Miller on the US Open

[Dariusz J.]

Johnny Miller Previews 2012 U.S. Open at Olympic Club | Golf Channel

On evolving U.S. Open setups: “The only thing that players have in their favor, if you call it favor, is the rough is not like the rough was in my era. These new players, they have no idea what U.S. Open rough was. You look at the picture of Hogan in '55, it took him three swings to get back to the fairway on 18. I mean, these guys are pampered. At Winged Foot, when Irwin was 7 over and won there, if you hit a hundred balls in the rough, the longest you could average it out of the rough was about 75 yards, hitting the hardest shot you could hit, with all your might. So, these guys have no clue what rough is. They lost that word. They don't even know what the word ‘rough’ is, in my opinion.”

Exactly like cut off from my posts -- but what does he know anyways...

Cheers

 

[birly-shirly]

C'mon Dariusz - I thought you only got dragged into these discussions reluctantly...

 

[birly-shirly]

Besides, Miller is talking shite. Alltime rhetorical sidestep to talk glibly about "his era" as including Hogan. Talk about annexing reflected glory?

Let's see - Miller turned pro in '69. Hogan turned pro in 1930. Tiger turned pro in '96. So Miller is considerably closer to the Tiger era than to Hogan's.

By Miller's arithmetic, both Jack and Tiger are in the same era, just 34 years apart. No wonder they've both racked up so many majors, playing those dumbed down, easy courses...

 

[Dariusz J.]

ROFL. If Miller expressed completely different opinion, you would say he said wise things. The truth hurts, doesn't it ?

Cheers

 

[mgranato]

Miller is talking bollocks... everyone knows Hogan never hit it into the rough.

 

[duckjr78]

Miller is talking bollocks... everyone knows Hogan never hit it into the rough.

Well played sir. I award you 10,000 internetz.

 

[OLIVER1]

Phew. thank God for that. I thought the world had stopped turning without a "Hogan is the Mutt's Nuts" thread for the past month or so.

Dari - and just for old time's sake - You gotta make these events exciting for the punters otherwise all the corporate money would drain out and go elsewhere. If the courses had stayed the same as yesteryear, then today's pros would have adapted nicely...BUT, Imagine if these tournaments had actually stayed with 95" rough and skinny fairways. There'd be a production line of dreary, albeit superbly skilled, golfers whose net personality and golfing pzazz couldn't sell water to a dying man...Nothing. No TV airings, no comprehensive golf literature, no Manzella website, no Trackman and nobody to give a rat's arse. And you'd be on - oh, I don't know - a tennis website arguing about how Billie Jean King and Rod Laver were so much better than Roger Federer and Serena Williams cos thirty years ago the courts were only half the size, the players had to paint their own lines and put up the net themselves, the rackets looked like teaspoons and the balls were made from fois gras.

Johnny Miller - and I do actually like him - has to be a polemic to justify himself and his image. AND I'm sure he's well aware of the aforementioned; it just won't do to broach it when you need to stir the pot to headline yourself, God bless his cotton socks...

BTW, How's the lovely Lodz at this time of the year?
Cheers

 

[Kevin Shields]

Miller hit a 135 PW on 14 at Oakmont in '73 that checked up for birdie. Also, what they don't have in rough they more than make up for in green speed and toughness. Players from his era and Hogans never faced the level of difficulty on the greens. I would rather place a little more on driving accuracy but it's not like Open course nowadays are simple. Jack shot 272 at Baltusrol in '67....the same score Janzen shot in '93.

 

[welshdentist]

Miller hit a 135 PW on 14 at Oakmont in '73 that checked up for birdie. Also, what they don't have in rough they more than make up for in green speed and toughness. Players from his era and Hogans never faced the level of difficulty on the greens. I would rather place a little more on driving accuracy but it's not like Open course nowadays are simple. Jack shot 272 at Baltusrol in '67....the same score Janzen shot in '93.

A F*&^ing men.....

 

[Tball88]

don't know if I buy into putting being more difficult. I know Pelz did a study and your average amateur putted better on tour greens than greens at their own club. Let Tour pros deal with unfixed ball marks, grainy, bumpy, and untrue greens and see how many balls they roll in.

I do think today's pros have it easier than they did in the last 50 or so years. Relatively speaking courses are shorter due to technology of both golf clubs and balls, courses are far better manicured, and rough isn't that bad at all compared to previous years.

