[Richard Choi]

Paul said in the interview, "the wedge shot ballooned a little more (in the playoff)".

Look, if he had the skills to hit the controlled, lower wedge shot, he would not have had such variety in results. But his shots are mostly high fades.

It was ultimately his lack of skills to control his shots in the wind that cost him. Isn't that exactly what we want to encourage pro golfers to do?

[Carl Rogers]

Its strength is its weakness and vice versa.

IMO, it would make a far more interesting hole as a half and half humongous waste bunker (in which a recovery shot might be possible) on the left and water on the right.

Keep the bulkhead all around.

[BVince]

This is proof that it is impossible to please everyone

[Will MacEwen]

I didn't like it for the playoff as it was decided on the tee in short order.  Killed the suspense for me.

[Lou_Duran]

As David Kelly recommends, "Run the Gauntlet".  Too much riding on just one shot where chance alone can dictate the results.  Yeah, just knock it down.  So easy to say!  End results would probably still be the same, but didn't underdog Todd Hamilton win The Open under a similar format (four holes, I think, in that case)?   

[George Pazin]

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. 

Tim, I meant specifically as it pertains to one shot. Testing the abilities of all golfers in tough conditions is entirely separate from allowing the winner of a tournament to be determined largely by luck.

To summarize:

Chance for 72 hole tournament = good. Wait, no, great.

Chance for 1 single shot to determine winner on extra hole = bad.

Might as well flip a coin.

 

Hope that's more clear.

[Richard Choi]

George, does that mean you believe that no course should have an 18th hole that has water hazards or out of bounds?

Even better, how about this? What if Goydos addressed the ball on the 18th to putt and a sudden gust of wind moved the ball? 1 stroke penalty and we don't even get to the playoffs.

That is 1 single shot that determines the winner on the last hole.

How would that be different than the same scenario happening in the playoffs?

[Kalen Braley]

George, does that mean you believe that no course should have an 18th hole that has water hazards or out of bounds?

Even better, how about this? What if Goydos addressed the ball on the 18th to putt and a sudden gust of wind moved the ball? 1 stroke penalty and we don't even get to the playoffs.

That is 1 single shot that determines the winner on the last hole.

How would that be different than the same scenario happening in the playoffs?

Couldn't agree more with Richard Choi's comments in this thread.

I will never understand for the life of me how 72 holes is perfectly fine to determine a champion, but yet adding one more hole is all of a sudden "unfair".  73 is just as arbitrary as 72 in my mind, and last time I checked they all had to play the same 73 golf holes.

That 1 single shot could come in the form of a foozled iron on the 4th hole in the 2nd round...but no one ever talks about that.  Whether that bad break happens on the 22nd hole or the 73rd hole is completely irrelevant.  Sergio got the job done, Goydos came up just short.

[George Pazin]

I thought it was clear from my earlier post that a par 4 and a par 5 with water at least allow more chance to overcome a fluke. It's also quite obvious that any sudden death has the opportunity to have a bizarre incident determine the outcome.

It is another thing entirely to choose a hole such as the 17th, where it's not simply the normal rub of the green chance, but rather it is a hole that almost invites a luck-based outcome.

As I said, be careful what you wish for.

[George Pazin]

That 1 single shot could come in the form of a foozled iron on the 4th hole in the 2nd round...but no one ever talks about that.  Whether that bad break happens on the 22nd hole or the 73rd hole is completely irrelevant.  Sergio got the job done, Goydos came up just short.

For a normally sensible poster, this is just silly. I mean that in a friendly 19th hole discussion way, but it is just silly.

[Kalen Braley]

That 1 single shot could come in the form of a foozled iron on the 4th hole in the 2nd round...but no one ever talks about that.  Whether that bad break happens on the 22nd hole or the 73rd hole is completely irrelevant.  Sergio got the job done, Goydos came up just short.

For a normally sensible poster, this is just silly. I mean that in a friendly 19th hole discussion way, but it is just silly.

