Open Boredom

[CB]

I agree that there is an added psychological element involved in a large one-group playoff.  However, although I think the added psychology very well would make the playoff more interesting, I don't think it is a necessary addition.  In my view, any advantage gained or lost by being in either twosome is not large enough to determine the outcome (did any of the four players have significantly easier or tougher conditions to endure in that playoff?).  It's not like the R&A said: "Thomas and Steve, you will tee off now, and Stuart and Ernie, you will return tomorrow to tee off at 7:00."

PGA Tour events have had playoffs with four or more players (witness Riviera last year) and they all played together because splitting them up does create an advantage whether determined by "lot" or any other means.

Matt, are you sure that is the reason that the PGA Tour puts everyone in the same group in playoffs?  My gut says their reasons are probably more related to spectators/TV ratings than ensuring fairness.  If they were all about fairness, they'd have random pairings for Thursday-Friday instead of the A/B/C player system they have now, with rookies and qualifiers relegated to 1st/last tee times of the day slots.

I should add that there is a big difference in a sudden-death playoff than a four-hole aggregate.  Remember, in a four-hole aggregate every player who starts the playoff finishes it.  In sudden death, especially with a large group, the numbers of players is likely to shrink with each hole.  It wouldn't make sense to split up the groups in a PGA Tour sudden death playoff, with the first group having to wait each hole for the other group to finish, then perhaps regrouping for the next hole.

[TEPaul]

Hod:

The way you explained it in your first paragraph is a very good way to explain it.

Also we should be reminded what Brian Phillips said that none of the other three appear to be complaining about the playoff format.

It seems to me those four probably just played the holes involved the way they had been playing them and probably felt no really need to do something radically different as some of us might think they would have in the different context of the playoff.

It seems that if any course dictated particular and personal course management strategies it certainly was Muirfield with its penal rough and bunkering . Without much wind I could sure see a tour pro playing that course in a stroke play playoff basically the same way right inline with his tournament game plan and it appears that's the way all of them played the playoff holes. So when viewers start saying that the playoff contestants needed to play some kind of match play format I'm not so sure those contestants would agree with that anyway.

Muirfield sure seemed like a course that first and foremost the game plan was not shooting yourself in the foot unless you felt there was no other but a clear aggressive option at the 11th hour or something!

[Dan Kelly]

HRPIII --

No. I'm pretty sure he's waiting for me to explain to him what he meant by "substantive contouring."

[Brian Phillips]

Guys,

Are we not now just kicking the arse out of this?  I am going to ring or fax the R&A and ask about the ruling in the morning.

Sometimes I think we outhink ourselves on this site when it comes to design or our opinions.

Who really gives a sh*t how it was played..it was the best major we have had for years and thank goodness all the players involved in the playoff are classy players.  Not only that but the best man won in the end!!

Brian

TEPaul,

I need some measurements from you soon as we are constructing the green at 0700 hrs norwegian time which is 7 hours from now!!!

[Lou Duran]

How can a thread about boredom generate 150+ replies and 1,650+ looks?  After all, GCA's resident contrarian declared that all these opinions were trash, and the well-travelled Cajun counselor/golf developer thought that it was trivial.

So what is the concensus?  Was the Open boring or not?  Did Saturday's weather add or detract from the tournament?  Was the course setup appropriate or not?  Are most folks happy because Tiger was stopped?  (IMO- it was boring; the Sat. weather detracted; the part of the setup that they could control was mostly wrong; and sadly, from what I noticed at my club, a large majority were happy that Tiger did not win).  

[Paul Richards]

Lou:

This Open was NOT boring, at least not to me.  I really enjoyed seeing someone other than Tiger win one, and maybe this can be Ernie's springboard to being Tiger's arch-nemesis!

The four-man playoff, the slip-ups by Els, and, especially, the greatest 17th hole in golf history (?) by Evans, the Englishman made for a great deal of excitement.

Add to that the very different weather patterns exhibited, and it made it really, really interesting.

Where else can a guy shoot 74-64-84 and then ruin the pattern with a 75?

[Justin_Zook]

It was boring.  I found it boring because too often the players took the conservative route.  Is that because the course's setup or design increased the risk of a shot to such an extent where the skill required to successfully negotiate the bunkers and deep rough is too much and therefore, not allow the players to justify in their minds such a decision to hit a riskier shot?  While this has probably already been covered, I don't have time to read 150 posts.  I'm not going to take away from the course in that it was probably an incredible test, but I was left with a rather bland view of Muirfield.  I love links golf, I love the Old Course, I enjoyed the charactor and originality of Lytham, but I wasn't much impressed with Muirfield.  Oh well.  Anyway, hopefully St. George's will provide a better Open next year.  

Justin Zook

PS

Tom Paul-

At Mr. Burton's course, all I've been doing is handwatering during the day and it's made me tired!  I slept for 2 and a half hours during the Open last weekend and I love major golf!  Anyway, hopefully it will rain soon!

[TEPaul]

Matt Ward:

The PGA tour and their playoffs and why they do them the way they do?

In my opinion, it's probably driven 99.9% by the needs and requirements of TV time! Big Deal!

[John Bernhardt]

Dan thank you for the Patisms. I needed it to stay with the subject. lol Lou, I guess we now know there really is a market for trivial pursuit. lol By the by Lets play in Lufkin the first week in Oct. I am playing and fishing that weekend at Toledo Bend. I would love to meet you on thursday or Monday for 18 or 36 at Crown Colony. I will need my A game to just be in the same playoff twosome with you based on Huntley's assesment of your game. John

[Patrick_Mucci]

If the BRITISH OPEN was so boring,
WHY did everybody watch it ?

[Matt_Ward]

shivas:

Appreciate your perspective and agree with it. The banding together of all playoff participants is not solely for the benefits of TV -- it's done for the reasons I already mentioned.

If others don't realize that advantages can be had by playing in front or behind without being paired together then so be it.

[TEPaul]

Jeesus:

OK, let's say it would have been better for you guys if they'd put those four players out in one group. Putting them out in two groups didn't really seem to upset them so why is it so bothersome to you all? One group may have been better but it's not a big deal.

The secretary of the R&A I heard indirectly said they did it to better handle crowd control--that's certainly one of the perogatives of the R&A and the tournment commitee--and that's reason enough although some might not think so or agree.

One group, two groups, I really don't think they were concerned which it was. You all act like some fundamental of golf, some procedure or rule was violated or abridged! It wasn't!