I really think the PGA does not want their players shooting over par, makes then look not all that good, which doesn't help marketing. Canadian Open in 2011 had bad rough and players were bellyaching left and right. Showed you don't have to be 8000 yards to be tough

Canadian Open 2011 Golf - YouTube

 

[DCgolf]

So i guess Ogilvy's +5 win in 2006 was just poor play, not a tough set up. Classic Miller. Egotism veiled as "tell it like it is" journalism, is a disease of the mind from which very few ever come back. What has been lost is not US Open rough, but ex-player turned broadcaster humility. What Miller does not mention about 1973 is that it probably CAUSED the massacre at Winged Foot in 1974. The USGA began a series of difficult set ups in 1974 as a reaction to what they believed was too EASY a set up in 1973 (it wasn't you can't make Oakmont easy). They have done this for years. After Furyk's -8 in 2003, Sunday at Shinnecock in 2004 was a joke. But he also fails to mention that he finished 35th and 38th the next two years and had just two top-ten finishes the rest of his career in the Open. So I guess he just couldn't play those "tough" US Open courses. I love and respect the game of golf and the wonderful life lessons it teaches all of us. Like humility Johnny.

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

don't know if I buy into putting being more difficult. I know Pelz did a study and your average amateur putted better on tour greens than greens at their own club. Let Tour pros deal with unfixed ball marks, grainy, bumpy, and untrue greens and see how many balls they roll in.

Depends on which event Tball...i've said multiple times before play right before/after a tour event comes to a course near you (hooters/pga/nationwide/lpga/etc) and watch your driving distance go up and # of putts go down. However, it also depends on the level of competition and where they're putting the flags. I play at a country club course where the greens roll true but are ridiculously hard and they are very very difficult to play on. So when you are talking about us open type greens for a us open event your average amateur will not putt better lol

 

[Dariusz J.]

Phew. thank God for that. I thought the world had stopped turning without a "Hogan is the Mutt's Nuts" thread for the past month or so.

Dari - and just for old time's sake - You gotta make these events exciting for the punters otherwise all the corporate money would drain out and go elsewhere. If the courses had stayed the same as yesteryear, then today's pros would have adapted nicely...BUT, Imagine if these tournaments had actually stayed with 95" rough and skinny fairways. There'd be a production line of dreary, albeit superbly skilled, golfers whose net personality and golfing pzazz couldn't sell water to a dying man...Nothing. No TV airings, no comprehensive golf literature, no Manzella website, no Trackman and nobody to give a rat's arse. And you'd be on - oh, I don't know - a tennis website arguing about how Billie Jean King and Rod Laver were so much better than Roger Federer and Serena Williams cos thirty years ago the courts were only half the size, the players had to paint their own lines and put up the net themselves, the rackets looked like teaspoons and the balls were made from fois gras.

Johnny Miller - and I do actually like him - has to be a polemic to justify himself and his image. AND I'm sure he's well aware of the aforementioned; it just won't do to broach it when you need to stir the pot to headline yourself, God bless his cotton socks...

BTW, How's the lovely Lodz at this time of the year?
Cheers

Listen, what is your problem ? I simply put what one of the all-time greats said about rough. Where is Hogan discussion here ? He (not me) mentioned Hogan in a very bad light -- missed fairway, was in deep shit, needed 3 strokes to be on the fairway again).
I quoted Miller, because he's another pro who underlines the necessity of getting rid of pampered conditions. I have never been presented a quote from a PGA pro (even from the group of todays pro hackers who sprays drives everywhere) that papmered courses with no rough are good for the future of golf.
Certainly I believe Miller or Els (Canadian Open '11 speech) more than some amateurs wanting to see hopeless golf where all depends on putting skills because it looks good on TV and oooohhhh how great are these pros. ROFL. Real pros appreciate a difficult test that the fair manly setup provides. Only pampered crybabies would protest, but, as said above, there are none -- or they hide because of probable shame.

Cheers

P.S. Lodz is hot and dusty these days. Unfortunately, we lost the most beautiful period of time recently, i.e. spring. After long winters we practically already have summers. Not healthy and ugly. Climat has changed for worse.

 

[Dariusz J.]

[...] But he also fails to mention that he finished 35th and 38th the next two years and had just two top-ten finishes the rest of his career in the Open. So I guess he just couldn't play those "tough" US Open courses. I love and respect the game of golf and the wonderful life lessons it teaches all of us. Like humility Johnny.

Miller had FOUR top 10 finishes after his win in 1973, not two. And certainly he's one of the very few living old pros who can criticize anything he wants, especially US Open setups. Certainly he's more entitled than ANYONE on this forum who says that he's talking BS or is not modest.

