62 - low round in a major

[Potatohead]

Henrik's 63 last year was a billion times better, no exaggeration. If Henrik doesn't play Phil wins the Open by eleven shots (!!!). Phil shoots 65 on final day and loses... lol. Henrik's round was also obviously much more pressure packed and was also lower relative to scoring average. That round was one of the best in history, period.

 

62 < 63.

 

Unless you're agreeing with me I think you have that backwards.

 

Claret jug > T4 and a pack of smokes

[QEight]

Why the need to discredit 62? If it was the first then it was the first. If it was for the win or not does not matter.

[KennyP]

Great round by Branden, but the R&A screwed up moving the tees up on 5 and 7 on a day where Birkdale needed some help defending itself.

 

Also surprised by how sparse the rough is for the most part, given the amount of rain the course has had this year.

[sphna12d]

Henrik's 63 last year was a billion times better, no exaggeration. If Henrik doesn't play Phil wins the Open by eleven shots (!!!). Phil shoots 65 on final day and loses... lol. Henrik's round was also obviously much more pressure packed and was also lower relative to scoring average. That round was one of the best in history, period.

 

62 < 63.

 

You would have to compare the number to the scoring average of the field the day the low score was shot to truly make a comparison. Comparing a number from one day at one venue to another number on a different day at a different venue without including how those numbers compare with what the field shot is meaningless.

[buckeyefl]

Everyone just needs to drop, "blah blah shot blah in a major", because lately, there's hasn't been a difference in difficulty between majors and non-majors. It's all about how golf is a hard game regardless how the course is setup, hundreds of people are playing on the same course, in the same conditions. Johnny needs to get the stick out of his a** and get out of the past and turn to the future where life happens, not where it's happened.

 

Theres always a difference because its a major. That has mental/performance hurdle because it has more meaning.

[Maximilian]

I think Branden should be ashamed of himself for shooting 62 on an easy day par 70 course. It's just not gentlemanlike.

[mjtoal]

Jim Nantz said it best:

 

"Unbelievable. Grace has done it. You just saw the greatest round in Open history. The all-time lowest round in a major doesn't belong to a Jack Nicklaus or an Arnold Palmer, Hogan, Nelson or Snead. It's been shot by the most improbable artist of all. Brenden Grace has his signature on golf's all-time masterpiece round."

 

The most improbable artist of all? Really? Grace is a damn good golfer with a low ball flight well suited to The Open. He has 4 top 5 finishes in the last 10 majors.

[Hankshank]

In all its glory!!

That scorecard(first page, how do you bring it with you in a quote?), all those comments. Are they for the interviews afterwards or just nerdiness, one wonder...

[iBanesto]

Henrik's 63 last year was a billion times better, no exaggeration. If Henrik doesn't play Phil wins the Open by eleven shots (!!!). Phil shoots 65 on final day and loses... lol. Henrik's round was also obviously much more pressure packed and was also lower relative to scoring average. That round was one of the best in history, period.

 

62 < 63.

 

Numerically correct.

[avrag]

I wonder what Branden Grace will say about the first 61?

 

My guess: "Sincere congratulations to Jordan Speith. Great performance."

 

Who is Jordan Speith? Does he play golf?

[Shankieboink]

It was a great round. But relative to the field, it wasn't even the best round of the tournament. Zachs round of 66 the day before was better. Average on friday was 74 and on saturday it was 68. Zachs was -8 relative to that days par and Brandons was -6 to that days par. Saturday had better players (as the worse didnt make the cut) but even if tou account for that you'd probably end up with Zach having the best round.

[Shankieboink]

I just want to comment on my previous post that the psychological effect of shooting 62 that no one had done before was the biggest feat. Stenson and Mickelsons rounds of 63 last year was as golf played much better in my opinion. Stenson said after his 65 yesterday he should have had a few lower, and that it was one of his better round this year. I don't think hed think if he shot a 62 it would feel half as good as his 63 last year.

[Andrew Bond of Glencoe]

I will give it 8 years- sometime in the next 8 and it could be today at the Open, someone is going to shoot a 60 and eventually a 59.

 

Par 70s are a factor as are softer conditions. Say what you will but Miller's 63 at a US Open at Oakmont is insane. Still the best round ever in a major.

