PGA Tour: US Open - Wide Open: Notes from the Ballwasher

First topic message reminder :

Not much insight on this week that's not readily available to all, but a few notes following Danny Berger's Memphis win and some other random odds and sods:

1).There was once a famous jockey in Britain, even before my time, called Harry Wragg, and they used to call him "The Head Waiter" as he'd be riding the only horse moving forward at the finish line when every other nag was treading water or had run its race. That came to mind last weekend as Berger was the only Pro* in the field to either equal his previous round or improve his score from Thursday thru Sunday. That's a recipe for finishing well before the final groups, sitting watching TV and swigging a pint of Brickwoods as the pace-setters all fell back.
Daniel duly won his second title and is only one behind the total of ATP titles won by Father Jay - but Jay reached #7 in the world rankings so at #24 Danny Boy still has some way to go.

2).Jay also played two years of Davis Cup and Daniel reached #5 in the US Presidents Cup qualification league table.

3).*The wonderfully named amateur college student, Braden Thornberry, may sound like a judge in My Cousin Vinny, or perhaps a retired Wingco Tory MP from the shires, but Thorney (perhaps the Wingco was stationed there?) also improved, by two shots a day, 71, 69, 67, 65. Who does he think he is? Renato Paratore?? Both play in a hurry so happy about that.

4).Unfortunately, and perhaps unfairly, such a performance by an amateur gets him nothing more than sponsor invitations on the PGA Tour; a similar plight befell Lee McCoy when he finished 4th at the 2016 Valspar and he couldn't even play Q-School because of an injury. "Hang on Sloopy", the Tour said, "You can't prove you're the Real McCoy yet because success as an amateur don't get nuttin as a Pro". Unless you're Scott Verplank or Phil Mickelson.
I believe I'm correct in saying that Thorney's Top Ten doesn't even get him into Hartford, but hopefully The Travelers will take him under their umbrella and get him a sponsor invite tout suite.
So now he's left with the thorny dilemma as to whether to turn pro or return to U Of Mississippi for another year or two.

5).OK, A cage was rattled on last week's thread by saying that Berger can be tough to pull for. Won't revisit that, but Golf Digest has a timely list of the Tour's Top Thirty "Good Guys" - over fifties excluded so Steve Stricker can't win again, a bit like Comeback Player of the Year really. (By the way, who'd vote against Stewart Cink as Comeback Player of 2017?) But I digress . . . . .

6). . . . . Number One Mr.Good Guy, as voted by "players, caddies, media, members (of what?), various golf officials and insiders", Golf Digest put Jordan Spieth at the head of the class. Followed by:
T2 Finau, Adam Scott.
4: Cink
5: Fowler
6: Billy Hurley
7: Ogilvy (of course, he must be the tour's most quoted as well)
8: Snedeker
9: Rose
10: Andrew Johnston (and I have a bit of a beef with that one. Who'd they ask? Arby's??
They list 30 in all and I reckon Jason Day is the only one I'd really quibble with.
Three who I would've thought would make the list but were overlooked are: Nick Watney, Luke Donald, Molinari. Oh well.

7).Our friend "Undercover Tour Pro" is at it again, following up on Phil's assertion that questioned the way "a number of guys on tour" mark their ball. Undercover reckons "maybe 20 guys deliberately fudge their mark within a half-inch", the Lexi Thompson margin in error.
All I'd say is "you ain't seen nothing yet" as the new rule about dropping the ball, instead of from shoulder height to an inch above ground, is sure to be abused. Can't see any reason for that change whatsoever.
As an aside, I'm often pleasantly surprised how gentlemanly the dialogue is between officials and pros. Within the space of two hours at a tournament a year or two ago, we watched Bud Cauley, Chris Stroud and Charlie Wi all accept with full equanimity rulings that could have been debated or contended. Good to see.

8).I know nothing about Erin Hills, the golf course. The golf media has written at length about the design and ownership haggles going back to its inception, but all I really think I know about the course is that it has wide fairways, is as long as they want, and has unforgiving rough (although, following players' reactions, but not necessarily because of them - clear throat - they're now cutting the fescue).
My picks this week will probably be the best drivers combined with US Open temperament and a decent short game. The Tour's driving (combination of distance and accuracy rankings) show this Top Ten of those playing:
Fowler, Garcia, (Stanley is a non-runner), Bubba, Glover, (DeLaet, n/r), Bradley, Lowry, Steele, Henley, Molinari, Matsuyama.
No idea if that's instructive or a red herring with 50 or 60 yard-wide fairways.

