Which 63 was better?

[zipazoid]

When Justin Thomas fired his 63 on Saturday at the US Open, you could almost feel Johnny Miller reaching for his computer to respond. Well, he didn't disappoint, and was quick to reply, in Miller-esque fashion, that his 63 in the final round of the 1973 US Open was better - tougher course (I agree), won him the Open (obviously).

We were batting it around in the US Open thread so I thought having a separate thread might be a good idea.

My take - Miller's, even though it was 'only' 8 under par was superior to Thomas's 9-under 63. JT can take solace in having the lowest round in relation to par in Open history...but Miller's was still superior, if for no other reason that it won him the Open. I give points for Miller doing it in the final round, a totally different paradigm than the 3rd round. JT wasn't even leading after his 63...that's how low the scoring was on Saturday - he simply had the lowest round on a day where 65's & 67's abounded.

Someone posted something to the effect of, "Yeah but Miller didn't have 600-yard par 5's to deal with or 525-yard par 4's" - Well, put a persimmon wood in today's pros hands & Balata balls for them to hit & you wouldn't have THEM dealing with 600-yard par 5's or 525-yard par 4's either - you can't give JT credit for something technology addressed decades ago.

Anyway, thread started. Have at it.

 

 

[boogielicious]

2 minutes ago, zipazoid said:

When Justin Thomas fired his 63 on Saturday at the US Open, you could almost feel Johnny Miller reaching for his computer to respond. Well, he didn't disappoint, and was quick to reply, in Miller-esque fashion, that his 63 in the final round of the 1973 US Open was better - tougher course (I agree), won him the Open (obviously).

We were batting it around in the US Open thread so I thought having a separate thread might be a good idea.

My take - Miller's, even though it was 'only' 8 under par was superior to Thomas's 9-under 63. JT can take solace in having the lowest round in relation to par in Open history...but Miller's was still superior, if for no other reason that it won him the Open. I give points for Miller doing it in the final round, a totally different paradigm than the 3rd round. JT wasn't even leading after his 63...that's how low the scoring was on Saturday - he simply had the lowest round on a day where 65's & 67's abounded.

Someone posted something to the effect of, "Yeah but Miller didn't have 600-yard par 5's to deal with or 525-yard par 4's" - Well, put a persimmon wood in today's pros hands & Balata balls for them to hit & you wouldn't have THEM dealing with 600-yard par 5's or 525-yard par 4's either - you can't give JT credit for something technology addressed decades ago.

Anyway, thread started. Have at it.

 

 

I'm going to say Justin Thomas' was far better because it will piss off Johnny Cranky-Pants. Thomas' 3 wood on 18 was one of the best shots I've seen in a long time.

[dennyjones]

11 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

I'm going to say Justin Thomas' was far better because it will piss off Johnny Cranky-Pants. Thomas' 3 wood on 18 was one of the best shots I've seen in a long time.

This....

[Wally Fairway]

Johnny is just being a grumpy old man

I can't decide which one best describes this

 

or

[zipazoid]

All ritey then. JT's was the better round because Miller is a crotchety old fart. 

Guess we can close this thread now...can't refute that logic.

[Bucki1968]

Yes...Johnny is whining but I would say his was better because he did it in the last round and won the tournament. JT wasn't the only one who went low on Saturday. Turns out it's the most players under par at any US Open ever. But I will say it again....Johnny is whining (and being a grumpy old man).

[MacDutch]

25 minutes ago, zipazoid said:

All ritey then. JT's was the better round because Miller is a crotchety old fart. 

Guess we can close this thread now...can't refute that logic.

A poll would be nice.

I believe I read something about the average score that day. Justin shot 9 better, where Miller shot 10 better.

My big question would be 'was it lift, clean and place when Miller shot his 63?' If so, my vote would go to JT.

Other thing is how strong was the 1973 field against the 2017 field. Think the 17 field was way stronger. So my vote goes to JT anyway.

[zipazoid]

9 minutes ago, MacDutch said:

Other thing is how strong was the 1973 field against the 2017 field. Think the 17 field was way stronger. So my vote goes to JT anyway.

We are comparing individual rounds by two players, so I don't know what the relevance of the strength of the field would be to the debate.

Whether it was a strong or weak field, a 63 is still a 63. 

[RandallT]

30 minutes ago, MacDutch said:

A poll would be nice.

Done

[zipazoid]

4 minutes ago, RandallT said:

Done

Thanks!

[Groucho Valentine]

Thomas didn't win or even get into the lead with his round. Just for those reasons alone i rank millers 63 over Justin Thomas'. Even though I'm not old enough to have seen it. 

[DeadMan]

I think it's Johnny's, and I don't think it's particularly close. Sunday at Oakmont to win the US Open trumps it. Plus, Johnny's round was a bigger outlier from the field that Justin's was.

That doesn't really take anything away from JT's round, though. Johnny's round was probably the best single round of all time. JT's round was incredible, but not quite that good.

[jsgolfer]

Neither, they both are the same for me.  A 63 is a 63 is a 63.

[boogielicious]

1 hour ago, zipazoid said:

All ritey then. JT's was the better round because Miller is a crotchety old fart. 

Guess we can close this thread now...can't refute that logic.

You do realize that most of this is tongue and cheek, don't you? 

[iacas]

Miller isn't being cranky. He's correct. His round was way better.

[RandallT]

For 2017: Average score was 72.01, standard deviation 3.55

For 1973: Average score was 73.77, standard deviation was 3.14

So 1973 had higher average score, and a smaller deviation from that average. Numerically, Johnny wins.

Plus, 4th round to win the tourney for Miller, whereas JT is just a footnote. Case closed, in my mind.

Source data of scores in spoiler hidden text below.

If you follow the link, there were only 3 other scores besides Miller's in the 60s that day.

For JT's round, there were numerous rounds in the 60s.

Spoiler

Raw scores transcribed from 1973, in case anyone wants to monkey with numbers:

63
70
70
72
70
68
73
73
65
72
74
73
72
72
68
71
73
76
76
73
72
74
71
71
78
77
76
76
75
74
74
73
72
77
73
73
73
75
76
75
75
74
73
71
78
78
77
75
74
72
72
76
77
74
80
74
75
79
76
75
74
73
79
76
79

 

2017 scores from usopen.com

68
71
67
68
70
69
68
68
69
70
63
72
69
65
68
70
69
72
69
69
71
71
70
69
68
75
71
68
74
72
67
73
72
73
76
73
75
72
71
71
70
71
73
73
71
76
73
75
73
73
72
71
74
72
79
79
75
76
75
75
76
74
75
80
74
76
78
82

 

Edited June 19, 2017 by RandallT
Added note about scores in 60s for each round. More in 2017 than 1973 by far

[ghalfaire]

Well first I'd say anyone that can shoot a 63 on a US Open course has done something special.  I'd also like to say I have observed that commentators that "speak their mind" as opposed to the PC crap, do draw some fire.  But often their comments are correct.  In this case I have to agree with JM, his 63 was much better than JT's for all the reason he cited.

[RH31]

Miller shot 63 on a much, much tougher course that was undoubtedly setup harder.

He wins, and it's not really that close.