The Opens (U.S. and British) 2017

[Tripping William]

The U.S. Open starts today at Erin Hills in Wisconsin. The British Open (a/k/a "The Open Championship," depending on where one resides) begins July 20th at Royal Birkdale. I figured we could discuss them both here.

As for this weekend, the story up until now is Phil Mickelson's now-fully-official decision to withdraw from the tournament to attend his daughter's high school graduation. He held out some hope that a lengthy weather delay might make it possible for him to make his afternoon tee time following the commencement exercises. Alas, Mother Nature had other ideas, with no rain in sight.

Coming into this weekend, we have had a string of first-time winners in the major championships lately; since Jordan Spieth won the 2015 US Open to take his second major, the rest of the winners have been first-timers. That probably bodes well for a guy like Rickie Fowler, who is already -6 through 14 holes today. That said, I predict those who have complained loudly about the length of the fescue at Erin Hills will fare poorly (I'm looking at you, Kevin Na and Lee Westwood).

And let's hope the Fox broadcast team has improved greatly . . . . .

[rsvman]

I'm looking forward this this, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the Fox team to do a good job.

[Tripping William]

Fowler with a bogey-free 65 (-7), two shots ahead of everyone else at present. Lots of golfers still out on the course, though, including some at -3 making the turn.

[rsvman]

If somebody would've told you that Jason Day and Rory McIlroy would be 12 over combined with one hole remaining on the first day of the US Open you would've told then they were crazy.

[rsvman]

OK, so they salvage 11 over with a birdie putt on the last hole for Day.

[rthomas]

If somebody would've told you that Jason Day and Rory McIlroy would be 12 over combined with one hole remaining on the first day of the US Open you would've told then they were crazy.

If somebody would've told you that a blimp would crash before noon on the first day you would've told then they were crazy.

[Tripping William]

If somebody would've told you that a blimp would crash before noon on the first day you would've told then they were crazy.

That's not a terrible comment, but it is a dirigible one ..... :rolleyes:

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

that's not a terrible comment, but it is a dirigible one .... :rolleyes:

thumbs up if you read this in barkley's voice!!

[Channing]

7845 yards ...

[rsvman]

7845 yards ...

Yep. But wide fairways, made more receptive by the recent rains, made for an impressively low-scoring first round. The greens were also softened by the rains, which helps scoring, as well.

I'm sure the USGA will make every attempt to get the course as parched as possible by Sunday.


Near the end of last evening's broadcast, they showed a guy from the Duke men's team playing his last hole (the 9th, a short-ish par 3). Sorry I can't remember his name. Anyway, he was +2 after 17 holes, and his tee shot at number 9 ended up about 3 feet from the cup, so he probably finished +1. That's very impressive for an amateur playing at his first US Open. He did Duke proud!

[Tripping William]

Yep. But wide fairways, made more receptive by the recent rains, made for an impressively low-scoring first round. The greens were also softened by the rains, which helps scoring, as well.

I'm sure the USGA will make every attempt to get the course as parched as possible by Sunday.



I think the USGA will have a conniption if the winning score is double-digits under par. Looks like -4 is the best round-in-progress so far today (by Bill Haas, who still has the 18th to play). Lots of players haven't even teed off yet, though.

[Tripping William]

Among other drama, we will have a new US Open champ, as Dustin Johnson will miss the cut. Four players at -7. Moving Day should be fascinating.

[awhom111]

Yep. But wide fairways, made more receptive by the recent rains, made for an impressively low-scoring first round. The greens were also softened by the rains, which helps scoring, as well.

I'm sure the USGA will make every attempt to get the course as parched as possible by Sunday.


Near the end of last evening's broadcast, they showed a guy from the Duke men's team playing his last hole (the 9th, a short-ish par 3). Sorry I can't remember his name. Anyway, he was +2 after 17 holes, and his tee shot at number 9 ended up about 3 feet from the cup, so he probably finished +1. That's very impressive for an amateur playing at his first US Open. He did Duke proud!

That would be Alex Smalley. He was in solid position after birdying 16 on Friday, but he bogeyed the last holes to miss the cut at +3. Max Greyserman was moving in the right direction, but fell back to also miss the cut.

[rsvman]

That would be Alex Smalley. He was in solid position after birdying 16 on Friday, but he bogeyed the last holes to miss the cut at +3. Max Greyserman was moving in the right direction, but fell back to also miss the cut.

Thanks. Yep, that was the gentleman I was taking about. He did himself and the University proud.

Today, Justin Thomas just went off! Bested Johnny Miller for the best round in US Open history!

