I'm ignoring company to try to get to this today, knowing that by Thursday it will be old news. I'm sure the Sports Illustrated guys were watching, so let's see what they thought of the new Pinehurst No. 2.
1. Martin Kaymer followed up his Players Championship by winning this U.S. Open wire-to-wire. Does pro golf have a new boss or do Adam Scott and Bubba Watson still have some claim to the title?
Alan Shipnuck: Kaymer is a much better putter and closer than Scott. He has way more grit and on-course smarts than Bubba. His life is a million times more settled than Rory McIlroy's. He's the guy until proven otherwise.
Joe Passov: Kaymer wasn't on the radar when he won the Players -- this could be simply a super-hot
streak, on par with Henrik Stenson's summer/fall run in 2013, though Kaymer's wins are much bigger. Adam and Bubba have shown significantly more consistency, and deserve their present status above Kaymer.
Jessica Marksbury: YES! Kaymer is the new boss for sure. Scott's win at Colonial was impressive, but Kaymer has both the Players and a major championship under his belt, and that's just this year!
Josh Sens: Meet the new boss, different from last month's boss, and very likely different from the boss six months from now. That's the Tour today.
Eamon Lynch: Who rules the golf roost is open to debate (but it ain't Bubba). However, let’s take a moment to consider how the Official World Golf Ranking has again been exposed as woefully flawed. After winning the U.S. Open and the Players in the past month, Kaymer is now deemed the 11th best player in the game. This system might have Bernhard Langer ranked higher.
Jeff Ritter: Kaymer dusted the field on the toughest course the guys will play all year, so I'd say he's the boss.
Cameron Morfit: It's a little hard to say at the moment, what with the speed that things are changing at the top. I'll go with Kaymer, not because he won by eight but because he seems to be able to self-correct when things are going wrong.
Mark Godich: Kaymer has won more majors than Scott, is several years younger than both Scott and Bubba, and is the first player to win the Players and the Open in the same year. I don't think there's any question that Kaymer is the new king.
My Take: A very impressive set of performances by Kaymer, but golf still has no boss. Unless and until a player can set himself apart on a consistent basis, and two events are not sufficient, we just have to acknowledge that there's no best player in the world.
But I do think Eamon is barking up the wrong tree. If you need the Official World Rankings to tell you who's No. 1, there's no No. 1. The world rankings are used to determine entry into major events, and there the two-year tenure for ranking points is plus or minus appropriate. Any system will have its inconsistencies, but you can err by making them too sensitive to the last few events as well.
But, it needs to be said, that the Kaymer we saw at The Players and Open is way better than Scott or Bubba. He's got a complete game, and the head and temperament to go with it. Let's just sit back and enjoy his ride, shall we?
2. In Sunday’s final round, in which early starters like Keegan Bradley and Jim Furyk proved low scores were possible, no one made any sort of charge at Martin Kaymer. Does today’s generation of golfers lack guts?
PASSOV: Today's contenders aren't lacking guts. They're lacking the combo of talent, patience and creativity to cope with the test that Pinehurst No. 2 threw at them.
MORFIT: I'd say today's generation of golfers sometimes lacks putts, as in made putts. Rory took 125 putts on the week, which was four more than even Phil. That's not very good.
RITTER: It's disappointing no one made a charge at Kaymer because we all could've used a little Sunday drama, but I don't attribute that to the pursuers' lack of guts. Pinehurst was just a really hard weekend setup. Only two guys shot under-par rounds on Saturday, and 11 (including Kaymer) went under-par Sunday.
LYNCH: Low scores are always out there on Sunday morning for players who are already thinking about beating traffic to the airport. Sunday afternoons are different.
MARKSBURY: Tough to know. Tiger is the only player I've ever seen in the last decade who's seemed capable of turning on his game at a moment's notice and willing the ball into the hole when he needed it.
GODICH: It's a heck of a lot easier to play free and easy when you've got no shot at winning. Quite frankly, I was impressed by how Rickie Fowler and Eric Compton held it together. And maybe we should just give credit to Kaymer. You don't beat the field by eight shots without playing lights-out golf.
SENS: This wasn't Sunday at the John Deere. Nobody was going to shoot a 63. The best shot anyone had was for Kaymer to stumble, and he didn't, proving that a lack of guts is not his problem.
SHIPNUCK: Nah, that's not it. Take away Kaymer and all the top guys were bunched around par. It was a very difficult course to go low on. What Kaymer did over the opening 36 holes was historic -- give credit where credit is due.
My Take: Let's see, Fowler or Compton would have had to shoot 62's to tie Kaymer. Anyone notice any 62's out there?
Yes, Sunday was a bit easier than Saturday, but it was still a very demanding golf course with Machiavellian greens. Good luck shooting at those pins...
3. Phil Mickelson’s seeking the career slam made Pinehurst one of the most anticipated majors in year. What went wrong for Mickelson, and do you think he’ll ever win the U.S. Open?
MORFIT: Phil admitted he saw so many of his putts miss the hole in the first two rounds he started to lose interest in the rest of his game. The stats back him up here.
