quote:

---

Big difference between 12.5 and 15 or 16. I also wonder if they mowed the rough this morning. I also wonder if they putted everything out. I also wonder if they really played the actual tournament tees (I know they said they did but sometimes people play the "back" tees but aren't really all the way back). IF they did all those things and really shot those numbers, I would still maintain that they just played one of the rounds of their lives and couldn't back it up again even if given several tries. Just my opinion.

---

Bingo on all counts ...

When did it run 15 or 16 this week? I never heard them say it got that fast. Pretty sure 12.5 was about where they were the first 3 rounds.



Edit. They ran a 14 on Sunday, the fastest they ran all week.

quote:

---

Big difference between 12.5 and 15 or 16. I also wonder if they mowed the rough this morning. I also wonder if they putted everything out. I also wonder if they really played the actual tournament tees (I know they said they did but sometimes people play the "back" tees but aren't really all the way back). IF they did all those things and really shot those numbers, I would still maintain that they just played one of the rounds of their lives and couldn't back it up again even if given several tries. Just my opinion.

---

The point of the exercise was for them to play the tournament set up so I'm guessing they didn't make many changes today.

quote:

---

When did it run 15 or 16 this week? I never heard them say it got that fast. Pretty sure 12.5 was about where they were the first 3 rounds.



Edit. They ran a 14 on Sunday, the fastest they ran all week.

---

I said IF he shot that playing the exact same course as Sunday, that's very impressive. But based on my experience, I doubt it was the same course. It can't be the same course 18 hours later. Still, that's very impressive.

I saw them posted at 14.8 for Sunday and they said they expected them over 15 by the end of the day.

The rough was likely even higher. And it would have been Sunday tees. Played the Nelson several times like this on Momday when my company was the sponsor. That is the point. The only difference is that I'd guess the green were a bit slower because I would estimate they were mowed again but not rolled as much. Not going to add 10 strokes for a sub 5.

Another factor is mental approach and toughness. There is a difference between expecting high difficulty but with a plan to accept and approach it vs being intimidated and mentally your ass is already kicked before you hit your first shot. That can cause a huge swing in score between individuals of similar skill.

Here's another guy that played on Monday - says he is a 15.

A 15 shot a 102? What tees did they play from? Because there was a birdie and two pars on the 288 yard par 3, so that tells me they weren't playing the full length.

quote:

---

A 15 shot a 102? What tees did they play from? Because there was a birdie and two pars on the 288 yard par 3, so that tells me they weren't playing the full length.

---

They were playing the championship tees. It has been mentioned her 3 times.

People are upset that most of us predicting we could break 100 if we played good are probably right.

quote:

---

quote:

---

A 15 shot a 102? What tees did they play from? Because there was a birdie and two pars on the 288 yard par 3, so that tells me they weren't playing the full length.

---

They were playing the championship tees. It has been mentioned her 3 times.

---

Where does it say that that guy played the championship tees? I don't see that anywhere, including his twitter feed.

There is no way a 15 could shoot a 102 on Sundays course. No way. A 15 is bad enough that they still occasionally shoot over 100 on their local 6400 yard course with no rough.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

A 15 shot a 102? What tees did they play from? Because there was a birdie and two pars on the 288 yard par 3, so that tells me they weren't playing the full length.

---

They were playing the championship tees. It has been mentioned her 3 times.

---

Where does it say that that guy played the championship tees? I don't see that anywhere, including his twitter feed.

There is no way a 15 could shoot a 102 on Sundays course. No way. A 15 is bad enough that they still occasionally shoot over 100 on their local 6400 yard course with no rough.

---

I'm assuming he was part of the media challenge that was referenced earlier in this thread a couple times.

It's possible they played from different tees. They may not allow a 15 to go to the back but go ahead and let a 3 give it all they got.

quote:

---

A 15 shot a 102? What tees did they play from? Because there was a birdie and two pars on the 288 yard par 3, so that tells me they weren't playing the full length.

---

if you hit driver 270-280 it could put you in good position to make birdie.

Stirring the pot with driver distances

I know, I know,

Everyone and their dog hits their drives 320 right down the middle.

I doubt they played the tips. I can't imagine Oakmont is excited about hosting a bunch of hacker media types for 6:30 hour rounds the day after the Open. Who knows.

Greens were an 11 I read. And the only tees out were the championship tees. They played them. The snapchatted, periscoped shots and the round and all were hitting from the USGA tee markers.

Oakmont and most courses let the media play the next day. Augusta does it as well (they have a lottery).

They played the tips.

I read 12.5

Who knows.

quote:

---

Greens were an 11 I read. And the only tees out were the championship tees. They played them. The snapchatted, periscoped shots and the round and all were hitting from the USGA tee markers.

---

No no no. Texags doubts this therefore it didn't happen.

I'd just say that the odds of three 10-20 handicappers playing a 288 yard par 3 in a combined one under par are astronomical.

