Which 63 was better?

[GolfLug]

Both obviously solid but I think it being the winning Sunday round makes the difference in favor of Miller's round.

Having said that JT's 2nd on 18th was absolutely phenomenal. Should go down as one of the best 3 woods struck in recent history if you remove out all contexts.   

1 hour ago, Vinsk said:

 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?

None from that round IMHO. When any of these guys are on, they are just on, regardless of course. The ball striking was on another level. Only thing that can (very slightly) water it down is that a whole bunch of them shot low rounds as well. So by that criteria it was a much more gettable course than Oakmont was possibly in 1973.

Edited June 20, 2017 by GolfLug

[zipazoid]

Couple other thoughts which, based on the results of the poll aren't necessarily needed, but goes to a couple of more reasons why I believe Miller's was the better round. 

Here's a link that shows the final results of the 1973 US Open:

https://www.thoughtco.com/1973-us-open-63-reasons-johnny-miller-won-1564911

Aside from Miller's 63, I see Lanny Wadkins had a 65, and Jack Nicklaus & Ralph Johnston had 68s. Four rounds under 70. So Miller's was two shots better than one player, and FIVE shots better than two more. And at least 7 better than the rest of the field. Oakmont certainly wasn't a get-able course that day. Miller just blitzed it. 

The other thought was the discussion about the strength of the respective fields. While I certainly agree that today's tour is far deeper in talent, just look at who Miller beat - it's a Golf Hall of Fame - Nicklaus, Weiskopf, Palmer, Trevino, Boros, Player. Floyd, Littler, Irwin. 

[Vinsk]

Soooo.....JT is a just a lucky hack! JM knows the rules of ball striking better than anyone and he proved it in 1973! (Sarcasm..for those who get out of the shower to pee.)

 

[iacas]

7 hours ago, zipazoid said:

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? 

It matters because you're comparing what the field did to what the individual players did.

If two guys shoot 63 in two fields, and one is 12 strokes below the scoring average and one is 8 strokes below the scoring average, you'd be inclined to think the 63/12 is better than the 63/8… but if the 63/12 was one PGA Tour player and a bunch of two handicap golfers, and the 63/8 is all PGA Tour players, the 63s are viewed differently.

I still think Johnny's round was better, but it's not by the 10.8 vs. 9 "beating the scoring average" gap. That gap narrows to a near dead heat, IMO… with Johnny winning out because he WON and it was on SUNDAY.

3 hours ago, Vinsk said:

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.

That's a myth. There have been two myths: that the course got a lot of rain, and that someone left the sprinklers on too long or they malfunctioned or something.

That was true for Friday's round, but the course had returned to being quite difficult by Sunday.

[Vinsk]

11 minutes ago, iacas said:

It matters because you're comparing what the field did to what the individual players did.

If two guys shoot 63 in two fields, and one is 12 strokes below the scoring average and one is 8 strokes below the scoring average, you'd be inclined to think the 63/12 is better than the 63/8… but if the 63/12 was one PGA Tour player and a bunch of two handicap golfers, and the 63/8 is all PGA Tour players, the 63s are viewed differently.

I still think Johnny's round was better, but it's not by the 10.8 vs. 9 "beating the scoring average" gap. That gap narrows to a near dead heat, IMO… with Johnny winning out because he WON and it was on SUNDAY.

That's a myth. There have been two myths: that the course got a lot of rain, and that someone left the sprinklers on too long or they malfunctioned or something.

That was true for Friday's round, but the course had returned to being quite difficult by Sunday.

http://www.history.cmu.edu/docs/schlossman/LazarusSchlossman.pdf

Great call Erik.