Koepka defends title; shows charisma with fist pump; glfwrx goes wild

[MK7Golf21]

Brooks wedge game has been pretty solid, all he is doing is bombing it and hitting wedges into greens so it is unlikely he will struggle much today and let someone catch him.

[ebrasmus21]

Phil hitting a Cadillac off the tee.

[Golfnutgalen]

I think most of us agreed that DJ had the stronger resume than Brooks going into the week, but how about after assuming he wins this one? 6 wins including 4 majors vs 20 wins including 1? Let's remove 1 major from each player to make things easier: DJ 19 regular wins vs Koepka 2 regular wins + 3 majors. Remove Koepka's regular wins and we get 17 wins vs 3 majors. I know it's super tempting to give it to Brooks, but Dustin does have 6 WGCs as well and 4 Fed ex playoff wins. I'm not even sure where I stand.

[chrismikayla]

I sure hope Paul Casey wins a major soon. He seems like a solid guy and has been close so many times.

[cdnglf]

> @Golfnutgalen said:

> I think mos of us agreed that DJ had the stronger resume than Brooks going into the week, but how about after assuming he wins this one? 6 wins including 4 majors vs 20 wins including 1? Let's remove 1 major from each player to make things easier: DJ 19 regular wins vs Koepka 2 regular wins + 3 majors. I know it's super tempting to give it to Brooks, but Dustin does have 6 WGCs as well and 4 Fed ex playoff wins. I'm not even sure where I stand.

 

17 wins vs 3 majors... the argument for Brooks would be that a major is worth 6+ regular wins. That is way too much IMO.

[FIRs&GIRs&3-Putts]

I think it becomes too difficult to argue DJ>Koepka if (when) he wins today. 4 majors to 1 is just an entirely different level of golf.

[Golfnutgalen]

> @cdnglf said:

> > @Golfnutgalen said:

> > I think mos of us agreed that DJ had the stronger resume than Brooks going into the week, but how about after assuming he wins this one? 6 wins including 4 majors vs 20 wins including 1? Let's remove 1 major from each player to make things easier: DJ 19 regular wins vs Koepka 2 regular wins + 3 majors. I know it's super tempting to give it to Brooks, but Dustin does have 6 WGCs as well and 4 Fed ex playoff wins. I'm not even sure where I stand.

>

> 17 wins vs 3 majors... the argument for Brooks would be that a major is worth 6+ regular wins. That is way too much IMO.

 

I agree, but the old school thought was majors are everything. We dismissed Billy Casper's 51 wins because he "only" had 3 majors. Plus some go by the rationale that each additional major is worth more because it doesn't happen often in history. That said, I do lean towards DJ mostly because of the strength of his other wins. Koepka is 5 years younger though and has a great opportunity to completely overshadow him.

[Pent08]

> @Golfnutgalen said:

> I think most of us agreed that DJ had the stronger resume than Brooks going into the week, but how about after assuming he wins this one? 6 wins including 4 majors vs 20 wins including 1? Let's remove 1 major from each player to make things easier: DJ 19 regular wins vs Koepka 2 regular wins + 3 majors. Remove Koepka's regular wins and we get 17 wins vs 3 majors. I know it's super tempting to give it to Brooks, but Dustin does have 6 WGCs as well and 4 Fed ex playoff wins. I'm not even sure where I stand.

 

That's a tough one. Koepka's 1.9% win rate in regular events sticks out like a sore thumb.

[Golfnutgalen]

> @Pent08 said:

> > @Golfnutgalen said:

> > I think most of us agreed that DJ had the stronger resume than Brooks going into the week, but how about after assuming he wins this one? 6 wins including 4 majors vs 20 wins including 1? Let's remove 1 major from each player to make things easier: DJ 19 regular wins vs Koepka 2 regular wins + 3 majors. Remove Koepka's regular wins and we get 17 wins vs 3 majors. I know it's super tempting to give it to Brooks, but Dustin does have 6 WGCs as well and 4 Fed ex playoff wins. I'm not even sure where I stand.

>

> That's a tough one. Koepka's 1.9% win rate in regular events sticks out like a sore thumb.