9).Some of the field played the US Amateur when Kelly Kraft was the Champion. He's failed to qualify, probably crying in his beer over the perceived inequities of the owgrs. He beat Cantlay in the Final but neither he nor the beaten semi-finalists have made the field.
But of those who played and return this week:
QFinalists: Spieth, Uihlein,
3rd Round: None
2nd Round: Justin Thomas, Harris English, DeChambeau, Russell Henley,
1st Round: Stephan Jaeger,
A few others didn't qualify for Match Play, but one curiosity which shows how careers can diverge: Spieth and Thomas were beaten by the same man: Jack Senior!

10).News coming through that the USGA is cutting the rough.
It seems there are guys and girls on hot seats wherever you look these days:
Terry May and her Tory grandees.
Drumpf and the editorial staff at Breitbart.
Mike Davis and his USGA grandees, and they have put their c0cks firmly on the block this year with the selection, and course set-up, of Erin Hills as this year's venue. Advance press reports haven't exactly been glowing, but only time will tell whether this is another Chambers Bay or a Wisconsin version of Birkdale (give or take an ocean). I'm looking forward to finding out (albeit via the dreaded Fox TV).
Meanwhile, where's Jack Senior when you need him?

Although what rank was Curtis when he won?

Koepka has been a top 30 player for over two years now and I don't think it is completely out the blue that he now a major winner.

If he achieves nothing more in the game I'll concede your point but let's give him a few years yeah?

I dont doubt that Koepka will win more tour events. He is a good tour pro, though just because he has won a major does not move him into a group of greats of the game, which a major win was always the barometer.

beninho wrote:so thats first time winners in a row, does that show that the strength of the tour is deeper, or that the courses have been made more accessible for all players?

Winning a major used to elevate players to a higher level then the rank and file, but Koepka has 2 main tour wins and a major. He has a worse record then Ben Curtis who is often touted as one of the worse major winners.

I'd not worry too much about Koepka's apparent credentials, he's a thoroughbred and hopefully he'll show it in years to come. His success not exactly out of the blue, with three Major Top Fives already on his CV, and 8 previous Top 25's, he didn't exactly come out of nowhere, as Curtis had done.

He may well do, and I hope he does, he actually seems like a decent guy.

Rickie let me down. However, I doubled my money by having him each way.

Is Rickie the best player never to have won a major now? Seems a bit chokey to me...

Better than Matsuyama?

Was very surprised at Noren's poor showing this week, thought he'd be up there making a statement, but perhaps he made the wrong kind? As did so many others.

Surely its Hideki, he is the highest placed player in the world without a major.

Maybe a better measure would be to compare their average owgr position over the past say 5 years, and even with the std deviation just to compensate for golden patches.

End-of-year positions are available on the owgr website for a quick estimation. Obviously I can't be arsed to check myself but I'm sure we have many data savvy people on here who could load it all into excel and play around with it.

Rickie seems to have been around for some time now though...

Koepka - I would be stunned if (barring injury) he didn't have a better professional golfing career than Curtis. An outstanding performance this weekend.

Fowler - The monkey on his back getting heavier. Always seems a bit wristy and it seems to surface more as the pressure mounts.

To be fair Curtis had a decent career after his Open win. He had 2-3 wins and qualified for 2 RCs among others.

Curtis had a decent career, though his win was a bolt from the blue. But 3 PGA wins and a Major is not bad when you look at it as a whole. Whilst Koepka will probably have a better career, he is not yet at the same level with regards to wins.

Surely the comparison would be with where Curtis & Koepka were at the time of their Major win?
Curtis was about 400th on the owgr, not having registered a top ten on the the PGA Tour or even whatever the web.com circuit was called back then.
Koepka was 22nd in the world, with a decent win in Europe (Turkish Airlines) and a Phoenix Open, plus three Major Top Fives, and a top class Ryder Cup appearance.

Can't imagine a player with fewer credentials than Curtis winning a Major - perhaps there's been one but can't think who it might be.

Micheel?

pedro wrote:Micheel?

