Even if he had to try and keep all his weight on his left and hit a chop with driver he should have done it instead of laying up. I like Louis, but that was like punting on third and long when down 4 from the +35 with a minute left and no timeouts.
[Reply]

He won a British Open a long time ago. But yeah he's been just short many times since then.
[Reply]

He was so good that week that he never even had to feel any pressure (won by 7). Nobody doubts the talent level but he seems to wilt repeatedly when it really matters (you absolutely cannot miss left on 17 there and he did).
[Reply]

It was 3rd and very long but you’ve got to give it a shot. I can’t think of any other top players that wouldn’t have at least tried. Not sure why he’s playing for the money at this stage of his career.
[Reply]

Furyk and Kuchar.
[Reply]

I'd rather an American won but Rahm is deserving and after his COVID DQ it's a good story line. I missed the end so I didn't see what Louis O did.
[Reply]

Was thinking of current era top players, but that’s true enough with those two.
[Reply]

That ball should have been 150 yards right before he hit it left. He could have made par from the right. Hell, DeChambeau hit it right intentionally all week.

An unforgivable mistake in that situation.

Par 17 and birdie 18, the easiest finishing hole in us open history, and he’s in a playoff.
[Reply]

I'm just glad a player with a Dad bod won the tournament..
[Reply]

I felt it in my gut watching Louie O's drive on 17
[Reply]

There's not a pro out there that can hit a 220 yard shot and stop it on that firm green from that position, period. Bot even Bryson. It was not 3rd and long, it was 4th and 99. A great shot from the fairway, with spin and closer to the green than Louie yesterday was still 30' behind the hole, and there were only a couple of those. So going for it would have made 6 a more likely score than 3 given the water, and would have been an asinine decision.

Louie sold the farm with his drive on 17 and gave himself a shot to hole a wedge at 18, which was all he had after his tee ball.
[Reply]

Louie didn’t lose it. Rahm stepped up and won it. There’s no other way to look at it.
[Reply]

As I said earlier, if there's even a 1% chance of stopping the ball on that green and winning the US Open, I'm taking it. And at least by trying to hit it to the green, you have the slimmest of chances of somehow hitting the flag and dropping and winning it outright.

What he did was just a concession, plain and simple. From a pure money management perspective, it makes all the sense in the world. It ensured 2nd place outright and extra few hundred K (and there's no doubt that's exactly why he did it given that 6 is a strong possibility if he takes that shot on). But from a competitive standpoint? In that situation? With the US Open on the line? Weak.
[Reply]

This entire discussion reminds me a bit of the ending of Tin Cup with Louis taking the role of Don Johnson and laying up on the last to take himself out of winning contention for the USO.
[Reply]

The odds of holing out from 100 yards with a controlled, spinning sand wedge from the fairway are astronomically higher than hitting the flag from a flyer lie with a run-away knuckleball and magically stopping anywhere on the green, much less near the hole. For every 220-yard heaters that hit a pin and turn out, there are dozens of holed-out wedges, at least for professional golfers.

Mickelson actually had his caddie tend the flag for a shot almost identical to the wedge Louie played yesterday at Torey Pines, a year or so ago, knowing he had a legitimate chance to hole the shot. Can't recall a pro every having his caddie tend the pin for a shot like Louie's - that would be hilarious. Louie played the odds to win, not get second place.
[Reply]