A Foreign Trend....

[Bob_Huntley]

I know that a god number of overseas players make their home here in America, but the results in the US Open seem to indicate that the 'furriners' are gathering momentum.

Six out of the top ten and eleven in the top twenty is a pretty good haul.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Bob,

I think the momentum has been here for a little while.  Twelve out of the top 20 in the World Golf Ranking are "furriners."  

When is there going to be a Europe vs. Rest-of-World Ryder Cup-type match?   Loser plays the lowly U.S.  

[Philip Gawith]

Not always so clear what a foreigner is these days - apparently Ernie got all sulky on Day One when introduced as coming from Johannesburg, South Africa.

You might have thought he wanted them to say that he came from Germiston/Boksburg , not Johannesburg, but apparently he wanted to make a bigger point, claiming he has not lived in SA since 1989.  A curious standpoint for one who has always been a heart on the sleeve patriot.

[ForkaB]

Bob

With less than 5% of the world population, we have a higher percentage of leading golfers than we have greehouse gas emissions.  I'd say that's a pretty good result!

[David_Tepper]

Bob -

I think Pinehurst #2 was especially suited to the foreign players. Campbell and others commented that Pinehurst was similar to a number of the Australian sandbelt courses (Royal Melbourne, Kingston Heath, etc.) they had played many times before. I am not so sure the foreign players would do quite as well on a '"typical" tree-lined, rough around the greens, US Open venue such as Winged Foot or Oak Hill.

That being said, there is no denying that the foreign-born players are having a bigger impact on the US tour than ever before, due to coming to the US on college golf scholarships and/or playing either of the US pro tours on a full-time basis.

DT

[mike_beene]

It would also seem a Southern Hills or Pinehurst have more familiar grasses for South Africans,Australians,etc.Plus,a lot of these players spend off tour time in Fla. or Dallas.Short bermuda rough shots are a different animal.

[David_Elvins]

It is a pity that the foreign players are ruining the game of golf.  

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/golf/usopen/story/2519105p-8923100c.html

"...Campbell's win was great for his career, his bank account and his family, but it wasn't great for golf...Campbell finished at even par, collected $1.17 million and left fans caught between wondering who was that guy and what is the point of this game?...it could be a feel-good story, but this was a no-feeling story...Golf needs big names, appealing personalities, big hitters and late charges. It didn't get them at the Open. What it got were leaders ballooning over par, a winner few recognize and an end to talk about Tiger Woods winning the Grand Slam...a brief legend named Jason Gore....Sports thrive on the unpredictable, but golf and the Open in particular, seem caught in a situation where no-name golfers regularly beat the big boys, or scoring machines like Retief Goosen and Vijay Singh win with either a numbing style or numbing regularity...This Open showed the flatness afflicting the game in the United States. Woods is still a great player, but he has lost his dominance. Phil Mickelson embarrassed himself here. John Daly no longer bursts through. David Duval was here but still invisible. Meanwhile, the leaderboard was half full of little-known international players who are little known for a reason.... Maybe it was just bad luck and good work by Campbell that produced the result...But the image of golf can't afford too many more of these shows"

[RJ_Daley]

The article strikes me as a crock...  No player that I heard was complaining of unfairness, like last year.  It is what it is.  This business of having to have a tournament where the stars of the regular tour dominate is bogus.  It is an OPEN!  The whole 'tin cup' thing where a fellow can get qualified (like Campbell's qualifiying in Europe) is one of the good things about it.  When Francis Ouimet won out of nowhere, then it was an exciting story that he took on the big guns of his time and prevailed.  This is an undeserved backhanded disrespect of Micheal Campbell.  He won it fair and square, and did so by playing himself into it in the ideal fashion of qualifying.  Olin Browne also played his way in with phenomenals rounds, shooting 73-59!  That is the quest, and that is what makes it interesting that a fellow with talent, and just never had all the stars lined up for his career, can have that shining moment.

Whining that your super heroes didn't shine through is really embarrisingly homerism.  

[RJ_Daley]

The more I think about the article, the more pissed I'm getting.  To continue the rant... what about Hensby? The fellow was sleeping in his car a few years ago to follow his dream for cripes sake!  Had he won, they could make a movie out or it.  Gore was a sentimental figure too, even if he collapsed with is pairing partner the last day.  I am getting tired of the notion that only the most marketed IMG represented players can or should win opens.  We are supposed to be the land of opportunity.  The ideal of the US Open ought to mimick that ideal.  

