Open Week Upon Us

All eyes are turned to Western Pennsylvania and storied Oakmont.  Let's see what might be of interest....

Miller Time - Yanno, if I shot a 63 in the the final round of a U.S. Open, I'd work it into the conversation a time or two....  so perhaps, just perhaps, we've been a little hard on Mr. Miller.  Or not...

But Jaime Diaz writes of how that round still matters:

Johnny Miller has gotten a lot of mileage for the 63 he shot at Oakmont Country Club on 

Sunday at the 1973 U.S. Open. Critics of his television commentary tire of the rhetorical shoehorn he too often needs to mention the feat. 

Maybe. But I think Miller deserves more credit. 

On the toughest course in the toughest major championship, while coming from six strokes behind in the final round to win, Miller hit all 18 greens in regulation. He missed two fairways and had 29 putts, including a three-putt on the par-3 eighth hole. Nine of his full-iron approaches (three of them 4-irons) finished within 15 feet of the hole, four of them getting within six feet. In 2014, Golf World’s David Barrett, retroactively applying the PGA Tour’s “strokes gained” calculation, convincingly established that Miller’s is the greatest 18 holes ever shot.

A rhetorical shoehorn?  How good is that? But the point that Jaime ultimately makes is that many reat rounds are posted, but doing it when it matters most is the ultimate accomplishment, and Miller should be flattered by this comparison.

Similarly, Miller’s round vividly illustrated and validated the sheer challenge of Oakmont. Even in major championships, many low rounds are shot, but few are remembered. But when a course is a true beast, the very rare near-flawless close by the winner deeply resonates. It’s why Ben Hogan’s 67 at brutal Oakland Hills in 1951 retains a mythic stature, and why Miller’s round endures. In golf, true ball-striking masterpieces are only painted against a canvas of extreme difficulty.

Jaime also had this article in the June issue of GD on the failure of players to break through the 63 barrier, and this was interesting:

Miller will tell you about it. His frequent references to the round—especially as a commentator—have caused a backlash. When he says things like, "I mean, it was sort of an easy 63—pretty pure," Miller, now 69, seems a victim of "the older I get, the better I used to be" syndrome. But his playing partner that day at Oakmont, Miller Barber, said, "It very easily could have been 60." A closer look reveals Miller's round has mostly been underappreciated.

Wow, Johnny Miller Barber could be the answer question if there were such a thing as Golf Jeopardy.  Diaz's piece reminds us of how close many have come to busting through that barrier, including this most famous one:

▶ In 1980, Jack Nicklaus missed a three-footer for 62 in the first round of the U.S. Open at Baltusrol, telling The New York Times' Dave Anderson last year, "I just totally choked."

Jack choked about as often as I've shot 63... OK, let's make that slightly more often...

But when the question is which is the best whatever, the answer is usually the first....

Is It a Difficult Golf Course? -  It's the time of the week when folks are playing "Guess the winning score", and the most popular answer is actually a question.  To wit, "What did Cabrera shoot?"  The answer to that answer is five over, and a consensus is forming in that range.

Though a word of caution caused by the weather.... Wednesday through Friday could feature thunderstorms, with Thursday looking especially ominous.  There's little doubt that heavy rains would improve scoring conditions, as it's not a particularly long course to begin with.

First, let's remind all that Oakmont is no doubt one of the best golf courses in our land, but it's also one of the great golf clubs in the world.  That's an important distinction as Oakmont is the stern test it is because that's in the club's DNA:

OAKMONT, Pa. -- When it comes to classifying golf courses, Phil Mickelsonlikes to

break them down into three specific categories. On the topic of Oakmont Country Club, this week's U.S. Open host for a record ninth time, he espouses this theory. 

"Courses are either fun, great or hard," he explained. "There's nothing fun about Oakmont. There's nothing great about Oakmont. But it's extremely hard. It's probably the hardest course I've ever played." 

He then punctuated this opinion with a deep-rooted fact: "It's what the members want; it's what the members got."