If we include the majors and assume he wins this one his overall percentage would be 5.2% which is solid, pretty much the same percentage as Dustin was at age 29. Of course it is a far cry from Tiger at that age with his 25% win rate and 10 majors.

 

Koepka has a good opportunity to break the 8 shot margin of victory record in this tournament set by Rory in 2012. That's fairly historic as well.

[bscinstnct]

> @Pent08 said:

> > @Golfnutgalen said:

> > I think most of us agreed that DJ had the stronger resume than Brooks going into the week, but how about after assuming he wins this one? 6 wins including 4 majors vs 20 wins including 1? Let's remove 1 major from each player to make things easier: DJ 19 regular wins vs Koepka 2 regular wins + 3 majors. Remove Koepka's regular wins and we get 17 wins vs 3 majors. I know it's super tempting to give it to Brooks, but Dustin does have 6 WGCs as well and 4 Fed ex playoff wins. I'm not even sure where I stand.

>

> That's a tough one. Koepka's 1.9% win rate in regular events sticks out like a sore thumb.

 

BK said its because his focus goes up 10x in majors and he needs to increase his focus for regular events.

Partially true, Im sure.

But, there is also an element of his wins coming on courses that set up for his strengths.

 

Here is brandl,

 

“So here you go,” Chamblee said of Koepka. “He won at Erin Hills. Thirty players at Erin Hills hit 45 fairways. Three hit 51 out of 56. At Merion [in 2013], only one player hit 45 fairways. He won at Shinnecock. Twenty players hit 45 fairways. At Olympic [in 2012], the most fairways anybody hit was 29. My point is, the fairways were very wide, and it’s a perfect scenario for somebody who is a behemoth off the tee to run amok and to just dominate.

 

“Power is the least variable asset. So, because it’s the least variable asset, if a golf course rewards power disproportionately then there is no volatility."

 

Now, BK is playing insane golf. But, he will hit a major drought. Be it the courses dont line up or Rory, DJ etc play great, or he doesnt have his stuff. TW and Jack both hit 2 year majorless spells in their prime.

 

And hit dispropotionate major win rate wont continue. He will either win more regular events or win less majors.

 

 

[cdnglf]

> @Golfnutgalen said:

> > @cdnglf said:

> > > @Golfnutgalen said:

> > > I think mos of us agreed that DJ had the stronger resume than Brooks going into the week, but how about after assuming he wins this one? 6 wins including 4 majors vs 20 wins including 1? Let's remove 1 major from each player to make things easier: DJ 19 regular wins vs Koepka 2 regular wins + 3 majors. I know it's super tempting to give it to Brooks, but Dustin does have 6 WGCs as well and 4 Fed ex playoff wins. I'm not even sure where I stand.

> >

> > 17 wins vs 3 majors... the argument for Brooks would be that a major is worth 6+ regular wins. That is way too much IMO.

>

> I agree, but the old school thought was majors are everything. We dismissed Billy Casper's 51 wins because he "only" had 3 majors. Plus some go by the rationale that each additional major is worth more because it doesn't happen often in history. That said, I do lean towards DJ mostly because of the strength of his other wins. Koepka is 5 years younger though and has a great opportunity to completely overshadow him.

 

What's "old school" and who is "we"?

;)

 

I remember watching an interview with Arnie from 10-15 years ago. He said something like "in those days we were just trying to win tournaments". There was far less focus on the majors. In the late 50s/early 1960s the US Open was clearly special, as was the Masters (perhaps to a lesser extent?). But the other two were not. Almost nobody even played the Open, and the PGA was full of club pros.

i think the emphasis on the majors is a much more recent phenomenon that most realize.

 

"Majors are everything" doesn't make sense. How can 80%+ of a player's season (and 90%+ of the overall season) count for zero?

 

Agreed that given his age and current form, Brooks has a good chance of surpassing DJ.

[Darth Putter]

> @chrismikayla said:

> In related news, Greg Norman said Tiger in so many words was intimidated by Brooks the first couple rounds. Why is Norman always taking not so thinly veiled shots at Tiger? Did he feel Tiger stole the spotlight from him? Did Tiger run over his dog?

