Is final score really that important?

[Anthony Gray]

  We're already hearing discussions about how low the scoring will be at the Open. I'm tired of it already. The attempts at keeping the winner of the US Open at level par has taken the drama away from the event. Isn't one of the greatest attributes about the Masters is that a player can go low on the back 9 and come up victorious. Who cares if a player finishes at -20 this Open.Low scoring should not diminish the event or The Old Course in any way.


  Discuss.....

[TEPaul]

Of course I am very glad to see that the Masters has essentially most always tried to encourage immense drama by making the course and setting up the course to promote temptation that results in dramatic, crowd-roaring eagles and birdies and such as well as round and tournament wrecking hole scores if the competitors do not succeed.

However, I am also very glad to see that the USGA with their US Open (and particularly the way Mike Davis is doing it recently) does not subscribe to that philosophy. The US Open is more about intelligent caution, patience and survival. The idea is to let other competitors over-reach and try to grab the Brass Ring too often strategically and fail.

I like the difference in philosophy and I feel The Open has something of its very own too that is also somewhat unique and different from the other two.

This all shows me just how variable and varied and therefore interesting golf can be! In this particular way it is just so different than any other ball and particularly stick and ball game in the world that of necessity must be standardized because the ball is vied for between human opponents completely unlike golf.

[John Moore II]

I think golf courses should be generally set up to reward well played shots highly and punish poor shots heavily. I do subscribe to the thought that a poor shot aught to be punished and that shot be lost to the course permanently. Bunkers aught to be at least half shot penalties, if not worse. But there should also be room to have the big drama that is seen at The Master's. Its a hard combination. But that is how I think a course should play. Something of a combination between a US Open and The Master's, but not exactly a compromise in the middle.

[Peter Pallotta]

For some reason, when they used to say the winning score was 279 or 282 or 287, it seemed more palatable, and also cooler.

Maybe because when it was listed as total shots played, it was pretty clear that the winner was the best golfer that week, i.e. the one with the lowest number of strokes next to his name.

But when it was turned by into a score relative to par, and that score got to minus 20, somehow it seemed to become more about the golf course than the golfer, or the quality of the golf played.  

And as soon as the discussion becomes about the golf course, it seems to become binary (especially in the context of a major championship), i.e. does the golf course test the best players in the world or does it not?

The trouble is, that question-answer allows for very little nuance; it's either yes or no. And no one wants a championship test that doesn't test the best golfers in the world.  

Peter

[Steve Lang]

  how about a view?

[astavrides]

  Discuss.....

When you start a new topic on a discussion group, most of the participants can do the math for themselves as to what they are supposed to do.  Thanks for the reminder though.

[Anthony Gray]

  Discuss.....

When you start a new topic on a discussion group, most of the participants can do the math for themselves as to what they are supposed to do.  Thanks for the reminder though.

  If I'm bad at spelling why do you assume I'm good at math?


  Anthony