I think he highlights an important distinction, though I'd argue that the uniqueness of Oalmont is that it achieves both.  The equally obvious pint is that the club is of its environment:

"We are the most sadistic folks you'll ever find; we're gluttons for punishment; we like hard, difficult stuff in Pittsburgh," said Chick Wagner, a three-time club champion. "We're not a steel town anymore, but we still have that steeler mentality." 

Bob Friend, a former PGA Tour member who grew up playing the course and is still a member, said, "There's a lot of really tough people in this town. This was a big blue-collar town, a rough-and-tumble place. We play football and we wrestle, sports where you get arms broken and teeth punched out. That's just like Oakmont."

 And their handicaps travel particularly well.

So, what about those greens?

Already tales of intimidation are being shared. Mark Anguiano, a PGA Tour Latinoamerica player from Whittier, Calif., just shook his head when asked about his first confrontation with Oakmont. 

"These greens are incredible. I had a 15-footer on 11 behind the pin, and it was a back pin, and I rolled it off the green," said Anguiano, 23, who like Wilkinson is making his first U.S. Open start. "I felt pretty foolish." 

He won't be alone by week's end.

It's not a coincidence that the stimpmeter was invented at Oakmont, though that's a bit of a red herring.  The stimp measures green speeds on flat surfaces, whereas the real issue with Oakmont's greens are the severe contours.  Let's hope that Fox has some whizbang graphics to demonstrate that.

Check out Rickie snapchatting here for video of how they're rolling, with this added commentary:

The well-traveled myth is that Oakmont actually slows down the greens for the Open from how the members play it, which, if true, means the club's unofficial motto is "You're still away." According the USGA's Mike Davis, the club will keep the speeds consistent with the last Open at Oakmont, when they rolled at between 14 and 14.5 on the Stimpmeter. The typical PGA Tour speed is between 10 and 11.

Jack Nicklaus said that at that speed they won't finish the tournament....  Bob Harig offers this helpful advice: 

Don't go to Oakmont for the U.S. Open with a case of the yips

Fair enough, though I think Oakmont is a carrier....  It's a good companion piece to the David Owen dissertation on this fascinating subject, and there's absolutely no denial to be found in this excerpt:

To his credit, Els handled the situation remarkably well and was lauded for addressing it head on and not withdrawing from the Masters. He spoke about it afterward and has done so several times since. 

During a recent interview, Els took the light-hearted approach. "I don't have the yips,'' he said. "That's a different deal. That's like neurological. Mine is a lack of confidence. I need to see the ball going in the hole. I've read up on all this s--- and I don't think I have it. No way. It's emotion. Anxiety.''

I quite agree, it's a completely different deal.... 

And it's not just the greens, as Justin Thomas posted this photo of a lie just short of the 17th hole:

So it's a little cuppy....quit yer whining.

But wait, there's more.... Josh Sens posts this masochistic look at why the course is so difficult, and it occurs to me that we haven't discussed this:

DIG THIS

You've heard about the Church Pews. But didya know about the ditches? Long gouges in the earth, two-to-four feet deep and overgrown with tangled fescue, they were dug by original course designer Henry C. Fownes largely for drainage and irrigation. But they do extra duty as dastardly hazards. They come into play on 12 holes, most prominently on numbers 9 and 18, where they lie in wait just off the fairway, swallowing even the slightest miss. Technically, there's no water on Oakmont, but given how these ditches function, there might as well be.

You really can't make this up....  They are right off the fairways on some difficult driving holes and many are marked as lateral hazards.  But we will se players attempting to play form them during the week.

Fox Redux - Joel Beall offers up nine reasons why Fox will be better this year, and one can only wonder how difficult it was to stop at nine.  This one elicits a "We'll see" from this viewer:

Believe in Buck

Yes, he's a divisive sort among sports fans. In the same vein, he's one of the leading authorities in his profession. No matter the assignment, the coveted few in that echelon rarely falter. That Buck's initial foray into golf was rocky wasn't totally surprising, but it will be a shock if we see a repeat performance. 

His peers sing about his preparation; you can bet he's watched replays of last year's Open to fine tune this year's execution. He's surrounded by a better team, making his job as broadcast quarterback easier. 

There's also something to be said for the spoiled nature of golf audiences. Nantz, Hicks, Tirico are tough acts to follow. Just because Buck fell short of their standard doesn't make him bad. 