[rthomas]

You are correct that Fox sucks at golf. The last comment that was made was the leaders would "choke for money or prestige." Really? What a crappy comment. And the commentator said it more than once.

[Rich]

You are correct that Fox sucks at golf. The last comment that was made was the leaders would "choke for money or prestige." Really? What a crappy comment. And the commentator said it more than once.

I noticed a segment when, as a player approached the first tee (can't remember who), Joe Buck announced that the golfer had never won a PGA tournament, but has been in two playoffs, right when the graphic under the golfer's name read "Won two PGA tournaments." Typical Fox coverage.

[Tripping William]

What an incredible day of golf, setting up what ought to be a fantastic finish tomorrow. And unless Oostie or Sergio get super-hot (they are both at -4, in 17th place, 8 shots back), we'll have another first-time major winner by this time tomorrow.

[rsvman]

I'm looking forward to it. This one is wide open right now. Lots of capable players near the top of the leaderboard, but you never know how they will respond to Sunday US Open pressure until Sunday arrives.

[BluDvlsN1]

Agreed, It's been fun to watch the amazing ball striking.
Incredible display of talent.
Looking forward to see how it plays out, kinda pulling for Ricky.

My favorite non golf shot moment was after Tommy Fleetwood goes on a run
then stripes a tee shot, Brooks Koepka walks onto the tee singing
"Don't Stop thinking about tomorrow"

Great Stuff

[Tripping William]

Looks like the wind is up this afternoon, and may finally play some role. Should be great theater for the next 4 hours.

[kmspeaks]

I noticed a segment when, as a player approached the first tee (can't remember who), Joe Buck announced that the golfer had never won a PGA tournament, but has been in two playoffs, right when the graphic under the golfer's name read "Won two PGA tournaments." Typical Fox coverage.

The fact that Joe Buck not only has a job in broadcasting, but is given prime assignments in multiple sports is just one of those things I don't think I'll ever understand no matter how long I live. He's awful.

[nmduke2001]

Currently leader, Brooks Koepka, is the great nephew of Dick Groat.

[Tripping William]

Currently leader, Brooks Koepka, is the great nephew of Dick Groat.

Koepka will be your champ. Ran away with it, actually. Those three straight birdies on the back 9 today were the key stretch.

[rthomas]

FOX, of course, had the ex-girl friend's name. Instead of the current girl friend riding in the cart with Koepka after the final hole.

[rsvman]

On a golf forum I go to, I picked Koepka before the tournament began. So now I'm looking pretty smart.

I enjoyed the tournament immensely. Looks like a gorgeous course. I'd love to play it, but certainly not from those tees, lol.

[rasputin]

I noticed a segment when, as a player approached the first tee (can't remember who), Joe Buck announced that the golfer had never won a PGA tournament, but has been in two playoffs, right when the graphic under the golfer's name read "Won two PGA tournaments." Typical Fox coverage.

I'd say that the coverage described above was "fair and balanced.":)

[Jeffrey]

IMO, the game needs a few great stars frequently competing for the majors. I doubt 7 different winners for the last 7 majors helps ratings.

[duke79]

The fact that Joe Buck not only has a job in broadcasting, but is given prime assignments in multiple sports is just one of those things I don't think I'll ever understand no matter how long I live. He's awful.

Totally agree with you. I find Joe Buck unbearable and he's an especially bad announcer for golf. (it would be nice if he, at least, knew the name of the winner's girlfriend!). It's like he is almost a caricature of a sportscaster.

[duke79]

Currently leader, Brooks Koepka, is the great nephew of Dick Groat.

Yea, nice to have the (somewhat distant) Duke connection with the winner!

[rsvman]

Totally agree with you. I find Joe Buck unbearable and he's an especially bad announcer for golf. (it would be nice if he, at least, knew the name of the winner's girlfriend!). It's like he is almost a caricature of a sportscaster.

He's much better as a baseball announcer than as a golf announcer.

I remember thinking that Fox's golf coverage was absolutely horrific. And then yesterday I suddenly realized that what they are showing on the TV is not bad at all; in many ways, better than NBCs. The reason it seems horrible is Joe Buck. Fox absolutely needs to get him away from announcing major golf tournaments.

[Jeffrey]

I remember thinking that Fox's golf coverage was absolutely horrific. And then yesterday I suddenly realized that what they are showing on the TV is not bad at all; in many ways, better than NBCs. The reason it seems horrible is Joe Buck. Fox absolutely needs to get him away from announcing major golf tournaments.