George,

Its all good, no harm/offense taken.  I am curious if you could explain why this is silly?

[George Pazin]

You have many days/holes/shots to recover from a mistake, or an unfortunate event such as a gust blowing your ball into a hazard, throughout an event.

In a sudden death playoff, you have only that hole. When it's a par 3 surrounded by water, you are allowing far too great of a chance that one freak gust of wind determines your champion.

I think equating the two is just silly.

I'm not saying one should strive to eliminate all variables that are chance-oriented; I'm simply saying you can reasonably minimize them by not choosing the first playoff hole to be a hole that relies so heavily on chance. Try first to let the superior skill of the golfers determine the outcome - if it drags on, you can always bring in luck later.

[Dan Chapman]

Personally, I was pretty excited about the idea and then it happened and I thought, "well that was stupid."

[Richard Choi]

I thought it was clear from my earlier post that a par 4 and a par 5 with water at least allow more chance to overcome a fluke. It's also quite obvious that any sudden death has the opportunity to have a bizarre incident determine the outcome.

But what if that fluke happens on the 72nd hole? You have no chance to overcome that fluke!

By following your logic, that means that no lead change is allowed on the 72nd hole (since you did not have a chance to "overcome" that change). And if any change occurs, you have to tack on 3 holes just to allow players to "overcome" that fluke.

I don't know how equating 72nd hole to 73rd hole is "silly"...

[Kalen Braley]

George,

I think it goes much deeper than this..which is many have the notion that an extra stroke counts for more, or is worse on the 72nd hole than it is on the 1st hole.  The reality is, thier weight is the same.  If a gust blows your ball into the water in the 1st round, and not the 4th round, is that somehow better because it happened on the 17th hole as opposed to the 71st hole?  Mathematically they are the same, it is the human pysche that only equates these as being worse.

The same analogy exists in virutally every other sport.  You can hardly watch a close basketball game where someone misses a last second shot and isn't devastated.  I saw why?  If his teammate hadn't of missed that layup in the 1st qtr, then he wouldn't have been there in the first place.

If winning or losing a championship is really that much more on the 73rd hole, then why even play the previous 72 holes?  I won't disagree that its tough to lose like that, but how is it any different than hitting your ball in the drink on the 72nd hole?  They are all the same, and a stroke is a stroke, regardless of how its earned.

[Mike Bowline]

I think it goes much deeper than this..which is many have the notion that an extra stroke counts for more, or is worse on the 72nd hole than it is on the 1st hole.  The reality is, thier weight is the same.  If a gust blows your ball into the water in the 1st round, and not the 4th round, is that somehow better because it happened on the 17th hole as opposed to the 71st hole?  Mathematically they are the same, it is the human pysche that only equates these as being worse.

The same analogy exists in virutally every other sport.  You can hardly watch a close basketball game where someone misses a last second shot and isn't devastated.  I saw why?  If his teammate hadn't of missed that layup in the 1st qtr, then he wouldn't have been there in the first place.

If winning or losing a championship is really that much more on the 73rd hole, then why even play the previous 72 holes?  I won't disagree that its tough to lose like that, but how is it any different than hitting your ball in the drink on the 72nd hole?  They are all the same, and a stroke is a stroke, regardless of how its earned.

Kalen, the fallacy in your argument IMO is that the missed layup in the 1st Q could have  changed the process on the way to the final missed shot that cost the team the game. We will never know the effects of something that happened earlier in the game/tournament/etc on what happened later.

In the golf toon-a-mint, shots taken near the end of the round on the final day, while still counting the same as the shots taken on Day 1, have a greater EFFECT on the outcome because the time to recover from an error is reduced due to less holes to play and on which to recover.

That is why is personally was disappointed to see #17 be the beginning hole of the playoff. It was all or nothing, with the vagarities of the wind playing way too important a role, IMHO.

