Redemption Song

Where to begin to capture the essence of a long, strange trip weekend?  I suppose first with a confession...  I didn't actually see all that much of it, at least not the important parts.  Saturday night was crustacean-fest at Willow Ridge, denying your humble blogger the opportunity to see most of the third round, and yesterday was the high school graduation of my niece.  We got home last night just in time to see see DJ hit his tee shot on No. 16, and perhaps the harshest critique is that I quickly came to the conclusion that I hadn't missed anything of importance.

So, let's give the winner his due:

Dustin Johnson's physical gifts have never been in dispute, but sometimes it seems like

everything else is. 

In a scene reminiscent of the 2010 PGA Championship at Whistling Straits, Johnson wound up in another rules dustup at the 116th U.S. Open at Oakmont on Sunday. But he played so well it didn't matter, beating Jim Furyk (66), Scott Piercy (69) and third-round leader Shane Lowry (76). 

"Luckily it didn't affect the outcome," Johnson said. He laughed. "It's just one more thing to add to the list, right?" 

Johnson birdied the par-4 18th hole to ice it, and after the round he was given a one-stroke penalty for his ball having moved as he addressed it on the fifth green. The penalty stroke, while controversial, was a moot point as Johnson's 69 and his four-under total was still good for a three-shot win.

OK, he played the best so he gets the trophy.... I'll never be a DJ fan because he's John Daly with easier-on-the-eye pants and girlfriends....  To me the greatest sin is to waste God-given talent, and DJ is high on the list.

I'll take you back to the 2010 Open at Pebble, in which our hero had a three-shot lead going into the final round.  One of DJ's handlers tried to convince us that his man would hold up in that final round because he was a flatliner, i.e., that he simply didn't feel pressure.  He actual was correct, he just didn't realize that he was looking at an EEG, as opposed to an EKG.... or, as was bandied about in the media center, DJ was simply too stupid to sense pressure.

The Penalty - Wow, nobody looked good here, did they?  Shack takes a shot at it here, and this would be the relevant criterion:

Party Like It's 2010...

If the weight of the evidence indicates that it is more likely than not that the player caused the ball to move, even though that conclusion is not free from doubt, the player incurs a one-stroke penalty under Rule 18-2 and the ball must be replaced. Otherwise, the player incurs no penalty and the ball is played as it lies unless some other rule applies (e.g. Re 18-1). 

With reference to the considerations above, here is the key example the USGA relied on:

-A player’s ball lies on a flat portion of the putting green on a day with light winds. The player addresses the ball and the ball immediately moves. Under these circumstances, it is more likely than not that the act of addressing the ball caused the ball to move. 

The USGA officials involved decided that the immediacy of the ball moving was enough to convince them that the weight of evidence standard had been met.

In case you missed it, Shack has a Vine of it here.   To my eye, DJ did not cause the ball to move or, perhaps more accurately, that which he did should not have caused a ball to move.  But it's admittedly gray area, and the determination seems to have been that on a calm day nothing else could have caused it.....

Except I'll point you to that rather hard-to-miss elephant in the corner....  You know what else can cause a ball to move on greens shaved to their roots running at 14 on the stimp?  A guy sneezing in Philadelphia.... a woman dropping her cell phone in Peoria.  Shall I go on?

I'm reminded of that stupid USGA commercial about the rules of golf....  it's allegedly a virtue that they're the same for everybody.  Except that we civilians don't play on greens devoid of frition to hold the ball in its place.... unless, I guess, you're an Oakmont member.  So I have to concede that the rules have changed, but only to add ambiguity and to make the proceedings feel like farce.

The Tour Confidential panel was obviously asked to opine on this subject, and here's one response:

Sens: DJ made it moot, luckily, sparing the USGA some truly harsh questioning. But it was still flat-out bad, and it called into uncomfortable relief golf’s arcane and archaic ways.

Josh is referring to both the ruling and the timing thereof, and all credit to DJ (as well as the other players) for soldiering on in the face of scoring uncertainty.  But archaic seems exactly the wrong term, as it's the combination of modern green speeds and high-speed cameras that create the issue.

But I, for one, wish it had made a difference, bringing the madness of these green speeds to the fore.  Combined with the recurring play stoppages at The Open Championship, this will be a recurring theme in professional golf going forward, and it's inevitable that at some point it will determine the outcome.