That's a good shout, and Micheel has certainly done far less than Curtis since winning his Major, perhaps partly due to health problems.
But Micheel had at least been around for a few years as a journeyman Tour member . . . . . . . 169th in the owgr when he won at Oak Hill.

Big John Daly was sitting at 169th before he won the PGA in 1991, Im guessing a lot less people were world ranked back then aswell.

Some people must not think much of the OWGR when the 22nd ranked player winning a major has them wondering if a major win has been devalued. Especially when you consider there has never really been a time in golf when only the top 5 to 10 players in the world won majors.

In fact a young up and coming player with a few wins like Koepka is just the sort of player I would expect fans to want to win a major. And on that theme I would really like to see Matsuyama bag a major this year.

Or Fleetwood, Mac?

Kwini

Yes, that is a couple of good showings in world class fields.

MontysMerkin wrote:Is Rickie the best player never to have won a major now? Seems a bit chokey to me...

You'd have to say he still hasn't had a career as good as Westwood. Plenty tournaments, former world number 1, never won a major.
I'd put Donald ahead of Fowler too.

Fowler has not, perhaps, had the career of Donald or Westwood; but we have not heard the last of him I think. Westwood may still do some damage, but no one who has achieved world #1 has been less impressive than Lukey.

Well done Brooks - good player.
Rickie will be alright - great talent all the way from am days, and still young, even in today's golf terms. One of the best putting strokes to watch.
Enjoyed the course - not a typical US Open, and don't have a problem with that. References to the Milwaukee Open tend to show the originators as sour grapes munchers! Statement of the obvious, but it is a huge property! Can't help but think a bit of compression wouldn't go amiss?

Shotrock wrote:Fowler has not, perhaps, had the career of Donald or Westwood; but we have not heard the last of him I think. Westwood may still do some damage, but no one who has achieved world #1 has been less impressive than Lukey.

Not sure about that. I'd put Donald above Duval. Winning a major doesn't make you a better number one. Plenty of gash players have won a major.

Luke was untouchable in terms of his consistency. 56 weeks at number 1.

super_realist wrote:

Shotrock wrote:Fowler has not, perhaps, had the career of Donald or Westwood; but we have not heard the last of him I think. Westwood may still do some damage, but no one who has achieved world #1 has been less impressive than Lukey.

Not sure about that. I'd put Donald above Duval. Winning a major doesn't make you a better number one. Plenty of gash players have won a major.

Luke was untouchable in terms of his consistency. 56 weeks at number 1.

That's right super, you can only beat the best, and to do it over a period of one year plus is pretty sporty. Perhaps Sr would just say the rest were rubbish.

Rickie's still only 28 but he DOES need to win more, get in the winning habit. Koepka proved that you can overpower a golf course, but Rickie's never likely to do that, needs to get more consistent tee to green to let that putting stroke get just rewards. Pointless judging him at 28, let's see how the next 5 years treat him. Remember, Phil was 33 before he won his first BIG one and only Woods has been better than him the past 20 years.

LOL Kwin - Allow me to speculate as you just did ... "perhaps" you contribute Rahm's juvenile behavior this past weekend to the exhaustive media attention?

Didn't see "Rahm's behaviour"; can't comment. What did he do? What's it got to do with The Donald's reign at #1??

Shotrock wrote:Fowler has not, perhaps, had the career of Donald or Westwood; but we have not heard the last of him I think. Westwood may still do some damage, but no one who has achieved world #1 has been less impressive than Lukey.

Has Luke ever contended at a major?

Winning the Europa League is better than finishing 4th in the Premiership. Golfers are ultimately recognised by the trophies they won. Retaining world no.1 ranking for a year is very impressive, but is a major is worth more than a run of consistently good performances for a year?

I only saw Sunday's play, and a few bits here and there of Fri and Sat. My thoughts:

- I enjoyed the course, although it would have been better if it was firmer and trickier. For example I liked the pin position on the short 9th on Sunday was great risk / reward. I like it when the players have to work hard to make par... every other week of the year is a birdie fest.

- Fleetwood was for me the best player tee to green on Sunday. He looked totally in control of his ball flight. He created enough chances to win, just couldn't hole a thing. He was sneaky long off the tee too, just didn't look that way because he was always at least 10 yards behind Koepka.

