2017 U.S. Open Discussion Topic

[DeadMan]

On Fox's coverage:

I thought the coverage was pretty good, personally. Miles ahead of CBS. Maybe just a shade behind NBC, but I'm not even sure about that. The protracer and hole graphics with the shot on it are great. We need a lot more of that in golf coverage. 

[ChrisP]

Yeah, I thought Fox did fine. People don't realize they only do one PGA event a year, and that being the case, you're not going to attract the top golf talent to join your network. David Feherty and Dottie Pepper aren't going to go to Fox to be heard just once a year (no offense to the Ladies or Senior Open or US Am, but hardly anyone watches those). So given what they had to choose from, they did fine. I thought graphics were great. And announcing was solid. I really like Gil Hanse and Darren Clarke as analysts and Ken Brown is great. I could do without Joe Buck or Curtis Strange....but Faxon/Zinger did okay. And Holly Sonders is nice to look at (not sure what came out of her mouth, though). 

 

Edited June 19, 2017 by ChrisP

[iacas]

46 minutes ago, Buckeyebowman said:

Some of these comments make me wonder what it is that people want? Nobody can control the weather. Ever wonder how Johnny Miller shot that 63 back in '73? Because Oakmont was soaking wet, that's how! I think it rained every night of the tournament, and it was solid overcast every day!

http://alazarus.com/johnny-miller-63-at-oakmont-the-1973-us-open/

http://www.foxsports.com/golf/story/16-things-to-know-about-johnny-miller-s-underrated-yes-underrated-63-at-oakmont-061516

Johnny Miller's 63 was something like 10.8 strokes lower than the field's scoring average that day. Justin's was only about 9 below it.

If the conditions were so soft, nobody else seemed to take advantage. Oakmont was still a beast.

[BallStriker]

49 minutes ago, iacas said:

 Justin's was only about 9 below it.

LOL

[nevets88]

Interesting both Koepka and Thomas's trail heel kick out so much.

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

If the conditions were so soft, nobody else seemed to take advantage. Oakmont was still a beast.

True, but it was this course, this US OPEN that the top 3 golfers in the world missed the cut. Strange things happen in golf. I don't think it really matters that no one else took advantage of it that day at Oakmont. They sucked. Johnny took advantage of what everybody knows was unusual conditions for Oakmont. Also, how many 600+yd holes did Johnny have to face? How many par 4's longer than 500yds? You could've given Johnny 100yd wide fairway and he wouldn't hit a par 5 676yds in 2.

Edited June 19, 2017 by Vinsk

[longdrive23]

(Im late to the thread)

 

Looks like long hitters are the only contenders for US open. 

[onthehunt526]

FOX is getting better, but I'm not a fan of Joe Buck. I don't like his voice during baseball and football either. Shane O'Donohgue is pretty good though. He could seriously be a good booth commentator on another network. I know we have at least 9 more years of FOX coverage. 

In my opinion, FOX could get a few more PGA Tour events a year, but with them having a stranglehold on NFC games, the World Series, and NASCAR that would be unlikely.

[cipher]

[70sSanO]

11 minutes ago, cipher said:

Kind of a summary of LSW.

John

[onthehunt526]

123/72 is not 1.17 its like 1.71.

[cipher]

10 minutes ago, 70sSanO said:

Kind of a summary of LSW.

John

Yep, exactly why I posted it.

[mvmac]

3 hours ago, DeadMan said:

The protracer and hole graphics with the shot on it are great. We need a lot more of that in golf coverage. 

Yes I also liked the split screen/hole graphics. Really gives you a good feel for the layout of the hole and how to play it.

[Shindig]

3 hours ago, onthehunt526 said:

My daughter (who is 3 and a half) can do a better post round interview than Joe Buck or Shane Bacon...

Sarcastic thought: If I were to win the mid-am someday, I want Ken Brown to interview me. F@+$ Joe Buck. Friggin' Cardinals fan.

It's high quality journalism though.  Just like in typical team sports.  Ask a question and get a Madden answer.  Coach, how could you have won?  Well we could have scored more points than they did, then we'd have won.  Coach, who was the MVP of the game?  Probably the bucket.  