 

One could be tempted to say that Brooks is the result if the Wizard gave Greg a brain, a heart and some courage. (at least in the majors)

[Pent08]

I refuse to believe that Brooks doesn't care about regular events. No competitive person plays for anything without the intent to win. The far more likely scenario is that his attributes have aligned well with the venues on which he's won.

[kcsf]

I'm convinced Phil hates fairways.

[Darth Putter]

> @bscinstnct said:

> > @I_HATE_SNOW said:

> > > @Dave230 said:

> > > Can't believe some people are comparing Koepka now to Tiger's peak when Tiger won more PGA Tour tournaments in 2000 than Koepka has won in his entire career.

> >

> > Just another way of turning all things into Tiger talk.

>

> BK is in the same sentence as TW, thats a good thing.

> Same was the case for Rory and Jordan but then....

> But BK looks more durable mentally and physically than them. Its pretty exciting to have a guy like him out there.

> BK game is perfect for the modern game. Hard to see him not racking up at least 5 more majors and who knows. I like the Jack analogy.

> Meantime, wish I was out there. Look at this course. And its a great course to watch from.

> Field needs a lot of help. Even with a bad day, cant see BK doing worse than a 73. But this looks academic.

> BK will never forget winning here.

>

 

He will tie the record for most majors ever won in the state of New York. Only Jones, Sarazen, Hagen and Jim Barnes have won two. He will match the record in just eleven months.

[nsxguy]

> @OldTomMorris said:

> > @Dave230 said:

> > Can't believe some people are comparing Koepka now to Tiger's peak when Tiger won more PGA Tour tournaments in 2000 than Koepka has won in his entire career.

>

> This performance is definitely worthy of comparison and Koepka's run in the majors is very impressive. Can he do it over the long term?

 

The long term ? Hmmmmmmm. If Koepka ended his career with, say, 21 Majors and only, say, 20 "other" wins would he be the GOAT ?

[Darth Putter]

Is it really a driver off the deck when it's up in the hay like that?

[tiderider]

> @Pent08 said:

> I refuse to believe that Brooks doesn't care about regular events. No competitive person plays for anything without the intent to win. The far more likely scenario is that his attributes have aligned well with the venues on which he's won.

 

he and others might take it as a point of pride that the other tournaments are "of little value", but i wonder if tiger would be in the conversation as GOAT if he'd won his 15 majors with only 60 tour wins ... the other ones count, for sure, and koepka has faired poorly in them, for the most part ... he won the CJ cup and finished 2nd at the Honda ... outside of those events, he hasn't sniffed a lead in the other regular events ...

[manku]

In tennis the majors are pretty much the only thing the public pays attention to. Why should golf be any different?

 

[SwooshLT]

> @tiderider said:

> > @Pent08 said:

> > I refuse to believe that Brooks doesn't care about regular events. No competitive person plays for anything without the intent to win. The far more likely scenario is that his attributes have aligned well with the venues on which he's won.

>

> he and others might take it as a point of pride that the other tournaments are "of little value", but i wonder if tiger would be in the conversation as GOAT if he'd won his 15 majors with only 60 tour wins ... the other ones count, for sure, and koepka has faired poorly in them, for the most part ... he won the CJ cup and finished 2nd at the Honda ... outside of those events, he hasn't sniffed a lead in the other regular events ...

 

Contended last week in Texas.... Nelson

 

 

[thegoomba]

In the "old days" guys needed to win regular tournaments for financial reasons, nowadays alot of them really don't.

[Texas1]

Just in case nobody has realised, Phil has hurt his elbow. It hasn’t been brought up enough yet today on the broadcast

[nsxguy]

Well, any chance of beating Brooks might have just showed up.

 

Apparently the wind is kicking up. If a close "trailer" handles it well and Brooks doesn't, it just might be possible,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[legitimategolf]

> @manku said:

> In tennis the majors are pretty much the only thing the public pays attention to. Why should golf be any different?

>

 

In tennis the major championships are a different format. The field is bigger than regular tournaments and they play best of five sets, not three. So to win you have to play more tennis, against a bigger field. Thus tennis Grand Slams are different, and quantifiably harder to win. Golf major championships are not that different from regular golf tournaments let's face it, other than the so-called prestige. Format wise exactly the same.

[Cwebb]

> @legitimategolf said:

> > @manku said:

> > In tennis the majors are pretty much the only thing the public pays attention to. Why should golf be any different?