One development to watch: Buck's a hell of a golfer -- he owns a 4.5 handicap -- an affinity he mostly kept under wraps during the 2015 telecast. Sharing this love could go ways into building goodwill and rapport with the audience.

All of that is necessary, though not necessarily sufficient.  I've been mildly put off by Buck's deflection of criticism, which I hope he's taken more to heart than he lets on.  It's a difficult job and there will no doubt be a learning curve for the new three-ball in the booth, but I'm just note sure that his voice and inflections work for golf.

I'm equally ambivalent on this one:

Holly Sonders returns to her wheelhouse 

Comedian Mitch Hedberg once said that just because you're a good cook, it doesn't mean you can farm. It's an apt description of Holly Sonders' theatrics at Chambers Bay.

Anyone who watched Holly at the Golf Channel won't question her pedigree or abilities. She's damn good in the studio, has a sharp wit and knows more about the game than the majority of the industry.

Unfortunately, major championships attract fringe eyeballs, and to this crowd, Sonders was out of place as an interviewer. She used too many crutches ("We were just talking before we came on" was heard roughly 40 times), her humor fell on deaf ears and, to be frank, some of the conversations were simply awkward or inappropriate. 

However, the Fox brass has faith in Holly, returning her to a natural setting as studio host. Her presence will enhance Fox's studio discussions, and it prevents some of the cringe-worthy interactions with players. A win-win.

I'm sorry, I just don't get the Holly love.... Yes, she's less terrible in the studio than with interviews, but that qualifies as the soft bigotry of low expectations.

But the obvious reason for optimism is Zinger, as per Shack:

The constantly-searching, always curious mind helped earn him a major championship, made ESPN more credible at televising golf and led the United States to a Ryder Cup win. At this week’s U.S. Open, the 1993 PGA Champion will make Fox Sports infinitely better than the inaugural year that was saddled by Greg Norman’s surprisingly-dull presence. Azinger’s mix of smarts, curiosity, humor and zaniness is the product of a player who toiled at the game for many years on the mini-tour level. 

He’s golf’s version of John McEnroe and a welcomed addition for any viewer eager to be informed and entertained. So much so that it’s easy to picture an Azinger-led announce team last year helping to make us forgive the various issues Fox faced in its Year-1-of-12 U.S. Open broadcasts.

I'm not sure that the McEnroe analogy is all that helpful, but he knows the game and will greatly upgrade the level of analysis.  But I'd add that an enhanced role for Brad Faxon could be equally helpful as well, especially if he can settle in as Zinger's foil.

Flyovers -  We've got some ground to cover, so full speed ahead:

Hole No. 9 - This is a three-shotter for the members, but remember those ditches?  Take a look at how this one hugs the left side of the fairway, bearing in mind that the players can't see the landing ares.  As another idiosyncratic aspect of Oakmont, the back of the ninth green serves as the putting green, and we'll see all sorts of guys loitering there as they play in.

Hole No. 10 - I remember the tenth mostly for the severity of the green that slopes awy from the player, but Shack had this more knowledgeable rant about the hole:

I seem to recall issues with the 10th fairway contour here in 2007 and judging by this flyover, the left contour line still appears to be awful. Closing off that side with a straight, unnatural line is particularly bad in this case because the left side is so clearly meant to provide a better angle if you're willing to flirt with the fairway bunkers. This is example A of why players hate USGA course setup: they talk about architecture and strategy, yet close off an avenue to the hole where the optimum angle resides, for reasons that can only be chalked up to preventing birdies. Because we now know it has nothing to do with distance since the players aren't any longer now than they were in 2007!

See what you think:

Hole No. 11 - On no one's list of the best holes at Oakmont, this is what passes for a let-up hole here.  But it's one of the last legitimate birdie opportunities on the course, so anyone chasing on Sunday will need to play this hole well:

Hole No. 12 - This Par-5 is emblematic of its home, as it may well be the single most difficult Par-5 in major championship golf.  The GIR percentage in 2007 was below 50% (on on a Par-5!), though Shack thinks that's partially a function of unfortunate fairway grading:

And no doubt somebody will lay-up into that ditch.