Ironically I played in a low-key fourball match on Saturday in which a relatively minor rules issue arose and one of our opponents suggested playing two balls.  I explained why that is not permitted in match play and the matter was quickly resolved, but it points out the difference with stroke play.  The concept of resolving a rules issue after the fact hearkens back to an era without scoreboards when the leaders played at random times through the day.  I'll remind the reader of Arnold Palmer playing two balls on the 12th hole at Augusta and of Sam Snead coming to the final hole of the 1939 U.S. Open thinking he needed a birdie to win.  He made a triple and missed the playoff by two strokes.

DJ had no shortage of support from his peers....here's one example:

But in an era of real-time scoreboards it seems inconceivable that a player could be out there and not know where he stands... especially when one comes to a highly-strategic hole like the 17th.  Obviously this doesn't matter on a Thursday, but it feels untenable and unfair on a Sunday.  As a rhetorical question, is this another area where the rules of golf need to evolve?

Big-Bad Oakmont - What did we think of the joint?  The TC panel took on this question and gave it reasonably high marks:

4. Much of the talk entering the week was of Oakmont’s difficulty -- its deep bunkers, thick rough and lightning-fast greens -- and how players would struggle to break par. In the end, four players finished under par and a few players made runs, albeit unsuccessfully, at Johnny Miller's fabled 63. Did Oakmont live up to its fearsome billing?

Bamberger: It did. It’s a spectacular course. Even the USGA, with all that Fox money, cannot control the weather. But they can control rough heights and the rough was more playable than I thought it would be, even with all the rain. The greens were gorgeous. I have no desire to play the course ever again. But I’m glad the U.S Open is returning to it in nine short years.

Morfit: It was hard. It was fearsome. Players had a terrible time trying to tame it, except for D.J. and maybe a few others. Good for Oakmont. It’s a pretty place, and an interesting course. I wouldn’t want to play it.

I mostly agree, and I think they hit the sweet spot with the rough.  The guys were able to advance the ball, which is always more interesting..... I just wish that the next Oakmont Open (awarded during the week for 2025) could be scheduled in September.  June is simply too hot and too wet...

There's much to criticize this week with the USGA, but creating a venue with only four players under par without excessive carping about fairness is a high-wire act in this day and age.  Remember that USGA report that driving distance has stabilized?  Who ya gonna believe, the USGA or your lyin' eyes?

Shack had an interesting item on the critical role of the driveable 17th hole....  OK, it didn't turn out that way because it was mostly over before the leaders got there, but take a look at his stats:

OK, the rough was down a little from 2007, but take a look at those GIR numbers.....  That's why the greens have to run at 14...And this shotlink graphic is just coole:

In addition to the DJ situation, there's another cost to greens this fast.  

The pace of play -- or the lack thereof -- has been a prominent storyline at the 2016 U.S. Open. And with good reason: Some groups were taking close to three hours to complete nine holes. 

Yes, Oakmont's notoriously tough greens warrant extra study, but 18 holes shouldn't take longer than a cross-country flight. Such duration is problematic under regular circumstances; with players fighting Oakmont daylight to offset Thursday's rainout, the situation is amplified.

This showed up in my Twitter feed on Friday:

After that Masters pairing, this was no surprise.  Spieth's itchiness is well-documented at this point, but apparently Zach Johnson is also sneaky slow.  Not a great week for the USGA or for championship golf, despite a first-class venue.

Fox, Year 2 - Or the soft bigotry of low expectations.... you have to admit, they weren't as bad as last year.  I know, they couldn't possibly be...

Martin Kaufmann posted some criticisms of the Saturday telecast with which I largely agree:

Instead, we saw way too much of Mark Brooks on Saturday. I don’t want to keep beating on Brooks; I know he’s new to broadcasting, but he already has displayed a veteran’s knack for stating the obvious. (As an aside: A friend called to say that Brooks reminds him of “a very poor man’s Tom Weiskopf.” He emphasized “very.”) 

Whenever Buck or Shane O’Donoghue would say, “Let’s go to Holly Sonders,” my first thought is: Let’s not. That meant two things: we were leaving action, and we probably were going to see more of Brooks.

