The Opens (U.S. and British) 2017

[Tripping William]

I have to respect his resolve to honor his daughter on, probably, the biggest day of her short life.

As do I.

Talk about things coming full circle, it was 18 years ago yesterday that the late Payne Stewart won the 1999 US Open at Pinehurst, beating out Phil with clutch putts on the 16th and 17th, and what has become an iconic putt on the 18th. Phil, of course, had been wearing a beeper all week, awaiting word that Amy was going into labor with their first child. That child was born the next day, after Phil's second-place finish. Amanda Mickelson, whose high school commencement precipitated Phil's missing the 2017 US Open, turns 18 today.

[Indoor66]

Talk about things coming full circle, it was 18 years ago yesterday that the late Payne Stewart won the 1999 US Open at Pinehurst, beating out Phil with clutch putts on the 16th and 17th, and what has become an iconic putt on the 18th. Phil, of course, had been wearing a beeper all week, awaiting word that Amy was going into labor with their first child. That child was born the next day, after Phil's second-place finish. Amanda Mickelson, whose high school commencement precipitated Phil's missing the 2017 US Open, turns 18 today.

Thanks for that. We just got "the rest of the story."

[Mal]

Talk about things coming full circle, it was 18 years ago yesterday that the late Payne Stewart won the 1999 US Open at Pinehurst, beating out Phil with clutch putts on the 16th and 17th, and what has become an iconic putt on the 18th. Phil, of course, had been wearing a beeper all week, awaiting word that Amy was going into labor with their first child. That child was born the next day, after Phil's second-place finish. Amanda Mickelson, whose high school commencement precipitated Phil's missing the 2017 US Open, turns 18 today.

Great note. Also worth recalling that on the 18th green at Pinehurst, Stewart went to Mickelson and told him that becoming a father, which he was about to do, was way more important than winning or losing a golf tournament, which of course is very much of a piece with Mickelson deciding last week to put fatherhood and family ahead of golf.

Something tells me that Fox Sports did not run a segment on this. And that NBC most definitely would have. Could have been there and I missed it, though.

[duke79]

Great note. Also worth recalling that on the 18th green at Pinehurst, Stewart went to Mickelson and told him that becoming a father, which he was about to do, was way more important than winning or losing a golf tournament, which of course is very much of a piece with Mickelson deciding last week to put fatherhood and family ahead of golf.

Something tells me that Fox Sports did not run a segment on this. And that NBC most definitely would have. Could have been there and I missed it, though.

I watched a lot of the weekend US Open coverage on Fox and did not remember them doing a special segment on Phil's decision (but I may have missed it).

You have to respect and admire Phil's decision but I don't find it all that surprising. He's already played in dozens and dozens of major tournaments, won several (although never the US Open), has a huge net worth (I believe) and I'm sure he realizes that his daughter graduates ONLY ONCE from high school. What parent would want to miss that major milestone in their child's life? Also, and frankly, I would have considered Phil a long shot to win the US Open. I think his best playing days are behind him and it's not like he was giving up a good chance to win the tournament. I'm guessing Phil also knew that which made his decision a little easier, I'm sure.

[Tripping William]

Also, and frankly, I would have considered Phil a long shot to win the US Open. I think his best playing days are behind him and it's not like he was giving up a good chance to win the tournament. I'm guessing Phil also knew that which made his decision a little easier, I'm sure.

I'm not willing (and I suspect killerleft is even *less* willing) to go this far. I mean, Phil isn't all that far removed from shooting a first-round 63 and a final round 65 in a major championship. Just because Henrik Stenson played a fourth-round-for-the-ages in last year's British Open doesn't mean Phil isn't still fully capable of winning majors, including last week's.

[duke79]

I'm not willing (and I suspect killerleft is even *less* willing) to go this far. I mean, Phil isn't all that far removed from shooting a first-round 63 and a final round 65 in a major championship. Just because Henrik Stenson played a fourth-round-for-the-ages in last year's British Open doesn't mean Phil isn't still fully capable of winning majors, including last week's.