- Koepka a worthy winner. Made full use of the width of the fairways: he got away with a few pushes and pulls which would have found the rough on another course. But that's fine - he played the course in front of him. I like the fact he went golfing backpacking round Europe when younger, more Americans should try this option. Of course he had a caddie to carry his luggage, and probably stayed in 5 star hotels instead of youth hostels, and most of his sightseeing was on the golf course, but still I'm sure it really helped his self awareness and confidence.

- Justin Thomas' 3 wood to 18... shot of the year? Wow. I can see him winning more majors than his spring break golf buddies.

- Rickie: another one slips away after spending most of the week in contention, his heart wasn't in it for the last 4 holes. Surely he has inherited Garcia's crown as currently the best player without a major.

- Idiots: plenty of them all over the course. Fowler seems to attract them (not his fault). I imagine there's a bunch of morons at work today boasting about how their inane shouting was heard on TV. Strangely I didn't hear mashed potato once, endured quite a few bobby booeys. These people need a golf club wrapped around the head.

raycastleunited wrote:

Shotrock wrote:Fowler has not, perhaps, had the career of Donald or Westwood; but we have not heard the last of him I think. Westwood may still do some damage, but no one who has achieved world #1 has been less impressive than Lukey.

Has Luke ever contended at a major?

Winning the Europa League is better than finishing 4th in the Premiership. Golfers are ultimately recognised by the trophies they won. Retaining world no.1 ranking for a year is very impressive, but is a major is worth more than a run of consistently good performances for a year?

Codswallop.
Luke won a lot of trophies in that year. Do you really think that Hamilton, Clarke, Bradley, that fat bloke or Curtis are recognised more than Luke Donald because they managed to win a major and do virtually nothing else?

8 top tens in majors, which is one more than Fowler.

That was sort of my point S_R. A major win does not elevate you to another level, it would be dependent on your whole career. I am sure Donald or Westwood would love a major win, but they have had much better careers then plenty that have won a major. Donald had seven wins in 2011 & 2012. Thats pretty impressive, considering plenty of players don't get that in a career. His career should not be devalued due to not winning a major. Same with Westwood who has had 42 world wide wins. Thats pretty special even if he has not got a major or WGC.

kwinigolfer wrote:Or Fleetwood, Mac?

Well played sir. Rumours are that subsequent posts in the chain missed this, unless it was completely by accident and you were in fact telling me sweet little lies. Although contextual awareness or comprehension is often the albatross around Mac's neck in terms of his posting.

beninho wrote:That was sort of my point S_R. A major win does not elevate you to another level, it would be dependent on your whole career. I am sure Donald or Westwood would love a major win, but they have had much better careers then plenty that have won a major. Donald had seven wins in 2011 & 2012. Thats pretty impressive, considering plenty of players don't get that in a career. His career should not be devalued due to not winning a major. Same with Westwood who has had 42 world wide wins. Thats pretty special even if he has not got a major or WGC.

Roller_Coaster wrote:

kwinigolfer wrote:Or Fleetwood, Mac?

Well played sir. Rumours are that subsequent posts in the chain missed this, unless it was completely by accident and you were in fact telling me sweet little lies. Although contextual awareness or comprehension is often the albatross around Mac's neck in terms of his posting.

Yeah I'll second that, well played Kwini   and also to Roller_Coaster for keeping it going

Big love to you all

Not sure I would agree Donald was the "worst" number one, he may not have won a major but he won the money list on both Tours. It is that sort of extreme consistency that should be a feature of a number one player.

Did Westwood, Kaymer, Lehman or Els have that to the same degree Donald did?

I don't see how you can have a worst number one. To get to number one you need to be consistent for a prolonged period, so surely every number one is deserved. I would say that the only way to rank them would be how long they stayed at number one, so at the bottom would be Lehman, Langer, kaymer and Els. and the best number ones being Tiger, Norman and Rory.

Ben, not sure I can think of any arguments against that. Length of time at number one must be pretty closely related to number of OWGR points gained as number 1.

You need to disassociate the world rankings from winning majors. The rankings are the best way to find the most consistent player, its hard to actually find the best player though, its all about views and opinions.

Can't compare time at no. 1. The better part of Els' career was during Tigers prime. Els was in the owgr top 10 for 15 consecutive years - not bad in my humble opinion.
I think you'd need to compare average ranking x years before and after reaching no. 1.