[Dave230]

Has anybody actually said 'this is the best ever round in a major'? I haven't seen anyone say it, but it's still a significant achievement. And it's a truly great round. And it's still a worthy record.

 

You need context to all records. Stenson's major 63 is better than Streb's major 63. Tiger's 18 under at the Masters is better than Spieth's 18 under at the Masters. Stenson's 20 under in a major is better than Day's 20 under in a major. A number of 63s/64s are better than Grace's 62 with context.

[misplacedtexan83]

He just missed a 61 with a lipped out birdie.

 

Great round.

 

I hope he can follow it up with another good round.. hard to follow up a 62.

[Whit1969]

Grace's 62(-8) shot on a par 70 at 7,156yds

 

Thomas' 63(-9) shot on a par 72 at 7,788yds

 

Miller's 63(-8) shot on a par 71 at 6,921yds

 

Yeah it wasn't the final round and not for the win but -9 in relation to par on a course that was about 900yds longer seems to me better than Miller's.

 

 

[bladehunter]

What does the actual record state ? The score 62 or 63 or the amount under par ?

 

Have to be honest. Phil and stensons 63 last year were each a better round than this 62. As in a harder round. There where 6 65 yesterday to go with the 62. I don't think there were anything close to 63 last year besides stensons and phil. Remember Phil lipped out the 62 putt. Not trying to discredit grace. He's a great guy. But it was on a very easy day.

[Hawkeye77]

Grace's 62(-8) shot on a par 70 at 7,156yds

 

Thomas' 63(-9) shot on a par 72 at 7,788yds

 

Miller's 63(-8) shot on a par 71 at 6,921yds

 

Yeah it wasn't the final round and not for the win but -9 in relation to par on a course that was about 900yds longer seems to me better than Miller's.

 

Oakmont in 1973, equipment in 1973, course setup, absolutely no rational comparison.

 

Oakmont was one of the toughest tracks in America. Birkdale yesterday - easy, pitch and putt for some.

[Dave230]

Grace's 62(-8) shot on a par 70 at 7,156yds

 

Thomas' 63(-9) shot on a par 72 at 7,788yds

 

Miller's 63(-8) shot on a par 71 at 6,921yds

 

Yeah it wasn't the final round and not for the win but -9 in relation to par on a course that was about 900yds longer seems to me better than Miller's.

 

Erin Hills wasn't that tough, so I wouldn't use distance as the meter. Nick Price's 63 at the 1986 Masters was also 9 under and probably better, Augusta was tougher than Erin Hills relatively.

 

Grace's 62(-8) shot on a par 70 at 7,156yds

 

Thomas' 63(-9) shot on a par 72 at 7,788yds

 

Miller's 63(-8) shot on a par 71 at 6,921yds

 

Yeah it wasn't the final round and not for the win but -9 in relation to par on a course that was about 900yds longer seems to me better than Miller's.

 

Oakmont in 1973, equipment in 1973, course setup, absolutely no rational comparison.

 

Oakmont was one of the toughest tracks in America. Birkdale yesterday - easy, pitch and putt for some.

 

Birkdale is one of the tougher tracks in England when the wind blows. Last two winners were +5 and Even par at Birkdale. Of all the courses on the rota, you'd think it would go at St Andrews or Royal Liverpool. Birkdale would be well down the list. Just was a perfect storm of easy conditions, torrential rain, no wind whatsoever, sun in the sky.

[mosesgolf]

IMO all time best rounds are cool but if it doesn't result in a win it really doesn't mean much other then a mention in the record books.

 

Johnny Miller's 63 at Oakmont has far greater significance than a 62 that didn't result in a win. Arnold's 65 at Cherry Hills is another all time great round.

[uitar9]

That was wonderful to see. Similar to Fury's 58, I've heard the naysayers-it's an easy course layout, it's a par 70, blah, blah, blah, suggests to me it should have an *.

 

Funny, no one else has done it.

 

Gonna watch some more Jack Reacher

[ruffellprefley]

does it matter that par is 70? what's the lowest round relative to par ever in a major?

 

9 under. On ten occasions.

