[Bob Ellington]

I agree with several other posts in this Group - that was the most boring Brirtish Open I can remember. The R&A can blame themselves for the set-up.  There is no magic to course set-ups once you pick the right course. These ruling bodies need to let the players play. Otherwise, they will turn spectators and viewers off golf.

[JohnV]

Bob, I disagree.  I thought this was a very interesting Open Championship.  At the start of Sunday's round, you had a relative unknown with a large lead and the question was could he hang on.  Right off the bat, Craig Parry and Justin Leonard started coming at him and while he faltered at times, he responded time and time again.  Finally, Parry fell by the wayside.  Then, when he had it all wrapped up, he made 3 unpardonable strokes in a row to open the door for Leonard and Lawrie.  As much as I love St. Andrews, the 18th there couldn't provide that much excitement even with Rocca's incredible finish the last time.After that, the playoff was amazing.  Think about it, a playoff where 3 players when 4 holes and only made one par between them (but did make 3 birdies.)Last night, 8 of watched the video and even though 7 of us already knew who won and that there was a playoff, we were glued to our seats wondering how in the world all this transpired.  We were at least as excited as the one person who didn't know what was coming.  Not to mention screaming at Van de Velde and Leonard about how dumb they were being.Sure Tiger and Norman didn't make the runs we would all have liked, but Lawrie did from even further off the pace so I would said it was more their fault than the course's.Having said all that, I do feel the R&A went a little overboard on the fairway widths.  But, in setting up a championship for the best players in the world, you should tend to err on the too tough side rather than the too easy side in my opinion.  Fortunately they don't err too often.

[Bob Ellington]

John V. Please name three shots (non-putts) that you enjoyed watching the pros execute - I cannot.The point I am trying to make is that the course smothered the talent rather than identified it. With shot making removed, the interest dropped for me proportionately.

[JohnV]

1) Lawrie's shots to 17 and 18 in the playoff.2) Justin's chip from beside the bunker on 16 during regulation.3) The shots on Friday that were bounced off the side of the bunker on 13 and ran down to the hole.  At least 3 or 4 players did it while I was watching.  Nice to see them play it that way instead of firing straight at the flag.As I've said here and in other places, I think that it is very hard to setup a course for the top caliber players.  The USGA and R&A do a pretty good job most of the time.  But, it is easy to make it too easy or too hard and both organizations do seem to make sure that they err on the too hard side if they err at all.It is funny that I've seen reports saying that this was a bad tournament because the champion isn't one of the greats of the game like Armour, Cotton, Hogan, Player and Watson are.  Well, when Watson one, I'm sure the same thing could have been said about him.  It was his first major and his 3rd victory overall, the same as Lawrie.  Perhaps this will vault him to greatness.

[George Blunt]

Saw this quote in September issue of Golf Magazine, any comments?(I think he should be made to play his own "new standard")"Carnoustie greenkeeper John Philp, responsible along with the R & A for the course set up, and for the re-design of the course in the last decade, didn't have much sympathy for the players. " My aim was to create a course for the new millenium, to set a new standard," he said. "Carnoustie has all the credentials and it requires a whole variety of shots.  Many of the players are simply not geared for it.  One bad bounce and they moan.  This is a different league and it requires a different game plan and a different attitude."

[TEPaul]

I can't really commiserate with the touring pro or even the fan that complains the course setup did them in or did in their favorite player or the "Stars". Part of the allure of golf is the different and distinct playing fields. Were it not so golf would not be much different than tennis. Just because the British Open and Carnoustie created a situation where the players had to set aside their week in and week out game plan of booming drives and dart throwing birdie accumulation is not a bad thing. I liked the way the British Open played out; it tested the contenders guts and decision making as much as their shot execution. In the space of an hour Van de Velde made a seven on 18 and Lawrie made a birdie; Leonard thought he needed a birdie and went for broke and failed; His frustration that he ultimately didn't need to do that is just part of the saga. The players who contend in a tournament like that realize going in that for a change the game plan is not birdie production but cutting your losses. Look at the attitude of a champion like Nicklaus (I think Woods is getting to be the same) that no matter what they have thrown at them they are going to figure out a way to win. He could probably have cared less if the score was par, twenty six under, six over or twenty six over. He had an uncanny ability to figure out going into the last round how many were ahead of him, who they were and play accordingly. I also like his "complainer factor" that anyone who complained about the conditions or the course set up was automatically discounted. We see somewhat automatic shot execution most of the year. I like the fact that once or twice the Campionship tests their smarts, guts, the luck factor as well as their shot production. I can't accept that a setup like that humiliates these guys. I think a player like Nicklaus or Woods would accept a little humiliation any day to take home the trophy because I just can't remember the winner ever accepting the trophy and saying, "Thanks a lot but I sure was humiliated".

[Tom_Egan]

To TEPaul:     Bravo!  Champions to the front; whiners to the rear.

[Tom_Doak]

Watching the event, I was horrified to see how narrowly the course had been set up, but how can anyone call the play "boring"?On reflection, I agree with John Philip, that today's pros are incapable of playing many of the shots that would reward them on a windy, firm links.  They simply hit the ball up into the wind and call it unfair when it blows into the rough.  I have no problem with Carnoustie being the hardest course in the world.But clearly the superintendent and the R&A went too far in setting up the course to make it difficult.  Difficulty should happen because of the elements -- on a course already as tough as Carnoustie, it felt very contrived to see them make it that much tougher.

[Gib_Papazian]

Boring? You must be kidding! That was some of the most exciting theatre in years. Championships come and go, and as the years go by, they tend to blur into each other in the minds of the golfing public. You can take issue with the course set-up all you want, but everyone was absolutely transfixed watching that Open unfold. Maybe that is not the best set-up for every year, but look at what a fascinating spectacle it was.

[Ran Morrissett]

There are no strategic options at the Bob Hope as the course set-up is too easy (bombs away) and there were no strategic options at Carnoustie because the course set-up was too narrow.At least a too hard set-up can indeed make for interesting viewing, just like a wet Indy track.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()