Which 63 was better?

[bkuehn1952]

I don't like comparing feats from different eras.  Justin Thomas holds the record for the most under par round in a U.S. Open.  Johnny Miller holds the record for lowest final round score in U.S. Open history.

Certainly Miller's round was more meaningful in that it occurred on the last day and it won the tournament.  Was it "better"?  If we all agree upon the parameters for comparison, which I doubt we would, I might vote. 

[Wally Fairway]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

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

IMO - Miller's round was way better; but he is being cranky, crusty, and can't find a kind word about another player.

To be clear, his round is better not because of the course but look at the other scores that day (from the 1973 US Open Wiki page) "In shooting 63, Miller hit all 18 greens in regulation and needed 29 putts. Ten of his approach shots wound up within 15 feet (4.6 m), while five were within 6 feet (1.8 m). His score was even more remarkable given that only three other players managed to even break 70 on the day."

What JT did was impressive, but 18 players broke 70 on Saturday.

[Shindig]

I didn't get the sense that Johnny had some urge to comment so much as the press wanted a reaction from him and got it.

Johnny's was done with inferior equipment to what Justin Thomas used.  His was better compared to his field (which matters more to me than par).  And he did it when a 63 had never been done in a major before -- although I acknowledge -9 in a round had never been done in a U.S. Open before (although, again, par doesn't matter to me).

[Dave2512]

Miller's round was considerably better. Many players were tearing it up on the day JT shot 63 and it was the 3rd round. JM shot 63 on a course with just 3 par 5's and was still nearly 7000 yards, in the final round following a 76 in a tournament where -5 won it.

OT-IMO the USGA needs to get away from the faux links courses for the open.

[rehmwa]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

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

those aren't mutually exclusive positions

[skydog]

Johnny has a propensity to think he's the GOAT as we all know, but yea, in this case I can understand him being a bit peeved at having his record broken this way. There was a seemingly never ending train of people this weekend that had a putt to tie the record...Johnny's round at Oakmont wins in a landslide.

[Marty2019]

Obviously, a 63 in the final round to win is a lot better than a 63 in the 3rd round from a non-winner.   JT's 63 is kind of irrelevant, since it led to nothing.   It's just a nice round.  A stat.   JM's 63 was for the win. 

[Zekez]

Miller's by a longshot.

[rehmwa]

 

[Shindig]

32 minutes ago, skydog said:

Johnny has a propensity to think he's the GOAT as we all know, but yea, in this case I can understand him being a bit peeved at having his record broken this way. There was a seemingly never ending train of people this weekend that had a putt to tie the record...Johnny's round at Oakmont wins in a landslide.

I have never gotten the impression Johnny Miller thought he was the GOAT or even in the conversation for it. 

[skydog]

1 hour ago, Shindig said:

I have never gotten the impression Johnny Miller thought he was the GOAT or even in the conversation for it. 

being a bit (or a lot) facetious. He tends to just think very highly of his game IMO

[1NatsFan]

4 hours ago, DeadMan said:

Johnny's round was probably the best single round of all time. JT's round was incredible, but not quite that good.

Best round of the day doesn't equal one of the best rounds of all time.  Johnny's was a better round, hands down.

[phan52]

Miller was not very gracious in his assessment of Thomas's 63, but he was correct.

[Midpack]

There's a plausible argument for either to be "better" so I'm not inclined to debate it. But if I have to, I'd give it to JM because he did it on the last day/round to take the lead and win. It wasn't do or die for JT, he had another day. It's pretty well accepted there's added pressure at the end of any sporting event to close the deal - it's often what makes the (sports) greats great (thinking Michael Jordan). All else being equal, Sunday afternoon at The Masters is tougher than any previous days play, not for the faint of heart.

Edited June 19, 2017 by Midpack

[MuniGrit]

3 hours ago, Marty2019 said:

Obviously, a 63 in the final round to win is a lot better than a 63 in the 3rd round from a non-winner.   JT's 63 is kind of irrelevant, since it led to nothing.   It's just a nice round.  A stat.   JM's 63 was for the win. 

I agree, just like Duval's 59 seems to stand out the most out of all the 58/59's that have been on tour.

[wannabe]

Which 63 was better?  Funny question, kinda like 'which 20 carat diamond is better'?

I'll give it to Miller, though, for the various reasons already mentioned.

For my game, my front nine 63 is typically better than my back nine 63, usually due to fatigue and booze.

Edited June 19, 2017 by wannabe

[Shindig]

3 hours ago, skydog said:

being a bit (or a lot) facetious. He tends to just think very highly of his game IMO

Fair enough.  I was wondering if he had actually tried to place himself atop Jack or Tiger or Hogan (or whoever else you think should be in the GOAT discussion).  Sorry for making you stop to clarify. 

[zipazoid]

Lots of good arguments here, but...just sayin'...saying that Miller is kind of a tool isn't one.