Worst Playoff Hole 17th TPC

[cary lichtenstein]

Ill probably catch a bunch of flak for this,I hated yesterday's playoff.

These guys grinded thru 4 days, 72 holes, and a wedge shot, with 40 mph winds, hit between gusts settles this with the best field in golf.

Come on, how anticlamatic was that. Why not at least 3 holes and finish it on 17 so there is some build up, so strategy, something other than splash, over, done!!!!!!!!

[Steve_Lovett]

Cary - Which hole would you have suggested they play?

I think any sudden death scenario on a hole with water has "splash, done" potential...

[jeffwarne]

It kind've depends on your opinion of the hole.

I like the hole (though I share your opinion of the course Cary)

If a player can win or lose a tournament on the 72 hole, why not the 73rd?

[Randy Thompson]

Did Sergio not have the same conditions. There are a lot of nerves working in a playoff and if you ask me the more confident player won, we will never know but I beleive in almost any scenario of playoff holes would have led to the same winner. Why drag it out!

[Jeff Grossman]

Did not like the playoff starting on 17.  No margin for error.  I guess they wanted to end it quik.  For being the so-called 5th major they should at least start on a hole that you could possible recover from a errent shot. 

IMHO, I believe they should have a 3 hole playoff!

[BVince]

I liked it...fast finish instead of a drawn out one

[David Kelly]

They keep hyping the "Run the Gauntlet" finish of 16, 17 & 18.  Why not use it for the playoff?

[Bob_Huntley]

With a gimmicky hole as the seventeenth to decide the "5th Major" I am not sure what Finchem has in mind in trying to elevate this to something which it is not.

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

Cary,

Are you suggesting that you'll pay for the air time for a three hole playoff.

Look at the issue from the costs to the networks, sponsors of scheduled programs that follow the tournament, etc., etc..

[Mike Bowline]

Cary, I agree with you, I was disappointed to see the playoff begin @ #17. To have the luck of the wind gusts, which affected both players, be the ultimate deciding factor I found anti-climactic. I thought it was a bad decision to start on #17, and I will bet the thousands of people along #18 also were disappointed.

[Chip Gaskins]

i think it was kind of cool, and i have never applauded the PGA Tour brass for being cool at anything, nor have i a love affair with Sawgrass, but i did like the 17th playoff.  much much better than 18 holes or even 3-4 holes.  it is the "5th" major for a reason.  might as well be different and add a little fun and drama.

[J_ Crisham]

Cary,
       I agree completely-sad that a tournament could be decided on such a gimicky hole in a 40mph cross wind. On a completely different subject, they can dress this tournament up as much as they want but like it or not at the end of the day it is NOT a Major! 40 yrs from now we will all be able to recite past Masters Champions-I doubt this will be the case with the TPC. Ask any TPC winner which they would chose the Claret Jug ,Green Jacket ,etc in exchange for the TPC title. Pretty easy choice ,10 yr exemption or golf immortality.

[Brock Peyer]

I like the idea of playing 16, 17 and 18 for the playoff but I think sudden death is better for the TPC and liked it on 17.  The bad thing with 3 hole playoffs is that if you get a 2 shot swing on the first hole, it can be pretty much over.

[Steve_Lovett]

Most seem to think the playoff should have started on a different hole...

Please provide the best hole at TPC to have started a sudden death playoff - and the sequence of subsequent holes should it have continued...

[JohnV]

I think it was a mistake.  With the wind blowing both players could easily have hit it in the water.  Then they go to the drop area and it comes down to a 90 yard shot.

I would prefer 18-16-17-18 ...

Most of the fans would be at 18 and it seems fair to let them see the possible finish first.

[Steve_Lovett]

I was at the tournament on Sunday - and watched much of the first half of the field from the bleachers behind the 17th.  Based upon that - a few observations...

First - the wind blew harder than you can imagine on TV.  I expected many more scores in the 80's, and many more balls in the water on 17.  The fact that the players could control their shots as they did is testament to how good they are.

