Open Boredom

[Bruceski]

The Open is boring because of the way ESPN/ABC televises it. They show too little golf, and too many commericials. I make the same complaint yearly.

Oh yeah, lest I forget, Muirfield would be a more interesting course at 7200 yds (or longer). Players hitting 2-5 iron off the tees, approaching with 5-7 irons and doing just fine is a joke. Isn't this a major championship?  Why are there all these run-up areas to the greens that the players don't need to use? Lengthen the course and put the driver and run-up shot more into play.

[Don_Mahaffey]

In 1980 Watson shot 64 or 65 on Sat. and he wasn't even low player for the day. Why is everyone freaking out because the scores were low on a perfect day for scoring? BTW, Watson said he used plenty of irons off the tee, because as he described it, Muirfield is a second shot course and you have to put yourself in position off the tee. What's wrong with a different type of golf?

[Lou Duran]

An Open is supposed to be a full examination, not just who can hit the straightest irons.  Also, the slow speed and softness of the greens makes the placement of the second shot less important.  If the greens were fast, I wonder if the players would have to gamble more on the tee.

[Paul Richards]

Only 3 guys shot in the 80's - 2 shot 80 and one shot 84.

These guys are good!

[TEPaul]

Apparently someone forgot to tell Phil Mickelson this year's Open at Muirfield is NOT a full examination of all the clubs in the bag! For some insane reason he's decided to use his driver!

[TEPaul]

Watching Lee Janzen get out of a greenside bunker on #18 from his knees and sinking the putt for par definitely wasn't boring--at least it definitely wasn't to me.

[Andy Hodson]

Don

I agree with you, there is nothing wrong with a different kind of course. Check out my post on "Where are the drivers?".

We bitch when they hit Driver -9 iron. We bitch when they hit 3 iron, 6 iron. We bitch when Merion is deemed too short. We bitch when Torrey Pines is 7600 yards.

Folks, these guys are not just good. They are unbelievably awesome. Who cares how they play...in a sense they are freaks. Don't worry if how they play the course is not the way you think they should. They are working for a living. Their job is to get the ball in the hole in the fewest number of strokes. They will do what they feel is best to do that. Could they hit drivers...hell yes they could, its just not the best strategy for what they are there for...to shoot the lowest score over 72 holes.

How is this Open boring? I just saw Janzen's replay...that's not boring. Els shooting 29...not very boring. Interesting recoveries, balls bouncing and rolling, small bunkers, quirky pin placements because the greens are not stimping 13...all good stuff.

[Lou Duran]

Tom,

And how many other interesting, creative shots have you seen so far?  From what I've seen, it is generally a 2 - 5 iron off the tee, a 4 - 7 from the fairway to the safe part of the greens, and a long approach putt or a chip.  Price loves the setup, and he sure knows a hell of a lot more than I do, but I had a hard time watching it without falling asleep.  As someone noted earlier, perhaps ESPN is just doing an awful job.

But your comment about Phil's club selection underlines my point.  For me at least, driving is a very important part of the game.  And as one who loves variety in golf design, I think that an Open venue in particular should test all clubs.  It seems to me that the driver along with the short game identify the best players.  Is it curious to anyone that some of the commentary praising the Muirfield setup was also critical of how Bethpage played?  There is a lot of golf to be played.  Perhaps a worthy champion will emerge from a marquee leaderboard, and the setup of Muirfield will be vindicated.  I too would like to see more shot-making like Jantzen's, and I think that this would be accomplished by giving the players more options off the tee, and making the greens more severe.  Just an opinion from someone who's never been to Scotland.  

[TEPaul]

Lou:

How many other creative shots did I see?

Well, I didn't see any others than Janzen's but that doesn't mean there weren't any. I didn't see any because I actually did fall asleep but not because I was bored--I was just tired!

[TEPaul]

Lou:

On second thought, I did see some other creative shots. I saw Faxon try a creative shot out of a revetted greenside bunker and blow it immediately followed by Els's creative shot out of the same bunker and blow it, followed by Els's very creative shot right next to the pin.

