Golf

They have to do something about the slow play of Spieth though. He consults his note-book. Then his caddy consults his note-book etc etc. No wonder golf viewing figures are dropping. Good viewing nonetheless even if I was surfing between the Women's World Cup Cricket Final.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

Well I suppose it is but - given the history involved and the fact that there were 31 "63s" - it is still a major milestone. It is the lowest number of shots taken in a major but it is not the lowest round to Par - the 63s that were -9 were:
1. Gary Player 1984 USPGA Shoal Creek
2. Nick Price 1985 US Masters
3. Paul Broadhurst 1990 Open at St. Andrews
4. Greg Norman 1996 US Masters
5. Jose Maria Olazabal 1996 USPGA Valhalla
6. Rory McIlroy 210 Open at St. Andrews
7. Hiroshi Iwata 2016 USPGA Whisling Straights
8. Justin Thomas 2017 US Open Erin Hills

---

Yeah, i understand it, and a number like 62 sounds better than a number under par.

It would have been nicer if it had happened on a 72 par course though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

Yeah, i understand it, and a number like 62 sounds better than a number under par.

It would have been nicer if it had happened on a 72 par course though.

---

I think it was a significant achievement given the winning score was -12. No doubt it would have been better on a par 72 but how many par 72's are on the major roster these days ? Apart from Augusta - and they ain't setting up for ten under par anytime soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OwlsFan

They have to do something about the slow play of Spieth though. He consults his note-book. Then his caddy consults his note-book etc etc. No wonder golf viewing figures are dropping. Good viewing nonetheless even if I was surfing between the Women's World Cup Cricket Final.

---

Me too. Cricket final was very exciting. India really blew it I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

Me too. Cricket final was very exciting. India really blew it I think.

---

Yes they had it won, then got the jitters and looked as if they would lose, then fought back and then collapsed again. Good stuff. The interview of the England/Wales captain at the end was bizarre though and shows the madness of Sky TV. They got all the team up on the podium after introducing each and then we await the cup to be presented but no, the captain is then called over for an interview, with the team all standing on the podium waiting for the cup. Do the interview afterwards. There was also no big shot (e.g. royalty etc) on hand to present a World Cup to a UK side. Poor form.

So you felt like there were crickets during the interview?