1 hour ago, Vinsk said:

Also, how many 600+yd holes did Johnny have to face? How many par 4's longer than 500yds? You could've given Johnny 100yd wide fairway and he wouldn't hit a par 5 676yds in 2.

How would 1973 Johnny fare on that course with a Ping G30 driver and Titleist ProV1s?  It's just different eras, same reason we can't really find out how Bjorn Borg would fare against Roger Federer, or how Sid Luckman would have fared against the Steel Curtain, or whether 11 year old Martha Stewart could knock out adult Ronda Rousey. 

1 hour ago, onthehunt526 said:

FOX is getting better, but I'm not a fan of Joe Buck. I don't like his voice during baseball and football either. Shane O'Donohgue is pretty good though. He could seriously be a good booth commentator on another network. I know we have at least 9 more years of FOX coverage. 

In my opinion, FOX could get a few more PGA Tour events a year, but with them having a stranglehold on NFC games, the World Series, and NASCAR that would be unlikely.

Good point.  They should replace Joe Buck for the 2018 U.S. Open with Darrell Waltrip and/or Jeff Gordon.  Or just get Jimmie Johnson, who, when he plays golf, ironically can only get the ball to turn right. 

[Apoc81]

All props to Koepka. He hit the fairways, nailed the greens, and scrambled when he had to (which wasn't often). He seemed to get better as the final round went on. 

 

I'm still sad DJ didn't make the weekend. I always like to look at Paulina. (Gretzky was a hero of mine, as a child of the 80's). But she just had baby 2 anyway, so she wouldn't have been there. 

But man, Rory, what's going on. I'm driving as good as he is right now. I may not have the distance (about 270 carry when I hit it well), but my drives are all off the course too. He can't put a weekend together at all, or even make it to one. 

[Apoc81]

10 hours ago, weekend hacker1 said:

He was on bbc for years, but they only really had open plus masters. Way better than all the other pundits, here and in the states. Quirky without trying to be funny and knows what he is talking about.

Brooks was great but the whole tourney was very underwhelming. Hardly any noise from the crowds, not much excitement on the course and the presentation was so low key it was embarrassing. Nobody seemed that bothered about it.

This is golf without Rory playing well, Tigers future uncertain, and DJ not in contention. The only person the crowds seemed to care about was Fowler, and Koepka towards the very end. Golf needs another HUGE star, and there doesn't seem to be one floating around the young Amateurs just yet. But, no matter the sport, every generation has it's Tiger, it's Jack, its Palmer, its Orr, Gretzky, Mathews, etc etc. Someone will come up soon who will be challenging Tigers records, and gunning for Jacks

 

Koepka's GF looks a lot like my wife (from what little I saw of her). My wife better not have been away at the Open practicing polygamy while I was golfing! Overtime at the hospital, my ass! 

Edited June 19, 2017 by Apoc81

[boogielicious]

23 hours ago, zipazoid said:

Reading about Johnny Miller's response to Justin Thomas's 63, and they are, well, very Miller-esque - 

https://sports.yahoo.com/everything-else-way-secondary-miller-005626954.html

We were having a mini-convo on this in the middle of this thread, about how Miller talks a lot about himself while he is commentating. Some disagreement regarding. But this isn't that - Miller isn't doing commentary for anyone this year. But, of course, he was asked about Thomas's 63. 

And when I said they were Miller-esque, what I meant was, he was edgy, a little snarky...and right. JT's 63 was a great accomplishment, no doubt. But it wasn't a final-round to win the Open at Oakmont 63. I personally give credit points to the fact that Miller's was in the final round to win when virtually everyone else was struggling, whereas JT's was, honesty, the lowest of a bunch of low rounds shot that day - 65s, 67s. Lot of players were going low. Heck - JT wasn't even leading at the end of the day!

I realize that Miller rubs a lot of people wrong. He doesn't have the graciousness of Nicklaus or the humility of Palmer. But that doesn't mean he was wrong about JT's round. 

They say the truth hurts sometimes. In Miller's case, he has the tendency to make sure it does.
 

 

 

 

So it wasn't any easy course when Miller shot a -8? Where's the logic in that Johnny?

[zipazoid]

2 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

So it wasn't any easy course when Miller shot a -8? Where's the logic in that Johnny?

8 under at Oakmont is better than 9 under at Erin Hills. That's my take.