But again, these scores they're shooting, you just never know. I obviously don't buy it. Something (likely multiple things) is different. Green speeds are down, I think that's a guarantee. And that's worth multiple shots. I also always wonder about the little things, little rules violations, putting out every time, not improving any lies, etc.

Is the hypothetical "what would you shoot at Oakmont if you played well?" or is it "what would you shoot on the exact same course that DJ played on Sunday if you played an average round?" Very different questions.

Maybe I'm wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

quote:

---

I'd just say that the odds of three 10-20 handicappers playing a 288 yard par 3 in a combined one under par are astronomical.

But again, these scores they're shooting, you just never know. I obviously don't buy it. Something (likely multiple things) is different. Green speeds are down, I think that's a guarantee. And that's worth multiple shots. I also always wonder about the little things, little rules violations, putting out every time, not improving any lies, etc.

Is the hypothetical "what would you shoot at Oakmont if you played well?" or is it "what would you shoot on the exact same course that DJ played on Sunday if you played an average round?" Very different questions.

Maybe I'm wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

---

definitely a big difference from what would you normally shoot at Oakmont vs. What's the best you could shoot at Oakmont.

As I recall I shot 92 from the member tee it was a little damp and very windy. I'm playing again in September and would be disappointed if I didn't break 90 now that I've played it once before. It's all about the rough there and when the wind gets to blowing that is very difficult. 4 handicap.

Well one thing is for sure, maybe both...

Mr. 11 handicapper is a complete sandbagger and is really a 2. And, they were not playing from the tips...

288 par 3 and there was a birdie and 2 pars...

ummm no.

quote:

---

What's the best you could shoot at Oakmont.

---

I'm about a 14 or 15 right now, and I'd say the absolute best round I could play on Sunday's US Open course would be 120+. Looking hole by hole, if I played each hole with normal skill and no disasters or 3 putts, it would put me around 95-100, but obviously, the reason I'm a 15 handicap is that I have a few disasters a round and I do hit bad shots and I do hit bad putts and I chunk the occasional chip and I do shank the occasional drive. When you factor in extra putts, a few disastrous tee shots, a few other horrible shots, it's pretty easy to see it getting over 120 even with the exact same quality of game that shoots a 90 on my local course. I hit plenty of bad shots there that still lead to bogey. One bad shot at Oakmont, I'm not recovering for bogey.

So a former College Golfer played the course from the tips. Said he thought maybe he left 4 strokes on the course, but other than that, he said he played as well as he could. He shot an 89.

What exactly are we arguing about again?????

quote:

---

So a former College Golfer played the course from the tips. Said he thought maybe he left 4 strokes on the course, but other than that, he said he played as well as he could. He shot an 89.

What exactly are we arguing about again?????

---

I believe he referred to himself as a "rusty" four and proceeded to shoot an 89 with borrowed clubs. So the claim that single digit handicappers might break 90 doesn't seem so far fetched.

quote:

---

So a former College Golfer played the course from the tips. Said he thought maybe he left 4 strokes on the course, but other than that, he said he played as well as he could. He shot an 89.

What exactly are we arguing about again?????

---

so someone who used to be good shot 89. I'd say that supports the claims that under 100 is definitely possible for a low/mid single digit.

"College golfer" also leaves a wide range of what his "good" ever was.

As far as what is being argued about, every single score we've seen supports the case that a solid single digit handicapper is capable of shooting in the ballpark of 90. Then the ones that piss their pants at the thought of playing Oakmont try to marginalize it. So yes, what are we arguing about if we keep getting justification through actual scores?

quote:

---

"College golfer" also leaves a wide range of what his "good" ever was.

As far as what is being argued about, every single score we've seen supports the case that a solid single digit handicapper is capable of shooting in the ballpark of 90. Then the ones that piss their pants at the thought of playing Oakmont try to marginalize it. So yes, what are we arguing about if we keep getting justification through actual scores?

---

I agree with you but will always tend to doubt the "actuality" of most scores. I know that when I play in a non-tournament environment there are typically rules violations, gimme's, etc. all over the place. For example, what are the odds one of these players lost a ball in that thick rough and just decided to drop one near where they think it went in rather than take stroke and distance?

quote:

---

quote:

---

"College golfer" also leaves a wide range of what his "good" ever was.

As far as what is being argued about, every single score we've seen supports the case that a solid single digit handicapper is capable of shooting in the ballpark of 90. Then the ones that piss their pants at the thought of playing Oakmont try to marginalize it. So yes, what are we arguing about if we keep getting justification through actual scores?

---

I agree with you but will always tend to doubt the "actuality" of most scores. I know that when I plan in a non-tournament environment there are typically rules violations, gimme's, etc. all over the place. For example, what are the odds one of these players lost a ball in that thick rough and just decided to drop one near where they think it went in rather than take stroke and distance?

---

I hate this argument, a "pro" would never lose a ball 5 steps off the fairway because of crowds and spotters. Have them find their own ball and see what happens.

Enjoying the debate.

Side question: what course do you think you would struggle with the most?