 

right, so is a -8 really that impressive? a good great round, no doubt, but if -9 has happened 10 times then why is this one -8 better than those?

 

He hit it 62 times around the course in front of him, in a major championship. Nobody has ever done that.

 

so it's unique. that doesn't make it BETTER. in relation to par it isn't even EQUAL to some of the 63s that have been shot. If par was 54 and would getting around the course in 50 be impressive? not even a tiny bit. but you'd say that it was 12 strokes fewer than the previous record so it must be better?

[egr2teup]

does it matter that par is 70? what's the lowest round relative to par ever in a major?

 

9 under. On ten occasions.

 

right, so is a -8 really that impressive? a good great round, no doubt, but if -9 has happened 10 times then why is this one -8 better than those?

 

It isn't better, imo. The lowest score, yes but several of the 63's are much better.

[Llortamaisey]

Jim Nantz said it best:

 

"Unbelievable. Grace has done it. You just saw the greatest round in Open history. The all-time lowest round in a major doesn't belong to a Jack Nicklaus or an Arnold Palmer, Hogan, Nelson or Snead. It's been shot by the most improbable artist of all. Brenden Grace has his signature on golf's all-time masterpiece round."

 

The most improbable artist of all? Really? Grace is a damn good golfer with a low ball flight well suited to The Open. He has 4 top 5 finishes in the last 10 majors.

 

Relax, it's a modified quote from a golf movie in which Jim Nantz played himself. I was just goofing around. Didn't realize people were going to get butt hurt over the quote. Sorry.

[cardoustie]

Johnny shooting 63 in a final round - and considering the field's scoring avg- was far superior

 

Wasn't he 11 better than avg vs 6 yesterday for BG?

[Golfnutgalen]

Johnny shooting 63 in a final round - and considering the field's scoring avg- was far superior

 

Wasn't he 11 better than avg vs 6 yesterday for BG?

 

Pretty much. Johnny was 10.8 shots better than the field while Brandon was "only" 7 shots clear. In addition Stenson was 9.8 shots better in his final round last year.

[Richardcabeeza]

It's a milestone. First ever. Someone else will eventually top it with the next first ever. Wasn't the greatest round ever, nor does it mean the most. Still pretty cool. I'll bet Li sitting in the clubhouse with his 63 today is feeling better than Grace did with his 62 yesterday.No doubt praying for hail and 80 mph winds:)

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Henrik's 63 last year was a billion times better, no exaggeration. If Henrik doesn't play Phil wins the Open by eleven shots (!!!). Phil shoots 65 on final day and loses... lol. Henrik's round was also obviously much more pressure packed and was also lower relative to scoring average. That round was one of the best in history, period.

 

62 < 63.

 

You would have to compare the number to the scoring average of the field the day the low score was shot to truly make a comparison. Comparing a number from one day at one venue to another number on a different day at a different venue without including how those numbers compare with what the field shot is meaningless.

 

Nope. 62 is one lower.

[PGArox]

Johnny shooting 63 in a final round - and considering the field's scoring avg- was far superior

 

Wasn't he 11 better than avg vs 6 yesterday for BG?

 

Pretty much. Johnny was 10.8 shots better than the field while Brandon was "only" 7 shots clear. In addition Stenson was 9.8 shots better in his final round last year.

 

A little shout-out to Phil's 66 to win The Open in 2013. He started the final round five strokes back in 9th place and shot that 66 on a day when the field averaged over 75. The cut that week at Muirfield came at +8.

[mosesgolf]

Henrik's 63 last year was a billion times better, no exaggeration. If Henrik doesn't play Phil wins the Open by eleven shots (!!!). Phil shoots 65 on final day and loses... lol. Henrik's round was also obviously much more pressure packed and was also lower relative to scoring average. That round was one of the best in history, period.

 

62 < 63.

 

You would have to compare the number to the scoring average of the field the day the low score was shot to truly make a comparison. Comparing a number from one day at one venue to another number on a different day at a different venue without including how those numbers compare with what the field shot is meaningless.

 

Nope. 62 is one lower.

Lower one round score or a low round that got you a major.

 

63, 65, 66 plus the perks that come form winning a major >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>non win 62