Cheers

 

[birly-shirly]

Dariusz - a couple of points.

1. I thought you LIKED US Open set ups. I thought it was just the moral degeneracy of the regular tour that you despised.

we have/had US Opens when I see that 90% of second shots from this real rough cannot be placed near greens and sometimes I can see only the top of the ball. This is what rough means.

2. If you look carefully at that Miller quote - he's not saying that the modern Open set up is easy. He says the ONLY thing that the players have going for them is less penal rough. I don't see him saying that the overall package or set-up, comprising yardage, green-speed, fw width etc, is easier.

3. Ray Floyd was once asked why it took him so long to win the US Open (17 years after he first broke through in the majors). He replied that Shinnecock Hills in 1986 was the FIRST Open he'd played in where the USGA hadn't f**ked up the course with excessive rough. Ray's "era" goes back at least as far as Miller's, and I think his opinion carries as much weight as to what makes for a good course set-up.

 

[Dariusz J.]

A couple of points back, Birly.

Dariusz - a couple of points.

1. I thought you LIKED US Open set ups. I thought it was just the moral degeneracy of the regular tour that you despised.

Yes, but certainly last US Open setup was not in the spirit of great US Open in the Hogan or even Miller era. That's why Miller supposedly criticized what are overall trends, now also alas observed in US Opens. This is the last true tournament left for men on the US Tour and Miller seems concerned about the future of it.

BTW, where you took the quote from that is supposed to be of my authorship ? Certainly there is some doubt it is my quotation because the name "Dariusz" is being written "dariusz" which is wrong.

2. If you look carefully at that Miller quote - he's not saying that the modern Open set up is easy. He says the ONLY thing that the players have going for them is less penal rough. I don't see him saying that the overall package or set-up, comprising yardage, green-speed, fw width etc, is easier.

My intent was to quote Miller about rough. I do not care if todays setups are not less difficult because of tough greens. Greens do not belong to ballstriking area that I care about.

3. Ray Floyd was once asked why it took him so long to win the US Open (17 years after he first broke through in the majors). He replied that Shinnecock Hills in 1986 was the FIRST Open he'd played in where the USGA hadn't f**ked up the course with excessive rough. Ray's "era" goes back at least as far as Miller's, and I think his opinion carries as much weight as to what makes for a good course set-up.

A link confirming if Floyd said exactly these words is welcomed. Apparently, I was wrong that there are/were no crybabies. If his words are exactly as you quoted, my retort would be -- real golf does not need people like you who are afraid to take challenges. Stay home because probably noone would like to watch you play anyhow.

Cheers

 

[aaron_lohan]

I quoted Miller, because he's another pro who underlines the necessity of getting rid of pampered conditions. I have never been presented a quote from a PGA pro (even from the group of todays pro hackers who sprays drives everywhere) that papmered courses with no rough are good for the future of golf. .

Have you ever seen a tour pro live in the flesh?

 

[Dariusz J.]

Have you ever seen a tour pro live in the flesh?

I was asked this question thousand times. Nope, I haven't ever seen a tour pro live except Gary Player who came to Poland to open his signature course. The best players live I've seen was European Tour/ EPD Tour players.

Cheers

 

[birly-shirly]

Well, one event hardly constitutes a trend, as the most cursory look at the scoring records would confirm.

Yes Dariusz - those are your words, from the "Augusta a good test of golf?" thread. Since the thread is closed, I can't auto-quote, but that's a direct lift from you. Don't you recognise your own thoughts?

By your own admission, I think you're taking Miller's quote out of context then. His point might be that there's only one part of the course set-up that ISN'T harder, but you're not interested in the overall severity - just a test of driving accuracy.

Why not just launch an offshoot of Remax longdrive, and have a StraightDrive (TM) competition. Competitors will need to step up and try to land a golf ball on a ping pong table from a distance of, oh, perhaps 60 or 70 yards. Or even longer, if the competition heats up.

All of that is irrelevant though. Your response to Ray Floyd illustrates perfectly why we will never agree on this. If you find a quote, like Miller's, which you think partially endorses or supports your agenda - you're happy to use it indiscriminately, regardless of the larger point that Miller might have been trying to make.

But if another "authority" - with a better, longer playing record says something that disputes your thesis, then they are dismissed as a "crybaby". Which begs the question: what, if anything, do you know about Ray Floyd?

 

[Kevin Shields]

Have you ever seen a tour pro live in the flesh?

You can choose to take him as seriously as you want.