IMO, Jim Nantz is the best golf announcer and CBS has the best coverage. I wish CBS had all the majors.

[DUKIECB]

IMO, Jim Nantz is the best golf announcer and CBS has the best coverage. I wish CBS had all the majors.I agree. CBS doesn't have all the fancy shmancy gizmos the other networks have and are better off because of it. I don't need to see an orange tracer line every single time a player hits a shot. Show it on a replay if it's a good shot, fine but every single time is ridiculous.

And yes, Joe Buck as a golf commentator is a joke. I actually like Curtis Strange and Paul Azinger which for me at least made yesterday bearable.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

IMO, Jim Nantz is the best golf announcer and CBS has the best coverage. I wish CBS had all the majors.

I agree that Nantz and CBS are the best. I wish all the networks played by the Masters rules for majors of understated dignity and elegance (I love the minimal commercials but I recognize that that is a rule that cannot become universal). NBC was not as good as CBS but it was fine. Announcers shouldn't take themselves too seriously, but they should respect the game. Fox is toning down its act a lot from baseball and football, but it is still too much for me. But as someone beyond the 18-34 demographic, I don't know if they really care about my opinion.

I agree with others that the ball tracker isn't necessary on every shot, but it was helpful in educating my young son about golf - used periodically, it is a good feature.

[rthomas]

My wife asked me what Holly Sonders brings to golf coverage.

7502

[Jeffrey]

My wife asked me what Holly Sonders brings to golf coverage.


My wife already knows my answer!

[Mal]

1. Yes, Joe Buck is not good at golf announcing. In this day and age, it's not enough to have a voice that everyone knows to be a crossover play-by-play success like you're Al Michaels or something. You need to have a great depth of knowledge about the sport you're announcing, either from previously playing it at a pretty high level, like Jim Nantz, or just following it closely year-round, like Mike Tirico and Dan Hicks. Those guys can feed their color commentators something to talk about. Buck cannot, although I'm sure he plays golf as a pastime.

2. All that said, I can't fault him for one thing at this tournament, which would be an inability to make the proceedings seem dramatic. Because they weren't, really. It was over the moment Koepka's tee shot found the fairway on 14. Also, while not as drastic as at Chambers Bay a couple years ago, the sheer size of Erin Hills (even if you're playing it a thousand yards shorter than they did this weekend, it's a freaking hike to get around that course; it's just a massive amount of real estate) made it feel somewhat sparsely attended. There weren't huge galleries.

3. I'm OK with the recent string of first time major winners, because they've all basically been top 20 players when it happened. Consider that of the 7 of them in a row, four of them have been Garcia, DJ, Stenson and Day, all guys who've spent long periods of time in the world's top 5. These guys are not Todd Hamilton and Stewart Cink and Rich Beem here (no offense to them). Willett does strike me as a bit of a fluke, I guess, but a number of these guys in the current run were in lots of "best to never win a major" discussions before breaking through.

4. I think the USGA perhaps overcompensated on the "don't court any controversy, just this one year" front after last year's rulings fiasco and the prior year's course conditions drama. Since the controversy usually comes in the form of endless moaning about unfair course difficulty and bloodletting, they set it up to get a solidly negative score winner, but just overdid it a bit. You cut the average fairway 10-15 yards narrower than they did at Erin Hills and let the second cut between that and the fescue grow a bit and it's the usual grind out there, even with the perfect storm of pre-tournament softening rain followed by benign playing conditions.

5. That said, while it's truly amazing how these guys can overpower a course that plays 50 yards further on every hole than the tips at most of the courses we play at, it's also easy to make too much of scores relative to par here. A lot of PGA setups are 7,200 or so yards these days and played at par 70. Here, a couple of the par 5's were just so long they couldn't be "converted" to par 4's for the pros. As a result, you see a lot more birdies because making 4 on a 600 yard par 5 (which even for the shorter hitters on tour is driver, hybrid, sand wedge to 7 feet) is a heckuva lot easier than making a 3 on a 520 yard par 4.

6. After his performance at the Ryder Cup, Koepka winning this didn't surprise me in the least.

7. I'm alright with some level of the parity we're seeing right now, though I think the game will be better off if a little bit of a pecking order is established over the next year or two. Some combination of Spieth/McIlroy/Johnson winning a couple of the next half dozen majors would probably be a good thing. The only remaining player out there without one who could really use the boost to become a bigger star long term is Fowler.

8. Agree with others on the ball tracer thing. I think part of the problem is the camerawork, though. When they weren't using it, I found it really difficult to follow the flight of the ball out there. Maybe that was a result of the course style, because I often feel like I have the same difficulty watching the British Open. But just a static camera with no zoom to follow the ball does not do it unless you're watching on a 50+ inch screen.