Don't get me wrong, Phil IS still capable of winning a major. No doubt about that. But I would NOT have considered him one of the favorites going into last week's US Open. I don't know what the odds were in Las Vegas (assuming he had played in the tournament) but I would guess they would have been quite high.

[Tripping William]

Don't get me wrong, Phil IS still capable of winning a major. No doubt about that. But I would NOT have considered him one of the favorites going into last week's US Open. I don't know what the odds were in Las Vegas (assuming he had played in the tournament) but I would guess they would have been quite high.

I have not seen pre-tournament odds for Phil (as I'm guessing he was "off the board" due to the uncertainty of whether or not he would play), but, from what I just saw on VegasInsider.com, before the tourney started, Brooks Koepka was 40/1. Matsuyama was 30/1. Brian Harman was 225/1. Tommy Fleetwood was 125/1. Those were the top four finishers. DJ was the pre-tournament odds-on favorite, at 7/1, followed by Rory at 17/2, Spieth at 9/1, and J-Day at 10/1. Three of those four missed the cut.

My point: At the present time, *no one* in golf has what I would describe as "low odds" of winning a major.

[duke79]

I have not seen pre-tournament odds for Phil (as I'm guessing he was "off the board" due to the uncertainty of whether or not he would play), but, from what I just saw on VegasInsider.com, before the tourney started, Brooks Koepka was 40/1. Matsuyama was 30/1. Brian Harman was 225/1. Tommy Fleetwood was 125/1. Those were the top four finishers. DJ was the pre-tournament odds-on favorite, at 7/1, followed by Rory at 17/2, Spieth at 9/1, and J-Day at 10/1. Three of those four missed the cut.

My point: At the present time, *no one* in golf has what I would describe as "low odds" of winning a major.

If there had been odds on Phil before the tournament started, I would guess they would have been in the 25-1 to 35-1 range (or maybe better just based on his reputation and past history) but I don't think anyone considered him one of the "favorites" to win. It goes to my point that I don't think Phil was giving up a "likely" or "probable" or even "reasonably possible" win in the US Open to attend his daughter's HS graduation.

Yea, golf is a very different sport than tennis, for example. In tennis, it's quite unusual to see a player ranked below number 10 (or so) break through and win one of the majors. However, golf is a much more fickle sport and it's not unusual at all to see a less-heralded player step up their game for four days and win one of the big tourneys. Being one of the "favorites" in golf means much less than in some other sports.

[Tripping William]

If there had been odds on Phil before the tournament started, I would guess they would have been in the 25-1 to 35-1 range (or maybe better just based on his reputation and past history) but I don't think anyone considered him one of the "favorites" to win. It goes to my point that I don't think Phil was giving up a "likely" or "probable" or even "reasonably possible" win in the US Open to attend his daughter's HS graduation.

Yea, golf is a very different sport than tennis, for example. In tennis, it's quite unusual to see a player ranked below number 10 (or so) break through and win one of the majors. However, golf is a much more fickle sport and it's not unusual at all to see a less-heralded player step up their game for four days and win one of the big tourneys. Being one of the "favorites" in golf means much less than in some other sports.

25/1 would have given Phil the eighth-best odds of winning.

[cato]

Time is not on Phil's side. Whatever his chances were of winning the US Open -- which would be a monumental achievement for him; the single best thing he could do at this point in his career -- odds are they will be worse next year.

[snowdenscold]

I
Yea, golf is a very different sport than tennis, for example. In tennis, it's quite unusual to see a player ranked below number 10 (or so) break through and win one of the majors.

And in the past decade it's been extremely rare to even win outside the top 5.

[Mal]

...golf is a much more fickle sport and it's not unusual at all to see a less-heralded player step up their game for four days and win one of the big tourneys. Being one of the "favorites" in golf means much less than in some other sports.