Second - I probably saw 5-6 players hit in the lake on #17 Sunday.  I recall at least a couple got up and down from the drop area for bogey.  Off the top of my head I can think of at least four players I saw three putt for bogey.  Hitting the green is not the be-all end-all to determine scoring on that hole.

Third - Sergio hit nearly a perfect shot in the playoff; island green, windy day, or not.  Goydos admitted his shot was better on the 71st hole, and his trajectory got too high in the playoff.  From the drop zone, Goydos could easily have made bogey.  If Garcia's lands a few feet left of where it did it stays on top of the hill and brings a 3-putt into play. 

It could've gone either way - but Garcia was rewarded for hitting a better shot...

If 18 had been the first playoff hole - and Goydos had hit his drive in the water - there is nearly no chance to recover and make bogey.  Garcia could've played it as a par-5, safely.  Is that really more of an anticlimax.?

[BVince]

Maybe they should of went to ANGC to play it off. 

Come on guys...how many people were sad to see the playoff at 17 before the events?  Most everyone I talked to, except for this board, liked to see it go to 17 and were excited about the hole.   

I disagree completely with the thread and I am not trying to be the devil's advocate.  The course is a great test, it was fun to watch (even without Tiger), and the 17th is a great playoff hole.  No bigger test of how the player can handle the nerves than the 17th.

[jeffwarne]

If a tourney can be decided on 18 with a four footer (Sergio's-if he makes it he loses)
why not on a par 3?

18 hole playoffs are a snooze-as are 3-4 holers.
What other sport takes an entire day to decide a tied outcome? (besides Cricket)

Why should there be a chance for recovery in a playoff?
besides that there was (he could've holed after his drop)

[David Kelly]

it is the "5th" major for a reason. 

Yes and the reasons are: hype, a large purse, the exemption and an endless number of golf journalists needing to fill column space.

[Ray Richard]

I liked the suspense of a high iron shot heading to the 17th green, with a frisky wind. The suspense was enhanced because of the time it took for the announcers to figure out if Goydos' shot was in the water or land. It was a bad announcer day from my seat.

[Tim Pitner]

I like the 4-hole playoff for a tournament as important as the Open Championship (as close to a true World Championship as there is in golf).  For the Players, sudden death is sufficient.  I don't see any problem with starting at #17.  It's the signature hole, right?  Why not feature it in the playoff? 

[Bill Satterfield]

Why a three hole playoff?  The arguement is made that they play for 4 days/72 holes and it shouldn't be settled on the island green.  Why not?  You had 4 days and 72 holes to prove yourself prior to the playoff.  It's not like it was the difference between 1st and last place.  Over the course of 72 holes two players finished with the same score and a quick ending to the tournament seems like a logical way to do it.  The 17th is the most demanding shot of the course given the circumstances and provided a fair way to award the player that could execute the best shot when it meant the most.

[Richard Choi]

I agree with Bill. You had 72 holes to separate yourself, why do you need three more?

All playoffs should be sudden death and 17 is as good as any with more drama than anything else I can think of.

And to those that argue that a sudden gust of wind should not decide a winner, who says? Luck plays a HUGE part in who wins or loses. Sergio could have made a couple of more putts if were not for some wind gusts. Paul could have made a better chip or two if it was not for a flyer, etc., etc. If the luck had a huge part of who got to the playoffs, why shouldn't luck be a factor in deciding who wins?

[George Pazin]

Hated it. I thought it was the single worst playoff I've ever seen in golf.

Reminds me of the old saying, be careful what you wish for. Someone thought it would be cool, it ended up being anticlimactic. Not even remotely well thought out, imho.

At least many of the other water holes - 16 or 18, for instance - would allow some sort of opportunity for recovery. You can bogey 18 hitting it into the water, and bogey it quite easily not hitting it in. Those two scenarios together on 17 are pretty unlikely.

I don't mind sudden death, I just hate the playoff being on a hole where wind has an especially large influence on the outcome.

[Tim Pitner]

I don't mind sudden death, I just hate the playoff being on a hole where wind has an especially large influence on the outcome.

Why bother playing the (British) Open at all, then?  What's the saying, "nae wind, nae golf." 

I think it was the water rather than the wind that dictated the outcome.