prove that the course played easier this year?

Actually the scores were not as identical, not even close. Actually a lot more players played better this week than on previous US Opens. The average score for this US Open, for those that made the cut, is 4.5 strokes better than in 2005, and 10 strokes better than in 1999.

Given the course they played this year was rated at a 76, with a slope of 140+. If you look at the article by Golf.com showing that PGA tour players handicaps range anywhere from +7 to +3, that means that the US open this year was meant to play as close to even par. That is what course rating means. Guess what, with out Kaymer, the scores for the top 21 are right were they are meant to be. Did the previous US Opens play tougher, yea. Not as much as you claim it to be. This US Open was tough and it was fair. One guy had an amazing 2 day stretch. Guess what his average score was on days 3 and 4, +1. He became mortal again.

Don't give me crap that this US Open was very easy, it wasn't. I can claim the field is much deeper and better talented than in 2005, and in 1999 because of those average scores. No way 2005 and 1999 course ratings are 80+. The fields back then are not nearly as good as they are now. They fields today are WAY above those in Jack's time.

[ChrisP]

Who says the "Native Areas" were easier? Do you have stats to back that up? Prove that the course played easier this year?

Actually the scores were not as identical, not even close. Actually a lot more players played better this week than on previous US Opens. The average score for this US Open, for those that made the cut, is 4.5 strokes better than in 2005, and 10 strokes better than in 1999.

Given the course they played this year was rated at a 76, with a slope of 140+. If you look at the article by Golf.com showing that PGA tour players handicaps range anywhere from +7 to +3, that means that the US open this year was meant to play as close to even par. That is what course rating means. Guess what, with out Kaymer, the scores for the top 21 are right were they are meant to be. Did the previous US Opens play tougher, yea. Not as much as you claim it to be. This US Open was tough and it was fair. One guy had an amazing 2 day stretch. Guess what his average score was on days 3 and 4, +1. He became mortal again.

Don't give me crap that this US Open was very easy, it wasn't. I can claim the field is much deeper and better talented than in 2005, and in 1999 because of those average scores. No way 2005 and 1999 course ratings are 80+. The fields back then are not nearly as good as they are now. They fields today are WAY above those in Jack's time.

Do you really need stats for that? Almost every player who missed the fairways could reach the green. In past US Opens, they couldn't. And the fairways were wider.

I've already said the fields today are deeper and better than Jack's time, much more global. I said you could question whether the top-5 or top-10 of Jack's time was better than today's top-5 or top-10. The top-10 in today's game have a total of 4 PGA Tour wins this year. 4! Two of the guys couldn't hold on to 5 shot leads to no-names. If anyone argues that the top-10 are very strong right now, I will disagree completely.

And again, I said the "first two rounds" were very scorable and players didn't take advantage. I didn't say the entire week was. I thought the weekend played very difficult, but to re-iterate what I think, Johnny Miller said and Nick Faldo said, there were A LOT of missed opportunities on Thursday and Friday and nobody played very well except Kaymer. I simply thought more guys could have taken advantage of Pinehurst when it played "easy" by U.S. Open standards.

It's not to take anything away from Kaymer. I thought he played incredible and lights out. To me, the man is the top player in the game right now. I just think someone could have gotten a little closer to him going into the weekend.

[saevel25]

I would contest that punching out in the fairway 30 yards from the green is a better position to be in, with those greens, than ending up being short sided off the green, or in a worse position. You just can't say, "Oh rough, its much worse". At one point, the announcers on TV stated the "Natural Areas' were playing tougher than the rough use to be. Like I said, look at the whole picture.

Was the course very scorable? How do you know, just because some announcers said it was? I don't see Faldo down on the course playing it. You easily say the course played easier, yet you have nothing to back it up but two announcers, who speak opinionated crap majority of the time than actual facts.

I can easily say the opposite, the course played tough and the scores reflected that. You have yet to proven anything you said is true. Until someone actually compares all the scores and shots made, then you have no clue if it was harder or not.

[ChrisP]

I would contest that punching out in the fairway 30 yards from the green is a better position to be in, with those greens, than ending up being short sided off the green, or in a worse position. You just can't say, "Oh rough, its much worse". At one point, the announcers on TV stated the "Natural Areas' were playing tougher than the rough use to be. Like I said, look at the whole picture.

Was the course very scorable? How do you know, just because some announcers said it was? I don't see Faldo down on the course playing it. You easily say the course played easier, yet you have nothing to back it up but two announcers, who speak opinionated crap majority of the time than actual facts.

I can easily say the opposite, the course played tough and the scores reflected that. You have yet to proven anything you said is true. Until someone actually compares all the scores and shots made, then you have no clue if it was harder or not.

Come on, really? How many times do I have to repeat myself? Look at the leaderboard after the first two rounds of US Opens in 1999 and 2005 when scoring conditions were much more difficult...take away Kaymer's score and they're not that much different than the '14 Open. That's all I'm saying. I'm not a statistician....I'm a Naval Supply Officer who loves the game of golf.....so yes, I'd probably shoot in 90s on this course and play like Charles Barkley.....but it's my opinion that scoring was out there and players didn't take advantage of it. And it's also my opinion that the top-10 in today's game is having a very bad year. And like I said, if you disagree with me, look at the ratings. Look at the number of wins and times they're contending. It's not very good at all.

[saevel25]

Yet you still haven't proven that the course set ups in 1999 and 2005 are actually any harder than in 2014. Until you do, your claim doesn't hold water.

[ChrisP]

Yet you still haven't proven that the course set ups in 1999 and 2005 are actually any harder than in 2014. Until you do, your claim doesn't hold water.

Seriously? It's common knowledge that the fairways were more narrow, the rough was heavier and played as more of a penalty, they didn't make "reachable par-4s" and the greens on Thursday and Friday played much harder. That's a common logic argument. I actually watched the 2005 US Open a few weeks ago while I was bored in the middle of the Pacific Ocean somewhere. Once again, all I'm saying is scoring Thursday and Friday were out there. Yes, it's my opinion and the opinion of others. If you don't agree with it, fine. I respect that. It's my view.

[Jakester23]

How many 500+ yard par 4's were there?

[bplewis24]

I find it funny how people are getting upset at the fact that all I'm saying that players missed opportunities to score on Thursday and Friday with soft greens and scorable conditions...

I just did a quick tally using the cbs.sportsline leaderboard.  Thursday there were 15 players under par, and Friday there were 19 players under par.  Saturday there were two, and Sunday I counted 11.  I'd say that is a quantifiable measure illustrating that players did in fact take advantage of opportunities to score on Thursday and Friday.  Kaymer significantly more than others.

Almost every player who missed the fairways could reach the green.

How are you defining this?  Being able to hit an approximate distance approaching the green vs having to punch out?  That means pretty much nothing in terms of scoring.  When you have to hit a 10 foot circle to hold the green, being able to get it near the green yet being unable to control the spin is a big deal.  And there were plenty of times guys weren't able to go after the green.

Once again, all I'm saying is scoring Thursday and Friday were out there. Yes, it's my opinion and the opinion of others. If you don't agree with it, fine. I respect that. It's my view.

And they took advantage of it.  The data reflects this.