Is golf more fickle, or is it just that it's the most completely individual sport?

Even without a team, what one player does in tennis directly impacts the actions of their opponent. The better player can literally prevent the lesser player from playing their best. If Jack Sock's crushing forehand crosscourt winners today, every player in the top 10 in the rankings has multiple things in their bag of tricks to prevent him from getting too many crosscourt forehand winner opportunities. It's not that different than when some player starts lighting it up from 3 in a basketball game, so you switch defenders or double team him. You can intentionally walk Barry Bonds to blunt his impact. Etc.

But if JB Holmes is striping 310 yard drives down the middle and throwing darts at the pins 'cause he's on his game today, there's really nothing Jason Day can do about it, even though he's the better player on average. Indirectly, maybe, by getting in his head or stuffing a wedge to tap-in distance and increasing the pressure (if he happens to be in the same group), but not directly, like you can by just hitting a tennis ball past someone.

[Rich]

Is golf more fickle, or is it just that it's the most completely individual sport?

Even without a team, what one player does in tennis directly impacts the actions of their opponent. The better player can literally prevent the lesser player from playing their best. If Jack Sock's crushing forehand crosscourt winners today, every player in the top 10 in the rankings has multiple things in their bag of tricks to prevent him from getting too many crosscourt forehand winner opportunities. It's not that different than when some player starts lighting it up from 3 in a basketball game, so you switch defenders or double team him. You can intentionally walk Barry Bonds to blunt his impact. Etc.

But if JB Holmes is striping 310 yard drives down the middle and throwing darts at the pins 'cause he's on his game today, there's really nothing Jason Day can do about it, even though he's the better player on average. Indirectly, maybe, by getting in his head or stuffing a wedge to tap-in distance and increasing the pressure (if he happens to be in the same group), but not directly, like you can by just hitting a tennis ball past someone.

Well, there's always this form of defense

[rsvman]

Well, they're off in the Open Championship today. Weather conditions were apparently really bad early on but became quite docile later. A lot of good scores on the board already.
Brooks Koepka tied for the lead. Pretty impressive.

[rsvman]

Speith making it look pretty easy. The weather had mostly been cooperating, and he plays smart golf.
Barring a meltdown like he had at the masters last year, he's going to be tough to beat.

[Tripping William]

Speith making it look pretty easy. The weather had mostly been cooperating, and he plays smart golf.
Barring a meltdown like he had at the masters last year, he's going to be tough to beat.

Agreed. I didn't see it, but I imagine that swing on 18 (where Spieth made a long birdie putt and Kuchar missed a short one, effectively a two-shot swing) was yuge.

[duketaylor]

Agreed. I didn't see it, but I imagine that swing on 18 (where Spieth made a long birdie putt and Kuchar missed a short one, effectively a two-shot swing) was yuge.

I agree, it was "yuge."

[CDu]

Impressive finish from Spieth to hold off Kuchar for the title. I feel bad for Kuch, who seems like a really good dude. But it is nice to see Spieth regather himself after last year's Master's collapse and after nearly repeating it with his start today.

[rthomas]

Impressive finish from Spieth to hold off Kuchar for the title. I feel bad for Kuch, who seems like a really good dude. But it is nice to see Spieth regather himself after last year's Master's collapse and after nearly repeating it with his start today.

3 majors
3 runners up in majors
11 non-majors
fed ex cup

before 24 yrs old is impressive.

[CDu]

3 majors
3 runners up in majors
11 non-majors
fed ex cup

before 24 yrs old is impressive.

He has more majors than Tiger at this age. Of course, Tiger went on an incredible run (6 of 9 starting at age 24). But Spieth is, for the moment, tied with only Jack Nicklaus to win 3 majors before age 24. And he really should have won 4, where it not for his meltdown at the Master's.

Not a bad start to a career.