I think for once the underdog came through in a tough battle at the end with the favorite.  That is hopeful, inspiring, and in the best tradition.  We shouldn't revere the notion of the struggle, but the big famous guy always wins in the end.  That is imperial and not our tradition, IMHO.

[David_Elvins]

The more I think about the article, the more pissed I'm getting.  To continue the rant... what about Hensby? The fellow was sleeping in his car a few years ago to follow his dream for cripes sake!  Had he won, they could make a movie out or it.  Gore was a sentimental figure too, even if he collapsed with is pairing partner the last day.  I am getting tired of the notion that only the most marketed IMG represented players can or should win opens.  We are supposed to be the land of opportunity.  The ideal of the US Open ought to mimick that ideal.  

I think for once the underdog came through in a tough battle at the end with the favorite.  That is hopeful, inspiring, and in the best tradition.  We shouldn't revere the notion of the struggle, but the big famous guy always wins in the end.  That is imperial and not our tradition, IMHO.

I think there is slightly more to the article than the big guy vs the little guy.  New Zelander Campbell is a "no-feel story" yet Gore the American is a "legend".  The USA's Tiger needs to "dominate" the game but Fiji's Singh wins with "mind numbing regularity".  The writing seems incredibly xenophobic to me.  

[RJ_Daley]

The Open features a great course and a great field. It didn't turn out to be a great show. Maybe it was just bad luck and good work by Campbell that produced the result. But the image of golf can't afford too many more of these shows. The USGA should find a way to test the star player's potential as well as his patience.

While at least acknowleging "good work" by Campbell, the other part of this implies to me that it is only a great show if the most well known, perhaps top "image" players do well.  I love the underlying implications that despite all the minions of IMG agents and associates that work around the clock to build those marketable images of fellows like Tiger (and I'm not just going after Tiger for the sake of Tiger bashing) a steady talented, patient and courageous fellow can come through.

I don't know hardly anything about Campbell.  Perhaps because he doesn't have US image maker agents out there (yet )  He may or may not be a humble fellow.  But, at least the game won out on a great and fair golf course, this time.  We didn't need to see a miracle chip with the Nike logo just falling dead in the hole like the 16th Masters.  Oh yes, that was an image maker and marketing event for the ages.  But this time, the result was the anti-image maker's day to prevail.  We need those sort of major sporting events too in order to keep some concept of purity in the game...

[Tom Dunne]

I'm mystified by this column on so many levels that I admit to jumbled thinking, so in no particular order:

1. You definitely do not get the sense that this column would have been written if "legend" Jason Gore (a genuine no-name, unlike Campbell) had won the tournament. On my first read I didn't sense xenophobia at work, but David Elvins' post definitely made me think twice about what's beneath the surface here.

2. Barnett talks about the need for "appealing personalities". By the way Campbell acquitted himself during and after his final round, I found him to be genuinely likable. This is entirely subjective of course, but I don't think it would be hard to argue that Cambo has a much more "appealing personality" than Retief, one of the "big names" Barnett would have preferred to see win. He also mentions stone-faced David Duval as one of the "big names" that just aren't shining through anymore.

3. At what point does a player become enough of a "recognizable name" to warrant genuine congratulations on winning a major? Should the USGA simply select their field based on Q Scores? Roll out Adam Sandler in the role of Happy Gilmore? It should be noted that Retief's win at Southern Hills was his first in the U.S. He was hardly a household name. Everyone's gotta start somewhere, right?

4. I don't doubt for a second that there is a fascinating back story in the journey that Michael Campbell made. Some journalists on deadline are just frustrated that they didn't know it in advance. But he clearly means an awful lot to New Zealand. His Maori heritage would be a compelling element to explore, as would be what he went through in his career after St Andrews in '95. There's a great story out there, but it's probably not going to be filed on the Monday after the U.S. Open. I couldn't agree more with RJ Daley's phrase "backhanded disrespect".

It's a shame. Michael Campbell played inspired golf and this is the kind of post-game analysis that American readers are supposed to digest. Lame.