Brooks had me pining for Cory Pavin.....Not only was everything he said blindingly obvious, but he struggled to get the words out.  I always wonder in such circumstances what they see in the guy...  For instance, somebody should put a microphone in front of Geoff Ogilvy when he's done playing....  He might not be a natural on air, but at least he has interesting things to say.  Mark Brooks?  I don't know what Mark Loomis thought he had there, but it didn't survive contact with reality...

My feelings on Holly are well known, and to my surprise has generated more pushback than any other ridiculous things I've said.  Most amusingly, the latest pushback came on the range yesterday from a gent that I didn't know had ever read the blog.  I got something at the end that might really set him off....

Kaufmann had a few other trenchant observations as well:

You know what I’m tired of? Every time the cameras go inside the tower to show a panel of announcers, Shane O’Donoghue and Holly Sonders feel the need to tick off everyone’s credentials. Brooks is the “2001 U.S. Open runner-up,” Steve Flesch is the “four-time PGA Tour winner” and Gil Hanse is “the renowned architect.” This happens several times a day, despite the fact that chyrons identify each person. Stop it. Just stop it. 

And by the way, while Hanse is a wonderful architect who has done great work, he’s not “renowned.” Donald Ross is renowned. A.W. Tillinghast is renowned. In 50 or 60 years, when Hanse has left a large and impressive body of work, then we can call him renowned. For now, Holly and Shane, he’s simply Gil Hanse.

What he said!  Really annoying habit, especially in the case of Brooks where the C.V. is a little thin....

Also this:

While running errands Saturday morning, I listened to the radio coverage on PGA Tour Radio and immediately was charmed by the voice and vivid descriptions of Maureen Madill. She has a magical way with words. There was a stretch during Saturday morning’s play where I was reaching for my phone to type in Madill’s words every time she spoke. The words seemed to come effortlessly, and were delivered beautifully with a pleasing Irish lilt. 

Madill described one of Jordan Spieth’s lies as being “snuggled down” and that he faced a “vicious pin position” and a “monstrously difficult putt.” Zach Johnson, meanwhile, had “delicious options,” but also a “fiendishly difficult putt.” 

Karen Stupples noted on Twitter that Madill described a green as looking like a “rumpled picnic blanket.” What a great image. What a clever mind she must have to come up with such phrases in the heat of the action.

Hey, that's my turf.... I famously described the fairways of the Old Course at Ballyliffin as a rumpled unmade bed, which you'll agree is the far more elegant analogy.... Never mind, I don't know Madill but she obviously won't draw viewers like Natalie Gulbis or Debbie Doniger.... 

Cheap Shots - Or misogyny corner, as it wasn't a good week for the ladies.  My only defense is that, as you'll see below, the harshest comments come from Employee No. 2.

Diana Murphy - The world rejoiced when Murphy was named as the USGA's second womanpresident (Judy Bell was the first).  But in a world of painful awards presentations (can you say Butler Cabin?), new heights of awkwardness and lack of preparation were scaled yesterday.  I get that she was nervous, but how hard is it to introduce Jack Nicklaus?  The obvious method of coping with microphone-fright is to prepare your remarks beforehand, and while you may not know who will win you certainly know that Jack is in the house to present his eponymous medal.

Employee No. 2's take:  Has she been drinking?

Paulina Gretzky - First, did you all catch her pushing Jack out of the way to get to DJ as he came off the 18th green?  That was amusing though of little import...

It's a good thing that DJ's the one bending over...

At the risk of sounding like an old curmudgeon, when you have a three-year old child and are going to be on national TV, isn't it time to stop dressing like a slut?  This guy blames Fox for keeping the cameras on her, but how could they have done otherwise?  We all saw DJ consoled by Paulina and Tatum after last year's meltdown, so of course they're going to show us the family's emotional reaction after his redemption....But here's the tell:

Possibly sensing the camera behind her, Gretzky pulled down her dress a couple of times to cover herself.

I totally get that's she's a babe with a body to die for, and I'm OK with it.  One can dress in a manner that presents one's beauty (see, for instance, Ellie Day), without risking accidental exposure of one's plumbing fixtures....  If you need to pull the dress down, it's probably too short and too tight.

Employee No. 2's take:  How sweet of her to show us her vagina!