[Kalen Braley]

I think it goes much deeper than this..which is many have the notion that an extra stroke counts for more, or is worse on the 72nd hole than it is on the 1st hole.  The reality is, thier weight is the same.  If a gust blows your ball into the water in the 1st round, and not the 4th round, is that somehow better because it happened on the 17th hole as opposed to the 71st hole?  Mathematically they are the same, it is the human pysche that only equates these as being worse.

The same analogy exists in virutally every other sport.  You can hardly watch a close basketball game where someone misses a last second shot and isn't devastated.  I saw why?  If his teammate hadn't of missed that layup in the 1st qtr, then he wouldn't have been there in the first place.

If winning or losing a championship is really that much more on the 73rd hole, then why even play the previous 72 holes?  I won't disagree that its tough to lose like that, but how is it any different than hitting your ball in the drink on the 72nd hole?  They are all the same, and a stroke is a stroke, regardless of how its earned.

Kalen, the fallacy in your argument IMO is that the missed layup in the 1st Q could have  changed the process on the way to the final missed shot that cost the team the game. We will never know the effects of something that happened earlier in the game/tournament/etc on what happened later.

In the golf toon-a-mint, shots taken near the end of the round on the final day, while still counting the same as the shots taken on Day 1, have a greater EFFECT on the outcome because the time to recover from an error is reduced due to less holes to play and on which to recover.

That is why is personally was disappointed to see #17 be the beginning hole of the playoff. It was all or nothing, with the vagarities of the wind playing way too important a role, IMHO.

Mike,

I certainly understand your viewpoint here, but if you take this to its absurd conclusion...then the last few holes on any golf course hosting a tournament shouldn't have:

Water, OB, Bunkers, rough, undulating greens etc,

Because it may not be fair and provide enough time to recover if one makes a mistake on the 70-72nd holes.  Do you think Goydos should have not had to play 18 coming in when he had to make par on a brutally tough hole?  Is that any different than having to play 17 in the playoff? I don't see any difference between playing 17 as the 71st hole vs the 73rd holes.  Couldn't one make a reasonable argument that the "vagaries" are the same?  Additionallyl 18 also gives you two reasonable opportunities to hit the ball into water....on the tee shot and the approach shot.  Shouldn't 18 also be under the same scruntiny as the 72nd hole?

To me this seems to be a grey arbitrary line on where some think the line should be drawn. My take is every stroke counts the same at the end, and if one doesn't feel comfortable playing the 125 yard shot to the green, then why not just layup over to the drop zone which is a much easier shot to play to the green?     I'll bet Garland would love that option.  

[George Pazin]

I thought it was clear from my earlier post that a par 4 and a par 5 with water at least allow more chance to overcome a fluke. It's also quite obvious that any sudden death has the opportunity to have a bizarre incident determine the outcome.

But what if that fluke happens on the 72nd hole? You have no chance to overcome that fluke!

By following your logic, that means that no lead change is allowed on the 72nd hole (since you did not have a chance to "overcome" that change). And if any change occurs, you have to tack on 3 holes just to allow players to "overcome" that fluke.

I don't know how equating 72nd hole to 73rd hole is "silly"...

What makes it silly is that there is a very very small chance that something fluky will happen on any given hole or shot - EXCEPT THE 17th AT SAWGRASS. There is a much much larger chance of something fluky happening there, as evidenced by the frequency with which it does. Equating a minute 1 or 2% chance with a 20-30% chance is just silly.

Kalen, the key to the silliness is your own very use of the phrase "take it to its absurd conclusion".

Why are tournaments 72 holes? Why not 9 holes? That would be a couple hours, the length of many sporting events.

Accepting chance as an accompaniment is one thing - making it a primary component of determining a winner is another entirely.

[Richard Choi]

What makes it silly is that there is a very very small chance that something fluky will happen on any given hole or shot - EXCEPT THE 17th AT SAWGRASS. There is a much much larger chance of something fluky happening there, as evidenced by the frequency with which it does. Equating a minute 1 or 2% chance with a 20-30% chance is just silly.

George, the number do not back your argument.