[Jeffrey]

I'm alright with some level of the parity we're seeing right now, though I think the game will be better off if a little bit of a pecking order is established over the next year or two. Some combination of Spieth/McIlroy/Johnson winning a couple of the next half dozen majors would probably be a good thing. The only remaining player out there without one who could really use the boost to become a bigger star long term is Fowler.


This is what I'm saying. I think a few great stars frequently competing for the majors would better for the game, than the next 7 majors being won by 7 different first-time major winners. I think rivalries and fan favorites help ratings.

[Mal]

This is what I'm saying. I think a few great stars frequently competing for the majors would better for the game, than the next 7 majors being won by 7 different first-time major winners. I think rivalries and fan favorites help ratings.

I think we may differ in our tolerances/perspective, however. Your earlier post seemed to sound like you were already concerned with the last 7 being all different players, as a damper on popularity. I'm OK with it for the time being, but think if that trend pushed out to 3 or 4 years without a repeat it could leave the game a little driftless.

We may feel differently about where the quality and parity sits, or how we value that parity; I'm not sure. I feel like at the moment there's an abnormally large group of guys with serious game, playing better than we've ever seen before - probably as a result of Tiger Woods making the game as cool as it was when current 18-30 year-olds were growing up and choosing sports. Think of the young guys out there who haven't yet broken through - Rickie Fowler, Jon Rahm, Hideki Matsuyama, Rafa Cabrera Bello, Thomas Pieters, Patrick Reed - but wouldn't surprise anyone if they did. That they'd have to crack the major champions list by beating out a bunch of the guys who collectively overcame the stranglehold Woods had on the game for so long (by basically co-opting his style and taking it to another, younger, even more powerful level) would make them doing so even more impressive. I generally think that's a good thing, and think the overall quality of players is enough to overcome the lack of 2 or 3 players who clearly stand out above the rest.

In other words, if the bulk of the parity were at a mediocre level, I'd be more concerned. But it's not. It's a high level of parity at a really high level of golf, IMHO.

All that said, I'd put the odds on the group of Dustin Johnson, McIlroy, Day, Spieth, and I suppose you can throw Koepka in there since he's young and has the upward trend, collectively winning 2 majors before the end of '18 as pretty high. That wouldn't get us completely to your preferred position, with one tier clearly standing a little above the rest, but it'd probably feel a lot closer to that. [I'm leaving out Stenson, Garcia, Rose and the like, as even if they were to win another, they're all "old" enough that it feels like they're not going to be in a longterm rivalry with Rory or Jordan.]

[Jeffrey]

I think we may differ in our tolerances/perspective, however. Your earlier post seemed to sound like you were already concerned with the last 7 being all different players, as a damper on popularity. I'm OK with it for the time being, but think if that trend pushed out to 3 or 4 years without a repeat it could leave the game a little driftless.


Yes, I think a few great stars frequently competing for the majors would better for the game, than the next 7 majors being won by 7 different first-time major winners. I think rivalries and fan favorites help ratings. When was the last time we had a few great stars frequently competing for the majors?

[Atlanta Duke]

I find Joe Buck unbearable and he's an especially bad announcer for golf. (it would be nice if he, at least, knew the name of the winner's girlfriend!). It's like he is almost a caricature of a sportscaster.

In addition to his shortcomings as an announcer Joe Buck is a pompous jerk

“We got it right before we got off the air, but that’s not the world we live in, these days, you have to do the apology tour for getting the week-old girlfriend wrong, so, sorry world.” ...

“The only person I feel bad for in the whole situation is his ex-girlfriend,” Buck said. “I don’t know her name, I don’t know the name of the current girlfriend — the week-old girlfriend — and I probably won’t know going forward, but good for him.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/06/18/joe-buck-calls-brooks-koepkas-girlfriend-by-his-exs-name-at-u-s-open/?utm_term=.14df4cf3bd9c

[Mal]

In addition to his shortcomings as an announcer Joe Buck is a pompous jerk

I'm not all that exercised by this. In the article he was open about describing a far worse example of putting his foot in his mouth, his remorse and how he sent someone flowers and an apology, and mentioned that he'd probably apologize to Koepka personally, too.