SHIPNUCK: He picked the wrong time to get the yips. It's particularly frustrating because last year was one of the best he's ever had with the putter.
MARKSBURY: I think Phil had way too much going on this week. The pressure of trying to win at the site of his first U.S. Open runner-up finish, the insider-trading allegations hanging over his head for the first half of the week, and the late change to the claw grip.
 |
| Phil with the quickly-abandoned claw. |
GODICH: Phil hadn't shown much of a pulse coming in, so I'm not surprised by his finish. When he started to struggle on the back nine on Friday, I wondered whether he'd even make the cut. And we all know how this works with Phil. He'll bag his Open when we've all written him off and nobody sees it coming.
RITTER: Time for Phil to release the claw grip. He just didn't putt well at all this week, and that pretty much vaporized any chance he had of contending.
LYNCH: He drove it lousy and putted poorly, which isn't a good combination in any major (see Tiger's results over the last few years). Phil's erratic driving can be navigated -- after all, the Phrankenwood won him the British Open less than a year ago -- but the passage of time is unsparingly brutal on streaky putters.
PASSOV: Phil didn't play badly, but he didn't do enough right. By his admission, he threw away too many shots in the first two rounds.
SENS: Phil said it himself. His putting stroke felt poppy, which is Latin for "yippy." Anytime a guy goes to the claw, then away from the claw, in such quick succession, mid-event, take him to the miniature golf course as soon as you can and bet him for all he's worth. I don't expect him to ever win the U.S. Open, which means he probably will.
My Take: Phil played pretty much as he's played all season, so what are we discussing? I have to admit, I felt bad for Phil in that he drew the late-early bracket. By the time he teed it up Friday afternoon Kaymer's second 65 was on the board, and what exactly was he going to do at that point? But take a look at his scrambling and putting stats on PGATour.com and you'll understand the issue.
I'm on record as saying that if he didn't win at Pinehurst, he'd never win an Open. They won't get any easier and he won't get any younger, so I see no reason to change that assessment.
4. Did the newly restored Pinehurst No. 2 play easier than expected, tougher, or about the same? Does it deserve another U.S. Open sooner than later?
LYNCH: Pinehurst No. 2 deserves another Open, and will surely get it. But last week can't be a mere experiment for the USGA or a blueprint solely for Pinehurst Opens. It must signal a change in direction. The same imaginative use of firm and fast conditions ought to be employed at future USGA championships instead of reverting to ribbon fairways flanked by deep rough.
PASSOV: On Wednesday, I predicted that if it didn't rain too much, the winning score would be between 2-under and 2-over. Except for one guy, I nailed it. With what Pinehurst showed the world about restoring a native look, helping the environment and the economics of the game, yet yielding a fair, option-laden test, it absolutely deserves another Open -- and soon.
SENS: Easier, but I'd say the restoration had less to do with that than the fact that with Women's Open up next, they couldn't let the greens bake out to the torturous degree that might otherwise have. And for the sake of history, variety and the particular kind of punishment it inflicts, yeah, bring another one here sooner than later.
RITTER: It played exactly to expectations … for 155 of the 156 players in the field. One under par won the B-flight. I enjoyed Pinehurst's lack of rough and all the unpredictable lies from the sandy areas. Kaymer's Saturday escape from the scrub on the 5th hole was the shot of the tournament. I'm okay with the Open returning there in another 7-10 years.
SHIPNUCK: It was interesting to see how aggressive players were from the waste areas -- seemed like almost every time they had a go at the green. But the cost for missing the fairway was statistically almost exactly the same as in the previous two Opens, so controlling the ball from those lies was another matter. Because the course played so fast, it played short, and I think that's why more scored under par. But Pinehurst was a fascinating test and clearly cemented its place in the Open rota.
GODICH: Considering the best score after Kaymer was one under par, I'd say No. 2 played about as difficult as the USGA wanted it. I did expect to see more of a penalty for putting the ball in the native areas. It sure seemed like a lot of players got a lot of clean looks when they missed the fairway. It's hard to believe that Pinehurst didn't host its first Open until 1999. Great venue. Great town. The sooner the USGA goes back there, the better.
MORFIT: It played easier without the rough, and it was a perfect setup for Mickelson, if he'd just been able to make anything on the greens. As for when it should get another U.S. Open, I'd say sooner. It's a great golf town.
MARKSBURY: By the end of the final round, it looked like a perfect U.S. Open venue on the leaderboard. Only three guys under par? Pretty typical! Except one of those guys blew everyone away by eight shots.
My Take: It depends what your expectation was....duh! I make that seemingly obvious point because the weird part of the week was Monday-Wednesday, when Mike Davis didn't water the course because of the forecasted thunderstorms. Remember the ninth green death watch? Seems like a year ago, doesn't it?
I thought the place played great, and while the waste areas played a bit easier than intended because of the dry weather, that's not necessarily a bad thing in conjunction with the severity of the greens.
5. The new no-rough, brown-edged Pinehurst No. 2 cut water use from 55 millions gallons a year to 15 million gallons a year, according to the USGA. However, critics like Donald Trump said Pinehurst No. 2 was the worst-looking course “in the history of televised golf.” Will golfers and golf-course owners ever embrace browner courses?