The scoring average for the 17th (in 2007) was 3.386 and 18th was 4.409. I believe the numbers for this year is very similar (actually, 18th was much worse with close 4.9 average).

There is greater chance that something fluky happens at the 18th with the water running all the way down the left and heavy rough on the right.

Why is it that it is okay to decide the tournament on such "fluky" hole but it is not okay when your decide the tournament on arguably less "fluky" hole?

[Bill Satterfield]

It seems that many posters here applaude wind at golf courses and even say it is a necessary part of a great golf course.  Why the uproar now when wind played such a significant part of the playoff hole?

[George Pazin]

What makes it silly is that there is a very very small chance that something fluky will happen on any given hole or shot - EXCEPT THE 17th AT SAWGRASS. There is a much much larger chance of something fluky happening there, as evidenced by the frequency with which it does. Equating a minute 1 or 2% chance with a 20-30% chance is just silly.

George, the number do not back your argument.

The scoring average for the 17th (in 2007) was 3.386 and 18th was 4.409. I believe the numbers for this year is very similar (actually, 18th was much worse with close 4.9 average).

There is greater chance that something fluky happens at the 18th with the water running all the way down the left and heavy rough on the right.

Why is it that it is okay to decide the tournament on such "fluky" hole but it is not okay when your decide the tournament on arguably less "fluky" hole?

You are comparing the difficulty of a long par 4 with water the length of it and a difficult green complex to a wedge shot.

I am not saying the 17th is any easier or harder than the 18th, I am saying it is more prone to flukey results. If that somehow fits your bill for determining a worthy winner, well, then we are well into the agree to disagree stage.

Dealing with wind throughout a tournament is completely different than dealing with it on one single shot.

I can't think of any more ways to say something completely self-evident. I am done banging my head against the wall, someone else can have the last word if they so desire.

[Richard Choi]

George, you still have no answered Kalen's (and mine) question:

Why is it okay to have a winner decided at the 72nd hole, but is not okay to decide it at the 73rd hole?

P.S. If the fact that Sergio barely missed the fairways and had much much worse lie than Goydos or Quinney who missed it by much wider margin is not flukey, I don't know what is. At least Segio hit a superior shot on the 17th.

[George Pazin]

I have answered it many many times. I can think of no other way to explain it that would seemingly meet your standard. I give up.

P.S. You have no way of knowing whether Sergio's shot on 17 was superior or just luckier.

[David Kelly]

It seems that many posters here applaude wind at golf courses and even say it is a necessary part of a great golf course.  Why the uproar now when wind played such a significant part of the playoff hole?

Speaking for myself, it is because there were no options left to the golfers on #17. 

Typically strong winds cause a golfer to think of how best to play a hole, i.e. hit punch shots under the wind, hit a high shot that will ride the wind, use the wind to hold up a draw or fade,  bounce a ball into the green,  bail out away from danger and try to get up or down, etc.  The presence of wind also puts a premium on judging the effects of the wind. However if you do misjudge the wind, while you have to suffer the consequences, you usually are able to try to recover from your mistake.

[George Pazin]

Okay, I don't want to seem like a jerk, so here is another attempt:

I don't care if a tournament is decided on the 72nd or 73rd hole. I also don't particularly care if a tournament is decided by a flukey condition. However, I think it is best to minimize the role that chance plays in determining the outcome. Not eliminate, minimize. Or lessen, if you prefer. I particularly don't think one should manufacture a situation where chance could have such a dominant role. A par 4 or par 5 bordered by water on one side provides both more opportunities for skill to come through, and the fact that there are more shots required also lessens the impact of any one shot.

For all those reasons, I don't think the 17th is a good choice for beginning a playoff. In fact, I think it may just be the single worst choice in all of tournament golf, just off the top of my head. Maybe starting one at the 17th at Valderrama when they're playing games with the green rolling back into the water would be a worse choice. Either would be terrible.

Hope that helps. If it doesn't, I just don't know what else to say.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()