He was certainly a little flippant in a few of those quips, though, which I can see as off-putting. Something along the lines of "Yeah, I felt badly about that, but you know? Mistakes happen, and we're trying to convey a lot of information in a short amount of time and on occasion we get it wrong. I think it's too bad one minor thing like that overshadows the other 9 hours of coverage in some peoples' minds in the age of twitter" would have gone over better. He wanted to flip off the instant analysis bashers and dudebros all up in his face about something that in the grand scheme of things was nothing, but ended up coming off like he was callous about the girlfriends themselves.

Anyway, the bigger issue is the production goof itself. They had close to an hour while Koepka finished the last several holes to get the script right for the 18th green, not to mention all the time between Saturday's finish and Sunday at around noon to get the book ready for a dozen guys with a legitimate chance to win. I don't necessarily blame Buck for not knowing that the info. handed to him on the girlfriend was incorrect, although Nantz and Hicks and the guys who actually follow the tour around probably wouldn't have needed the research, and would have known she was no longer in the picture. But that no one on the production team had the info. right, and never thought to ask the former PGA professionals on the analysis staff, who are obviously super plugged in to that sort of stuff, to chime in, is a good indication that coming in 1x/year to cover a sport is not a good idea.

[Rich]

My wife asked me what Holly Sonders brings to golf coverage.

Umm, male viewers?

[Tripping William]

I'm not all that exercised by this. In the article he was open about describing a far worse example of putting his foot in his mouth, his remorse and how he sent someone flowers and an apology, and mentioned that he'd probably apologize to Koepka personally, too.

He was certainly a little flippant in a few of those quips, though, which I can see as off-putting. Something along the lines of "Yeah, I felt badly about that, but you know? Mistakes happen, and we're trying to convey a lot of information in a short amount of time and on occasion we get it wrong. I think it's too bad one minor thing like that overshadows the other 9 hours of coverage in some peoples' minds in the age of twitter" would have gone over better. He wanted to flip off the instant analysis bashers and dudebros all up in his face about something that in the grand scheme of things was nothing, but ended up coming off like he was callous about the girlfriends themselves.

Anyway, the bigger issue is the production goof itself. They had close to an hour while Koepka finished the last several holes to get the script right for the 18th green, not to mention all the time between Saturday's finish and Sunday at around noon to get the book ready for a dozen guys with a legitimate chance to win. I don't necessarily blame Buck for not knowing that the info. handed to him on the girlfriend was incorrect, although Nantz and Hicks and the guys who actually follow the tour around probably wouldn't have needed the research, and would have known she was no longer in the picture. But that no one on the production team had the info. right, and never thought to ask the former PGA professionals on the analysis staff, who are obviously super plugged in to that sort of stuff, to chime in, is a good indication that coming in 1x/year to cover a sport is not a good idea.

Yeah, I give Buck a bit of a pass for the post-comment comments, if only because they were made on the Dan Patrick Show. Anyone who watches DPS recognizes that biting sarcasm and exaggeration are part of the schtick. K has been at his sarcastic best on the Show, for instance.

Whoever handed Buck the "card," though, really biffed it.

[cato]

Yeah, I give Buck a bit of a pass for the post-comment comments, if only because they were made on the Dan Patrick Show. Anyone who watches DPS recognizes that biting sarcasm and exaggeration are part of the schtick. K has been at his sarcastic best on the Show, for instance.

Whoever handed Buck the "card," though, really biffed it.

It is bad form to blame a mistake on a subordinate. Always.

[rsvman]

The thing is, the mistake about the girlfriend isn't the issue, at least not to me. He sucked all four days. He was insufferable about 25%, mediocre 50%, decent about 15%, and good maybe 10% of the time. If he moved those percentages in a positive direction, most people would give him a pass about the girlfriend snafu. IMO.
The only announcer I know that would never, ever mess up a girlfriend thing is Musberger.

[duke79]

The thing is, the mistake about the girlfriend isn't the issue, at least not to me. He sucked all four days. He was insufferable about 25%, mediocre 50%, decent about 15%, and good maybe 10% of the time. If he moved those percentages in a positive direction, most people would give him a pass about the girlfriend snafu. IMO.
The only announcer I know that would never, ever mess up a girlfriend thing is Musberger.

Agree with your percentages here. I could normally overlook the GF snafu BUT he was, IMHO, just awful for the entire tournament. He should NOT be doing a golf telecasts. Can we bring back Jim McKay?

[Jeffrey]

I think we may differ in our tolerances/perspective, however. Your earlier post seemed to sound like you were already concerned with the last 7 being all different players, as a damper on popularity. I'm OK with it for the time being, but think if that trend pushed out to 3 or 4 years without a repeat it could leave the game a little driftless.


IMO, the game needs a few great stars frequently competing for the majors. I doubt 7 different winners for the last 7 majors helps ratings.

