re: Rory's US Open compares to Tiger's 97 Masters Win

Rory was dominant no doubt. That being said this US Open course was the easiest Ive seen. Rough was not nearly to US Open standards and the greens were incredibly slow and puttable imo.

Tigers 97 Masters and his Pebble Beach Open wins were the 2 most dominant Ive seen in golf. Id put his injury plaqued Open win up there too. He won that thing on one leg.

Id love to see Tiger make a major comeback healthy. I think he and Rory could have a great rivalry for the next 5 years or so.

quote:

---

USGA wasn't counting on rain every day, that softened up the course. What was the length of Pebble when Tiger won, compared to 7500 this year at Congressional? I just believe the rough needed to be a little thicker.

---

Sure the rain helped, but come on I'm sure it has rained before/during US Open's in the past and the scoring has NEVER been anything like this. The rough was definitely lighter than previous years and I believe the pin placements seemed a lot easier.

The more I think about it the less doubt I have that the USGA made the US Open easier on purpose mainly bc w/o Tiger the Open would lose interest if very few were under par and they were hoping someone would step up and become a new superstar.

quote:

---

Nope 97 Master's and it's not even close. Tiger destroyed that field. Rory played great but I played harder qualiflying setups then Congressional this week.

---

US Open is a tougher test. Or is supposed to be. Everyone else was playing a US Open. Rory was playing a John Deere Classic. US Open is a tougher setup. Even this year than The Masters. Especially in 1997.

Can't wait for next years US Open. The USGA is probably pissed. Where is the next US Open? The greens will be rolling a 17.

And the rough will be a foot high.

quote:

---

The USGA is probably pissed. Where is the next US Open? The greens will be rolling a 17

---

quote:

---

And the rough will be a foot high.

---

Why do you think the rough wasn't high this yr? Congressional was NOT a typically US Open golf course this wknd. Rain or no rain, the scores would still have been low.

This isn't a knock on Rory bc his scores were REALLY low! Winning by 8+ with this kind of field was nothing short of amazing.

quote:

---

But, The 97 masters win for tiger had more "social" implications

---

I wouldn't disagree with that.

quote:

---

Why do you think the rough wasn't high this yr? Congressional was NOT a typically US Open golf course this wknd. Rain or no rain, the scores would still have been low.

This isn't a knock on Rory bc his scores were REALLY low! Winning by 8+ with this kind of field was nothing short of amazing.

---

I've heard that they cut it lower intentionally and also heard that conditions leading up to the event and during the event didn't promote growth, so it was shorter than planned. Cloudy/rainy/cool conditions kept the greens soft so it was easy to hold greens with any club. Also a big factor was the lack of wind. I'd rather play a baked out course with no wind than a soft one blowing 15+ any day of the week. His win was impressive, but so was Louis Oosthuizen's win last year...didn't he lead by 6 after 3 rounds?

quote:

---

Congressional was NOT a typically US Open golf course this wknd. Rain or no rain, the scores would still have been low.

---

True but not pushing 20 under par. They are pissed. Maybe they will stop making these courses have 523 yard par 4's and 660 yard par 5's. That shite only hurts a few players and hurts us (the average hacker) in the long run. New courses are always putting some 230 yard par 3, why???

A US Open can be about shot making and conditions. I love watching guys bitch about Sawgrass #17. I know it is not a major, but it shows you that creativity and conditions can make an easy shot tough. You have a 9-iron in your hand and a huge green? STFU!!

He was impressive. His swing looks Tigeresque. Perfect, swift, appears compact, his head drops a little, and at times it looks like he is TRYING to knock the piss out of it. To TRY to hit it hard and put it where you want is impressive at any player level. More impressive when I do it, because I have about a 2% chance of doing it.

quote:

---

Maybe they will stop making these courses have 523 yard par 4's and 660 yard par 5's. New courses are always putting some 230 yard par 3, why???

---

They played most of the tees up on the long holes all week which made the course play shorter. I want to see the tees played back, because it is supposed to test your whole bag, not just your driver and wedges. I've played tougher setups for qualifying then they set that place up. Also, I want to see more three shot par 5's played because that gives a shorter hitter a chance to make up ground on the field. Pavin hit a 4 wood into 18 when he won at Shinock back in the 90's. Hogan hit a 2 iron approach at Marion to win.

To me the 17th is one of the worst holes ever for championship golf. Too many good shots have found the water there for that to be a serious hole. Great example is the year Freddie's 1st shot was knocked down in the water by the wind and using the same club less then a minute later he holes the shot for par.

quote:

---

Agree to disagree. Take someone stronger and more athletic with the same hand-eye coordination and they will be better.

Tiger started of trend of athletes playing golf.

---

wait, what?

I'm assuming you never met or saw DLIII in his prime. He was tall and very athletic looking. Ernie Els was a brick shithouse before Tiger.

You're making an argument that you can't really back up, and doesn't make sense.

Had Tiger never bulked up and worn form fitting clothes, he would look like another 'non-athlete' golfer only on the skinny side.