MARKSBURY: I understand where the Donald is coming from. I didn't think the course looked that great on TV either. Browned out courses are fun to play, but they aren't what the viewing public is used to -- yet.
LYNCH: Can we really expect courses or golfers to embrace firm, brown conditions when Augusta
 |
| Mike Davis walking a fairway at Pinehurst last week. |
National is continually held up as the pinnacle of American golf courses? Or when the PGA Tour presents the same monotonous, lush, setup every week that demands only execution, not strategic decision-making?
SHIPNUCK: They better -- water is going to usurp oil as this century's most valuable resource. Lush, green, overly fertilized courses are going to become increasingly rare, which is fine by me.
GODICH: They should, but many won't. I loved the look.
PASSOV: Admittedly, if you haven't been exposed to lots of British Isles golf, "brown" is an acquired taste. Let it spread quickly and widely, but where appropriate.
SENS: Are we really going to place weight on the aesthetic input of a grown man who wears his hair like that? Seriously, though, disappointing to hear Trump say that because he knows better and he now cuts such a prominent profile in the game. That said, a number of golf course operators already HAVE embraced browner courses. Have you been to Bandon Dunes? The golfing public hasn't exactly rejected that place.
MORFIT: I hope they do, because it makes sense both financially and environmentally. I liked the way the course looked; it wasn't such a manipulation of nature.
RITTER: Course owners can save serious money with the browner look, so I absolutely think it'll take off. It may not look as nice on TV, but it's more sustainable and fun to play -- no more losing balls in the rough, and who wouldn't want to try some crazy shots off those scrubby lies? No. 2 was both retro and a look-ahead rolled into one.
But I do disagree with those that say it didn't look good on television. I found the waste areas to look completely natural and foreboding, and what's wrong with that? The only place I can see their point is the browning of the edges of the fairways, though in a wetter year I don't think that would be quite as pronounced.
I also like that the USGA is taking the Open to a wide range of courses, offering different tests. As much as I love links golf, I can see the case against Chambers Bay, given that the other Open is played on a links and there's little links golf to be found in the U.S. of A. But good to see them experimenting with new venues (and recycling old ones such as Merion), and creating different tests for the boys. All credit to Mike Davis for sparing us the drudgery of the Tom Meeks era.
6. NBC Sports delivered its final U.S. Open broadcast this week before Fox Sports takes over next year in Chambers Bay. What did you think of NBC’s coverage and whom would you like to see on the Fox broadcast team next year?
GODICH: I've said this before, and I'll say it again: NBC has the best broadcast team in golf. Fox would be wise to hire 'em all away.
SHIPNUCK: Johnny is an icon and D. Pepper is terrific, but otherwise I was never dazzled by NBC. I'd like to see Fox continue to hire nothing but new voices, a la Norman. It's definitely time to freshen up the golf telecasts.
LYNCH: NBC gave more airtime to Paula Creamer, a spectator, than it did to Brooks Koepka, who finished T4. Johnny Miller remains the best play-by-play guy in the game and not having him call a major is a loss for fans. But his lieutenants were dull and stale. Fox may do better with fresh voices, even if they are relatively untested. They should start by hiring Brad Faxon, who offered considerably more insight on Golf Channel than was provided by Peter Jacobsen, who replaced Faxon on NBC three years ago.
MORFIT: Poor NBC. I felt sort of sorry for them, having to try to make this exciting. I liked the way they cut away to the LPGA players arriving at the course, and interviewed Paula Creamer and Inbee Park before the leaders started. I liked that they stayed on Zach as he high-fived the fans after his ace on nine. As for who should be on the Fox team next year, Chamblee would be a good start for any golf-announce team.
MARKSBURY: I've always enjoyed NBC's coverage but I'm definitely looking forward to seeing what Fox brings to the table. Greg Norman was onsite with Joe Buck this week doing practice broadcasts and I would have loved to tune in to compare!
PASSOV: Sadly, lame-duck NBC was saddled with a completely drama-free weekend. Not sure who Fox will raid, but Brandel Chamblee and Tom Weiskopf would be an immediate boost to the credibility factor.
SENS: To my mind, Miller and Hicks are the best one-two punch in American golf broadcasting, so even though I needed a few extra Alka Seltzers after ingesting all those schmaltzy Father's Day segments, I enjoyed the coverage. But if we can't have that duo, how about Andres Cantor? "Gooooooooool. . . . .goooool . . .de Martin Kaymer!"
My Take: This touches on an issue I've raised before, how Fox will fill out its ranks. Everyone cited, and I like Chamblee, Faxon and the unmentioned Nobillo, is presumably under contract to NBC and/or Golf Channel. NBC retains its PGA Tour & Ryder Cup rights, so they're not looking to dump salaries, and given their shabby treatment by the Far Hills gang I'd be surprised if they make their talent available to Fox.
So Fox needs to put together a team for all of three events a year. No easy task...
Tow Weiskopf used to be quite good on the Masters telecasts and I'm glad to see his name thrown out. But that was quite a few years ago and he's a bit long in the tooth, so I assume Fox will go younger.
No comments:
Post a Comment