You motivated me to look up ratings to see if my urgency concerns were valid. This is from 2016, but my rating concerns appear valid.

"It also ranks as the second-lowest rated final round of the event since at least 1981. The U.S. Open has now earned its three lowest final round ratings in the past three years, with last year’s 4.2 ranking third and 2014’s 3.0 dead last."

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2016/06/us-open-ratings-low-fox-golf-viewership/

[rthomas]

IMO, the game needs a few great stars frequently competing for the majors. I doubt 7 different winners for the last 7 majors helps ratings.

You motivated me to look up ratings to see if my urgency concerns were valid. This is from 2016, but my rating concerns appear valid.

"It also ranks as the second-lowest rated final round of the event since at least 1981. The U.S. Open has now earned its three lowest final round ratings in the past three years, with last year’s 4.2 ranking third and 2014’s 3.0 dead last."

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2016/06/us-open-ratings-low-fox-golf-viewership/

A lot of this has to do with Tiger being out. Without Tiger, the popularity of the golf game has declined, both watching and playing.

[Mal]

IMO, the game needs a few great stars frequently competing for the majors. I doubt 7 different winners for the last 7 majors helps ratings.

You motivated me to look up ratings to see if my urgency concerns were valid. This is from 2016, but my rating concerns appear valid.

"It also ranks as the second-lowest rated final round of the event since at least 1981. The U.S. Open has now earned its three lowest final round ratings in the past three years, with last year’s 4.2 ranking third and 2014’s 3.0 dead last."

http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2016/06/us-open-ratings-low-fox-golf-viewership/

Thanks for those numbers. I guess we have to ask in what way, and why, we care about ratings (or don't care about them). I guess I only care to the extent that lack of popularity of golf as a televised sport has longterm negative impact on the quality of the players. Sort of the opposite of how (again, IMHO) there's a huge mass of incredibly good players on tour right now, many of whom plausibly wouldn't be there had it not been for Tiger Woods elevating the sport's popularity from '97 onward. If the game goes into a period where no one's watching, I don't care in some respects because I love the sport and will continue to follow it regardless. I don't need it to be "popular," and I couldn't care less that a million bandwagoners who only followed Tiger may be gone now. Makes it easier to get on a course for the rest of us. But, if the longterm result is less kids choosing golf over football or baseball, it could have a negative impact on the professional game.

I suspect rthomas is right, though. Two years ago Jordan Spieth was 21 years old and the hottest commodity in the game, having just destroyed everyone at the Masters in only his second start, and followed it up by winning the U.S. Open. This was on the heels of Rory McIlroy winning his 3rd and 4th majors in the British and PGA the prior summer. So the tournament getting historically low TV ratings that year was not due to a lack of buzz around a couple of elite players. It's the disappearance of a lot of the Tigermaniacs.

[Jeffrey]

A lot of this has to do with Tiger being out. Without Tiger, the popularity of the golf game has declined, both watching and playing.

Yep, IMO, the game needs a few great stars frequently competing for the majors. I think rivalries and fan favorites help ratings.

[Indoor66]

Thanks for those numbers. I guess we have to ask in what way, and why, we care about ratings (or don't care about them). I guess I only care to the extent that lack of popularity of golf as a televised sport has longterm negative impact on the quality of the players. Sort of the opposite of how (again, IMHO) there's a huge mass of incredibly good players on tour right now, many of whom plausibly wouldn't be there had it not been for Tiger Woods elevating the sport's popularity from '97 onward. If the game goes into a period where no one's watching, I don't care in some respects because I love the sport and will continue to follow it regardless. I don't need it to be "popular," and I couldn't care less that a million bandwagoners who only followed Tiger may be gone now. Makes it easier to get on a course for the rest of us. But, if the longterm result is less kids choosing golf over football or baseball, it could have a negative impact on the professional game.

I suspect rthomas is right, though. Two years ago Jordan Spieth was 21 years old and the hottest commodity in the game, having just destroyed everyone at the Masters in only his second start, and followed it up by winning the U.S. Open. This was on the heels of Rory McIlroy winning his 3rd and 4th majors in the British and PGA the prior summer. So the tournament getting historically low TV ratings that year was not due to a lack of buzz around a couple of elite players. It's the disappearance of a lot of the Tigermaniacs.

I watched the Open and find that almost all of the players there are what I would characterize as vanilla. There is not personality on display so there is very little to be excited about. All of them can hit it 350. I cannot relate to 165 yd 9 irons. I cannot relate to 300+ yard 3 woods. Technology has taken the pro game beyond the level of all but the few elite amateurs to identify with. That was happening with Tiger, but he at least brought some emotion.