> >

>

> In tennis the major championships are a different format. The field is bigger than regular tournaments and they play best of five sets, not three. So to win you have to play more tennis, against a bigger field. Thus tennis Grand Slams are different, and quantifiably harder to win. Golf major championships are not that different from regular golf tournaments let's face it, other than the so-called prestige. Format wise exactly the same.

 

Lets compare it to some other sports. In the NBA or NFL, how many teams are remembered for winning a 1st or 2nd round playoff series/game? At the highest level in today's age, championships are what it's all about for the top ranked teams and players.

 

It's why everyone is in search of the best formula for peaking at the right time and clutch big game players

[Pent08]

> > @legitimategolf said:

> > > @manku said:

> > > In tennis the majors are pretty much the only thing the public pays attention to. Why should golf be any different?

> > >

> >

> > In tennis the major championships are a different format. The field is bigger than regular tournaments and they play best of five sets, not three. So to win you have to play more tennis, against a bigger field. Thus tennis Grand Slams are different, and quantifiably harder to win. Golf major championships are not that different from regular golf tournaments let's face it, other than the so-called prestige. Format wise exactly the same.

>

> Lets compare it to some other sports. In the NBA or NFL, how many teams are remembered for winning a 1st or 2nd round playoff series/game? At the highest level in today's age, championships are what it's all about for the top ranked teams and players.

>

> It's why everyone is in search of the best formula for peaking at the right time and clutch big game players

 

So Jack and Tiger, being the best in the biz, used the "best formula" to win majors (the championships) and regular events at roughly the same clip?

[Pent08]

The scores are looking brutal so far.

[nsxguy]

> @legitimategolf said:

> > @manku said:

> > In tennis the majors are pretty much **the only thing the public pays attention to**. Why should golf be any different?

> >

>

> In tennis the major championships are a different format. The field is bigger than regular tournaments and they play best of five sets, not three. So to win you have to play more tennis, against a bigger field. Thus tennis Grand Slams are different, and quantifiably harder to win. Golf major championships are not that different from regular golf tournaments let's face it, other than the so-called prestige. Format wise exactly the same.

 

So why should golf be any different for the FANS (which is what manku is referring to) ?

 

It's similar to the major teams sports here in the USA and the regular season. So many teams get into the playoffs what's the point in watching during the season, except maybe down the stretch to see who gets in ?

 

[OldTomMorris]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @OldTomMorris said:

> > > @Dave230 said:

> > > Can't believe some people are comparing Koepka now to Tiger's peak when Tiger won more PGA Tour tournaments in 2000 than Koepka has won in his entire career.

> >

> > This performance is definitely worthy of comparison and Koepka's run in the majors is very impressive. Can he do it over the long term?

>

> The long term ? Hmmmmmmm. If Koepka ended his career with, say, 21 Majors and only, say, 20 "other" wins would he be the GOAT ?

 

I'm sure many would have him as the GOAT with 21 majors regardless of other wins. Not suggesting other wins are completely irrelevant in all debates about a player's historical standing in the game but with that hypothetical total of majors it would supersede all other achievements in the game.

[Cwebb]

> @Pent08 said:

> > > @legitimategolf said:

> > > > @manku said:

> > > > In tennis the majors are pretty much the only thing the public pays attention to. Why should golf be any different?

> > > >

> > >

> > > In tennis the major championships are a different format. The field is bigger than regular tournaments and they play best of five sets, not three. So to win you have to play more tennis, against a bigger field. Thus tennis Grand Slams are different, and quantifiably harder to win. Golf major championships are not that different from regular golf tournaments let's face it, other than the so-called prestige. Format wise exactly the same.

> >

> > Lets compare it to some other sports. In the NBA or NFL, how many teams are remembered for winning a 1st or 2nd round playoff series/game? At the highest level in today's age, championships are what it's all about for the top ranked teams and players.

> >

> > It's why everyone is in search of the best formula for peaking at the right time and clutch big game players

>

> So Jack and Tiger, being the best in the biz, used the "best formula" to win majors (the championships) and regular events at roughly the same clip?

 

Not really sure what your point is here. Yes, the best players and teams of all time, have set records in different areas