Come on Lou, that was pretty damn exciting! When was the last time you saw two world class pros leave their ball in the same bunker, one right after the other?

I saw Tiger hit a creative shot out of the hay that would have ripped my arms off at the elbows followed by his third shot approach and excellent putt for par. These are important things for the fans to see to truly understand tournament golf. I know how Woods thinks and that appeared to really get his motor moving--that kind of thing always appears more exciting to him than sinking a 30ft eagle putt. It's good for the fans to see that!

But you're right about ESPN's coverage--it's a tad bizarre. They had a news flash to Waldorf sinking a 3 foot eagle putt! It didn't seem to occur to ESPN that maybe the TV fans would have been interested in how he got his ball to 3ft in the first place!

[CB]

I don't see golf as a "test" or an "examination" at all, and I don't think it should be.  It is a game where there are many different ways to play a round, a hole, or even a single shot.  If you want to make it a test, take everyone out to a range or some controlled environment, have them all hit the same shots (drives, fairway woods, long irons, mid irons, short irons, wedges, short shots, putts, trouble shots, etc.) under identical conditions so that "luck" does not come into play, and see who is best.

It is a very American idea that the purpose of a golf tournament, especially a major, should be to identify the best player (I am American by the way); I know the USGA buys into that.  We have to find out who is the best and so we have to define what we think the requirements of being the best golfer are (long and straight driving, good long iron play, good short game and putting, etc.), set up a perfectly balanced test to reflect those requirements, take all of the luck and "rub of the green" out, play only stroke play, and only play courses that are perfectly balanced in their demands.  I say golf tournaments are played to see who can take the fewest strokes (or win the most matches) in any way necessary, and that's it.

Paul Lawrie took fewer shots than anyone under the conditions at Carnoustie in 1999.  Was he the best player?  Did he play the best?  That's not the point!  He won the tournament, and if that was partially because of luck, a good attitude while everyone else whined, Van de Velde, or anything else not directly related to his abilities, then so be it!  That's golf, always has been, always will be.

The USGA says they are trying to identify the best players in the world.  The R&A seeks to crown someone "the champion golfer of the year".  That's a big difference in philosophy, and it is reflected in how each championship is set up.

[CB]

But you're right about ESPN's coverage--it's a tad bizarre. They had a news flash to Waldorf sinking a 3 foot eagle putt! It didn't seem to occur to ESPN that maybe the TV fans would have been interested in how he got his ball to 3ft in the first place!

Isn't ESPN using the feed from the BBC for its telecast, or at least for the majority of it?  That might make things a little more random and confusing.

[TEPaul]

CB:

You were THE MAN once and you still are! Good philosophy, well explained!

Good counterpoint to those that seem to feel if the "right" golfer doesn't win, there must be something wrong with the tournament!

On the other hand weren't you the one who made them cancel the first two US Amateurs before you won on your third attempt?

[Andy Hodson]

CB

Excellent. Exactly what I have been feeling. You just articulated much better that I could.

Competition is to see who wins that day, that series, that week, that fortnight. Its for the fans, sportswriters, et al, to figure out who the "best" is.

Along those lines, I cringe everytime I hear that John Daly, or someone else, finished dead last in tournament where he made the cut.

[Bruceski]

CB,

I disagree. When the major championships are viewed historically, they are defined by their winners. Undoubtedly, in 25 years the British Open Championship will nostalgically revel in the victories of Nicklaus, Watson, Trevino, Faldo, and Woods, and easily forget about Lawrie at Carnoustie. Almost by definition, great championships MUST be won by great players. Let's hope this year's Championship won't be recalled as the unfortunate victory of Des Smyth!