[Mal]

I watched the Open and find that almost all of the players there are what I would characterize as vanilla. There is not personality on display so there is very little to be excited about. All of them can hit it 350. I cannot relate to 165 yd 9 irons. I cannot relate to 300+ yard 3 woods. Technology has taken the pro game beyond the level of all but the few elite amateurs to identify with. That was happening with Tiger, but he at least brought some emotion.

That is some fine "man shakes fist at clouds" right there (I should know, being a frequent author in the genre ;)).

First of all, people have been saying this since time immemorial. Weekend golfers were marveling/complaining in the '60's and '70's about how Jack Nicklaus hit it 25% further than they did and they couldn't relate. This was probably even moreso the case with those who'd grown up with Byron Nelson and were themselves now swinging 15% slower than they used to (but hadn't yet adopted graphite shafts to accommodate for that slowdown). That was repeated with the advent of metal woods, and again when John Daly showed up, and I'm sure happened back in the day when the first steel shaft adapters ditched their hickory sticks.

Second, the technology innovation over the last 25 years has disproportionately benefitted amateurs. Everyone's gotten a distance boost from ball and club material advances, but the introduction of giant, toaster on a stick drivers, and irons with sweet spots the size of a small apple, helps you and me more than it does Phil Mickelson, who's hit approximately 3 million golf balls in his career and doesn't need all the added forgiveness.

Third, you're way overstating things. [Perhaps knowingly so as to make your point, I suppose.] Dustin Johnson's leading the PGA tour this season in average drive distance at...312 yards. They cannot all hit it 350. In fact, if it's not a big downhill hole where a ball will run for 75 yards or more if you can just carry it 285 to get to the slope (like 4 or 5 of the holes at Kapalua, where a third of the 375+ megadrives are seen every year), very few players on tour can reach 350. Koepka has the highest percentage of 320+ drives this year, at barely over 30%. And they're not regularly launching 300 yard fairway woods.

I'm in my early '40's and a 7.3 index, so hardly what anyone would consider an "elite" amateur player. But I consistently drive the ball 285-290, can put it out there 305-310 if I catch it right, and pull a 6 iron for a 200 yard approach. The distance is not what differentiates me from the median tour player, who'd have 10 yards on me off the tee on average, and oftentimes though not always one less club on an approach shot. It's three other things that make them close to a stroke a hole better than me: (1) their ball striking with the irons; (2) their sand and chipping prowess, and (3) their putting.

Re: the vanilla personality theory, beauty's in the eye of the beholder to some degree. I've complained for years that a lot of pro golfers are automatons with no discernible personality, and it seems especially prevalent amongst American players. Mickelson and Woods, in their own unique ways, are exceptions to that rule. So too are some of the current stars, though - Spieth is the gritty, Terminator-like assassin when he's in the running; Reed is a total bulldog who feeds off emotion; no one would deny that Bubba's a pretty unique character, etc. But it's not like before Tiger Woods came along and started fist pumping and pointing at birdie putts it was a festival of bright personalities out there. I mean, it was Davis Love and Brad Faxon and Corey Pavin. One of the biggest differences I've seen in the last decade or so, though, is something of a dulling of the Europeans. Nice as they seem, Justin Rose, Henrik Stenson and Martin Kaymer have zero charisma. Rory's throttled it back big time, Poulter's well past his prime, Westwood's about as exciting a personality as Lee Janzen. They're a far cry from their predecessors in terms of entertainment value.

[Tripping William]

At the risk diverting away from this truly fascinating (I mean that sincerely; no snark) discussion about the state of today's professional golf, and without knowing exactly where else to put this news, it appears that Phil Mickelson and Bones Mackay are going their separate ways (http://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/19689416/phil-mickelson-long-caddie-jim-bones-mackay-part-ways?sf90714838=1) after 25 years together. Phil's brother, Tim, will be on Lefty's bag the rest of this year.

All good things come to an end some time . . . .

[rasputin]

That is some fine "man shakes fist at clouds" right there (I should know, being a frequent author in the genre ;)).

First of all, people have been saying this since time immemorial. Weekend golfers were marveling/complaining in the '60's and '70's about how Jack Nicklaus hit it 25% further than they did and they couldn't relate. This was probably even moreso the case with those who'd grown up with Byron Nelson and were themselves now swinging 15% slower than they used to (but hadn't yet adopted graphite shafts to accommodate for that slowdown). That was repeated with the advent of metal woods, and again when John Daly showed up, and I'm sure happened back in the day when the first steel shaft adapters ditched their hickory sticks.

