Which 63 was better?

[Apoc81]

Miller won it on Sunday. Nuff said. JT will just be the guy who had a really good round at an open. Miller is the guy who shot 63 on Sunday to win it. Big difference in my opinion.

 

And while I have NEVER hit persimmons, I have hit real Balata balls. That alone gives Miller the edge for me. Its like hitting one of those quarter machine rubber balls, except it doesn't fly!

Anyway, better than the US Open, I SEEM to have gotten my driving on point. Hit 13 fairways today and lost one ball off the tee (and the only ball I lost). Shot an 81. 5 of the 9 shots I gave up were on putting. Greens were really, really slow, they needed to be shaved, and EVERYONE was leaving everything short. 

[MSchott]

Miller's 63 was one of the great golf rounds of all time in a major. Under maximum pressure, on a terribly difficult course he played close to a perfect round. It's not even a contest.

[Aguirre]

Millers, easily. That doesn't mean he had to make those comments. Reminds of all the old NBA players constantly discounting Golden States greatness.

[Hardspoon]

I voted for Miller...but by less than one stroke (i.e., if JT shot a 62, I'd take that).

My honest hope is that somebody ridiculously good (Rory, DJ) shoots a 61 on a Sunday when the scoring average is  in the mid-70's, and ends the debate for good.

[No Mulligans]

12 hours ago, zipazoid said:

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. 

Strength of field is very relevant if you consider how much better each score was than the field for that day... which seems extremely relevant.  

Not all 63's are created equal, you need to consider the relative difficulty based on the course and weather conditions.

[Patch]

I voted for Miller, but I have to say that any 63, on any course, under any conditions, is pretty darn good. 

[iacas]

7 hours ago, MuniGrit said:

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.

He wasn't the only one to win when he shot 59. Stuart Appleby, for example, shot 59 in the final round and won, IIRC.

[Jack Watson]

Miller.  Miller.

Check out the guys swing when he was young.  Pretty nuts.

[MuniGrit]

31 minutes ago, iacas said:

He wasn't the only one to win when he shot 59. Stuart Appleby, for example, shot 59 in the final round and won, IIRC.

Yeah I know, but it doesn't really stick out to me like Duval's did.

[zipazoid]

10 hours ago, No Mulligans said:

Strength of field is very relevant if you consider how much better each score was than the field for that day... which seems extremely relevant.  

Not all 63's are created equal, you need to consider the relative difficulty based on the course and weather conditions.

Strength of field, or average score of the field? Two different things. And since both happened in the US Open, the "strength" of the field was as good as could be in each case. No one takes the US Open off.

And yes, all 63s aren't created equal...which is why I started this thread. My initial post made that very argument, that Miller's was better since it was on a tougher course, in the final round, for the win & the field had a higher average score by almost two strokes.

[Vinsk]

Well, this a record. So really numbers are the only data that get recorded. JM's record was -8 to par. JT shot -9 to par. We can all talk about the better round, which truthfully is JM pretty solidly. But the record books don't state, "Most impressive round" or "lowest score to par based on course difficulty."

The record is stated as, "Lowest score to par at the US OPEN." Done.

[zipazoid]

9 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

Well, this a record. So really numbers are the only data that get recorded. JM's record was -8 to par. JT shot -9 to par. We can all talk about the better round, which truthfully is JM pretty solidly. But the record books don't state, "Most impressive round" or "lowest score to par based on course difficulty."

The record is stated as, "Lowest score to par at the US OPEN." Done.

True, but here, in this poll, we didn't ask which round was the lowest score to par at the US Open...wouldn't really be no need in that, in that -9 is better than -8. Instead, it was, which was "better," in a subjective sense. 

It's kind of like the Nicklaus v Woods who was greater debate. You can say 18 > 14 & be done with it. Or you can dig into it deeper & possibly change your answer based on whatever criteria you wish to use. 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, zipazoid said:

Strength of field, or average score of the field? Two different things. And since both happened in the US Open, the "strength" of the field was as good as could be in each case. No one takes the US Open off.

The fields are stronger and deeper now. No debate on that. In every tournament.

30 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

The record is stated as, "Lowest score to par at the US OPEN." Done.

That's ONE record. Another is "lowest score shot in a U.S. Open." They're tied at 63. But clearly people feel one of the 63s was better than the other.

[Shindig]

3 hours ago, zipazoid said:

No one takes the US Open off.

Well, almost no one.  

[zipazoid]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

The fields are stronger and deeper now. No debate on that. In every tournament.

But does that make JT's 63 "better" than JM's since the field was stronger? (I know you already answered that, just making the point) 

I don't see the relevance as to what the rest of the field does in comparison to an individual's accomplishment. Miller's 63 was better than the field by almost 2 strokes more than JT's...but if Miller's 63 had a deeper/stronger field then perhaps there wouldn't be that discrepancy. So does that change what Miller did? 

[shanksalot]

As far as pure numbers go they are the same, the lowest score shot in a US Open period. Although Justin's was on a Saturday, ergo less pressure and Jonny's on a Sunday a little more pressure though he went out early Sunday morning and the leaders were barely on the back nine when he finished his round. Not like he was in the mix on the back nine in the last few groups. Miller was one of the best iron players on tour in his era so it was not a huge surprise when he shot his 63, but Justin Thomas is not a household name so perhaps being a somewhat unknown perhaps he had more pressure on him. I still would vote for Miller though. No one had done it before he shot 63 so that number was a first.

[Vinsk]

5 hours ago, zipazoid said:

True, but here, in this poll, we didn't ask which round was the lowest score to par at the US Open...wouldn't really be no need in that, in that -9 is better than -8. Instead, it was, which was "better," in a subjective sense. 

It's kind of like the Nicklaus v Woods who was greater debate. You can say 18 > 14 & be done with it. Or you can dig into it deeper & possibly change your answer based on whatever criteria you wish to use. 

I agree. I'm sure anyone would list Oakmont as a more difficult course than Erin Hills. But from what I understand the greens at Oakmont are the most notorious for making it such a difficult course right? Fairways are much more narrow than Erin Hills too right? I'm just saying that I've read that on the day Johnny shot his 63 the greens were far from the normal difficulty they're famous for. I don't care what the field did, that's just what I've read about it. If JT was spraying his drives all over the place and scrambled to a 63 I'd be more inclined to say he never would've gotten away with that at Oakmont ...slow greens or not. It's hypothetical of course but I'm curious what aspect of JT performance that day wouldn't have allowed him to shoot low at Oakmont ..or any other course. It was a pretty damn solid round which is why I'm just 100% gonna say that JM's round was that more impressive. Am I totally off here?

[Deryck Griffith]

Without any hesitation, Johnny's round was better.  And it isn't whining if you are 100% right.  Plus, he was asked the question and gave his answer.