Agree you disassociate the world raking from winning majors. Yet, how many #1's have never won a major? And how important is that quest for professional golfers? Luke purposely changed his swing (although that swing got him to #1 in the world) for one reason: to win a major.

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golftalkcentral/donald-hopes-more-success-majors-new-coach/

Kwin - About Rahm:

http://www.espn.com/golf/usopen17/story/_/id/19654319/us-open-2017-jon-rahm-temper-scores-bubble-us-open

beninho wrote:I don't see how you can have a worst number one. To get to number one you need to be consistent for a prolonged period, so surely every number one is deserved. I would say that the only way to rank them would be how long they stayed at number one, so at the bottom would be Lehman, Langer, kaymer and Els. and the best number ones being Tiger, Norman and Rory.

Although I understand your point, and I agree that every number one is deserved, it doesn't quite stack up.

Phil Mickelson has never been ranked number one. Who's had the better career: Phil or Luke?

Reaching number one is a measure of consistency - as far as I'm aware you don't get a trophy for being number one.

We still talk about Ben Curtis and his major win was 14 years ago (even though mainly increduloously). In 10 years will we still talk about Luke Donald's wins? I doubt it. Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Luke and he's had a great career, but success is measured in majors, however arbitrary that may be.

I don't agree, having one major isn't regarded as a hallmark of greatness or even a significant success. Ian Baker Finch? Ogilvy? Weir? Michael Campbell? Who talks about them anymore?

Even having 2 doesn't. Have Kaymer or Daly had "great" careers? Not especially.

No one is going to be talking about SHaun Micheel, Hal Sutton or Webb Simpson either. It could be true that Donald isn't remembered in 10 years, but then neither will a number of Major winners.

Sr,
Re Rahm, That's not good at all.
Pity he didn't do what Romero did when he punched a hole marker - and broke his hand which accelerated the end of the journeyman (he's worse than that now!) phase of his career. Comparison with Woods quite apt; usually Rahm, when I've watched him anyway, he internalises anger so quite surprising.


Luke's comments about pressure building and affecting his swing makes no sense - if that was accurate it's doubtful he'd've had such a great MatchPlay record. His shot to Medinah's 17th (in the Saturday 4-ball w/Sergio vs Stricker & Woods) still as good a shot under pressure that I've ever seen. Match winning just as much as Poulter was, not to mention going out first and dusting Bubba.
You want "impressive", that's impressive!
Big problem when Luke was trying to improve his "ball-striking" was that he let his short game slip. Will follow him this week if tee-times co-operate.

Ray, my point was more that being number one shows us who was the most consistent player not who was the best player. So it was looking at a way to judge the best ( most consistent) number 1 only. Its hard to judge who is the best player for large parts of the time, obvious exception being Tiger, who was winning the big events and staying at number one for years. Other then that its all about opinions, and maybe looking at the end of someones career.

There are single major winners like Love, Lehman, Leonard, Couples, Kite, and Furyk that are regarded as having great careers.

It is as if majors alone no longer define the career.

PGA Tour to begin blood testing (as opposed to just taking the p1ss) and announce suspensions in the event of violations of Tour's recreational drug use.
BIG change.

Graeme Hick was dominant in first class cricket, destroyer of mediocre bowling attacks, heralded as England's answer to Bradman etc. But he couldn't do it at the top level. Sure he had some good scores but he is remembered for having a mediocre test career.

In golf you have to win at the highest level (majors) to define greatness. Winning a major isn't enough to be "a great", Curtis for example, but I don't think you can be classed as a great if you haven't won a major. I like Lee Westwood, but he's not won any majors (plenty of runners up), no WGC's, not even the PGA at Wentworth, so not yet "a great".

No one is saying that Donald or Westwood are greats, just that they weren't bad number ones simply because they haven't won a major as the number of nobodies who have won majors, proves that it doesn't make you a great.

kwinigolfer wrote:PGA Tour to begin blood testing (as opposed to just taking the p1ss) and announce suspensions in the event of violations of Tour's recreational drug use.
BIG change.

But unfortunately this also means the end of Tigers career.

Mickelson and his caddie Bones are splitting up. Phil's brother Tim (and Jon Rahm's agent) will be caddying for Phil in the near term.