Second, the technology innovation over the last 25 years has disproportionately benefitted amateurs. Everyone's gotten a distance boost from ball and club material advances, but the introduction of giant, toaster on a stick drivers, and irons with sweet spots the size of a small apple, helps you and me more than it does Phil Mickelson, who's hit approximately 3 million golf balls in his career and doesn't need all the added forgiveness.

Third, you're way overstating things. [Perhaps knowingly so as to make your point, I suppose.] Dustin Johnson's leading the PGA tour this season in average drive distance at...312 yards. They cannot all hit it 350. In fact, if it's not a big downhill hole where a ball will run for 75 yards or more if you can just carry it 285 to get to the slope (like 4 or 5 of the holes at Kapalua, where a third of the 375+ megadrives are seen every year), very few players on tour can reach 350. Koepka has the highest percentage of 320+ drives this year, at barely over 30%. And they're not regularly launching 300 yard fairway woods.

I'm in my early '40's and a 7.3 index, so hardly what anyone would consider an "elite" amateur player. But I consistently drive the ball 285-290, can put it out there 305-310 if I catch it right, and pull a 6 iron for a 200 yard approach. The distance is not what differentiates me from the median tour player, who'd have 10 yards on me off the tee on average, and oftentimes though not always one less club on an approach shot. It's three other things that make them close to a stroke a hole better than me: (1) their ball striking with the irons; (2) their sand and chipping prowess, and (3) their putting.

Re: the vanilla personality theory, beauty's in the eye of the beholder to some degree. I've complained for years that a lot of pro golfers are automatons with no discernible personality, and it seems especially prevalent amongst American players. Mickelson and Woods, in their own unique ways, are exceptions to that rule. So too are some of the current stars, though - Spieth is the gritty, Terminator-like assassin when he's in the running; Reed is a total bulldog who feeds off emotion; no one would deny that Bubba's a pretty unique character, etc. But it's not like before Tiger Woods came along and started fist pumping and pointing at birdie putts it was a festival of bright personalities out there. I mean, it was Davis Love and Brad Faxon and Corey Pavin. One of the biggest differences I've seen in the last decade or so, though, is something of a dulling of the Europeans. Nice as they seem, Justin Rose, Henrik Stenson and Martin Kaymer have zero charisma. Rory's throttled it back big time, Poulter's well past his prime, Westwood's about as exciting a personality as Lee Janzen. They're a far cry from their predecessors in terms of entertainment value.

Many of my favorite golfers, over a long stretch of time, have been the Spaniards.

[Tripping William]

Many of my favorite golfers, over a long stretch of time, have been the Spaniards.

Me, too, although I can only name six of them (Seve, Jose Maria, Sergio, Angel-Jimenez, Rafa, and Rahm).

[DUKIECB]

At the risk diverting away from this truly fascinating (I mean that sincerely; no snark) discussion about the state of today's professional golf, and without knowing exactly where else to put this news, it appears that Phil Mickelson and Bones Mackay are going their separate ways (http://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/19689416/phil-mickelson-long-caddie-jim-bones-mackay-part-ways?sf90714838=1) after 25 years together. Phil's brother, Tim, will be on Lefty's bag the rest of this year.

All good things come to an end some time . . . .

Wow! That is very surprising as they seemed to have one of the closest player / caddie relationships I can remember. Any speculation as to why?

[killerleft]

Wow! That is very surprising as they seemed to have one of the closest player / caddie relationships I can remember. Any speculation as to why?

I'll speculate.:) Bones was bent all out of shape because Phil passed up a chance to win a US Open, and on a wide-open course with perfect greens that would have suited Phil's game as perfectly as any Open venue ever. I base this on nothing other than my own disappointment that Phil didn't participate this year.

[Indoor66]

I'll speculate.:) Bones was bent all out of shape because Phil passed up a chance to win a US Open, and on a wide-open course with perfect greens that would have suited Phil's game as perfectly as any Open venue ever. I base this on nothing other than my own disappointment that Phil didn't participate this year.

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

[chris13]

Rumor I read somewhere on the Internet

Bones wants to keep caddying full time and Phil is going to start playing fewer events. Look for Bones to pick up Jon Rahm's bag (Phil's brother is Rahm's agent).

[killerleft]

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

As do I.

[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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5vVjVC7nPw), 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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5vVjVC7nPw), 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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5vVjVC7nPw), 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


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMjIvhQtFjI

[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.