[Lou Duran]

CB-

You say you don't see golf as a test or examination, and that golf tournaments are to see who finishes with the lowest number of strokes or wins most matches, in any way necessary.  Perhaps I am too obtuse, but is this not a distinction without a difference?  Sandy Tatum remarked that the intent of the USGA through the selection and setup of the US Open course is to identify the best golfers not to embarass them.  The R & A seeks to crown the "champion golfer of the year".  Both organizations are obviously seeking a much higher level of competition than that of the sponsors of the B.C. Open.  Personally, the golf that I've seen thus far at Muirfield has not been very exciting, and I attribute that to narrow fairways, impossible rough, and slow greens.  I am hoping for a 25 mph wind this weekend.  BTW, was Paul Lawrie ever more than "champion golfer" of the one week?  And no, his winning may not be a reflection of Carnoustine, only of how poorly it was set-up for that tournament.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Wow, what a tough crowd.
You play in one of the greatest sporting events in the world, you win (you know, you took fewer strokes then even Tiger), and your judged not worthy because...(fill in the blank). Are the Patriots worthy Super Bowl Champs (after all they did win) or, because they weren't picked by many "experts" does that make them not worthy?
I love sport, and I love the idea of some no named pro playing his way into a world event and then making a run at the title. For those of you who don't think the guy who wins is worthy of the title, stick to events like the skins game or the battle of bighorn. I'm sure you will consider the players at those events to be "worthy" champions.

[Paul_Turner]

CB has it right.  The Open is all the better for the occasional "fluky" winner.  After all, that's what links golf is all about!

[Patrick_Mucci]

No ONE is supposed to win.

It has been my limited observation that they award the trophies at the conclusion of the tournament, not at the begining.  And, they usually award them to the player who has posted the lowest score.

CB,

A lot has changed since your demise.

Tour pros disect a golf course, then execute the most efficient method to play it.  
Options..... well..... for the PGA TOUR PRO,
They've sadly gone the way of the STYMIE.

The coverage seems like a series of sound bites, without much continuity.  I'd like to see more tee shots, iron shots, and trouble shots.  Three foot putts and gimmee putts don't hold much appeal, unless they're missed (rarely)

[Lynn Shackelford]

Yes, it is different, in some ways boring, because of the telecast.  Yes, the big problem with the British Open has always been the necessity of taking the BBC feed.  In the first two majors, commercials are limited, they obviously aren't here.  I am wearing out my remote FF thru them.  There are none to few close-ups of either the player's expression, lie of the ball in rough or low angle of putting line.  There is little to no sound of the ball being struck.
In America TV dicates many things, it is obvious they are allowed only so many cameras at Muirfield.  We are used to the crowd reaction, and we are not getting it here.  The sound techniques employed by the BBC are unlike anything we are used to.  It is like watching "Friends" without the "dubbed in" laughter.  No one would know when something funny is said.  On the golf we have to be told when there is a good shot, and hearing it from Curtis Strange takes away the enjoyment.  
Still there is a good leaderboard and the hope of wind.

[redanman]

Most of you guys need to take a step back and re-read this trash.

ABC and ESPN's coverage isn't very good, especially if you have ever watched the BBC, but sheeesh.  I guess I am really an outlier.  Maybe the course is a little soft and there isn't much wind, but  

[Mike_Cirba]

CB;

Wonderfully stated, and I couldn't agree more.  I love your analogy of taking them out to the driving range, where all that matters is the perfect execution of "shots".  Taken to the extreme, the range should be domed and temperature controlled, with fans watching on remote monitors so as not to disturb the contestants.  

Uncertainty is why we keep coming back to this game.  Not that a fine shot shouldn't be rewarded most of the time, but this is a game we play out in the wilds of nature, and it should be an adventure as much as a "test".  There are other things that we should test besides shotmaking and putting abilities, and the best courses test our resolve, patience, and ability to accept misfortune and continue on undeterred.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

Why aren't there more courses in the Artic and Antartic ?  

[Paul Richards]

I think we have just witnessed the Anti-Van de Velde - Gary
Evans.  What this gentleman did down the stretch was just amazing!

Saving par at 16, losing his second shot on #17 and saving par with a 50-foot putt, and then almost melting down on 18, but saving enough composure to make bogey - priceless!!!

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Because it's damn cold!!

Actually, Mr. Keiser's idea of a course 2 hours north of Dornoch starts to approach that idea.  He doesn't seem all that inclined to concern himself with notions of coddling the golfer through providing a pleasant, fair experience.