[Randy Thompson]

What are the factors that you think caused the change from the USA domination to the European domination over the last twenty years.
A. The strive for perfection in the US course presentation? Does that diminish shot creativity and general scrambling capability?
B. The arrival of better or more challenging courses to Europe?
C. ??
D. ??

[Mark Pearce]

Neither A nor B is a factor.  It's about players, not courses.

[Tim Martin]

Adding Continental Europe did not hurt. I know it was changed in 1979 but I would think it is still relevant to the discussion.

[Tom_Doak]

Their players care more about winning the Ryder Cup than our players do.

Just go down the list of the matches on Sunday and ask yourself, which player cared more about winning?

Phil Mickelson, or Justin Rose?
Bubba Watson, or Luke Donald?
Francisco Molinari, or Tiger Woods?

For the Europeans, the Ryder Cup is their #1 career highlight.  Some of them know they'll probably never win a major championship, and even some of the ones who have, or might, think the Ryder Cup is a bigger deal.

Some of the Americans say it's just as important to them, but I don't believe them one bit.

P.S.  One other factor:  European golfers have more access to golf in the modern era.  They had to deal with reconstruction after W.W. II for many years [not to mention they probably lost some potential champions in the war]; and even after that, economics and a lack of golfing culture on the continent held them back.  It's only in the last 20-30 years that golf has become popular there.  You can attribute a lot of that to Seve Ballesteros, who came 25 years later than Arnold Palmer did the same for Americans.

[JMEvensky]

Their players care more about winning the Ryder Cup than our players do.

This--and adding the President's Cup hurts too.

[Sam Morrow]

It's about who cares the most. The average US player is more worried about cashing a big check at the Hartford Open, there is a lack of camaraderie amongst American players.

[Gary Slatter]

A.   President's Cup
B.   European players rank Ryder Cup just above PGA Championship
C.   Europeans team together better - this is changing - to beat the USA (amazingly this one goal to beat the USA seems to power the world)
D.   radio controlled balls

who really knows, it's interesting TV as long as corporations can make deductions

[Tim Pitner]

A.   President's Cup

I don't buy this for a second.  First, everyone, especially the participants themselves (ask Ernie Els, for example) knows that the President's Cup is not the Ryder Cup and the atmosphere and pressure are not comparable.  Second, shouldn't playing in the President's Cup help the USA in the Ryder Cup, especially in the team formats (by experimenting with pairings, playing more alternate shot, etc.)?  

Please don't say that the President's Cup--one weekend every two years--causes burnout among the U.S. players.  They show up, have a few laughs with Freddie, beat a team that has no reason for existing and then carry on.  

[Dan Kelly]

Just a hunch, based on nothing more than observing body language:

The European players like one another more than the American players do, and therefore become better teammates.

How do you say "Clear eyes! Full hearts! Can't lose!" in Spanish?

[Phil McDade]

What are the factors that you think caused the change from the USA domination to the European domination over the last twenty years.

Tiger Woods either being named or earning a spot on every U.S. team since 1997 save for one.*

(*The U.S. won that one.)

(No emoticons needed; it's my leading theory for the tide turning...)

[Rick Shefchik]

Europeans play as though they have everything to gain. On paper, they're rarely favored, so every two years they're out to prove to the golf world how good they really are.

Americans play as though they're afraid to lose.

I think these attitudes were clearly on display in the Furyk and Stricker singles matches. Down the stretch, it took forever for the two Americans to read, line up and stroke their putts. They approached those shots as though they didn't want to hit them. Their opponents, Rose and Kaymer, played briskly, as though they couldn't wait to putt.

[Mark Pearce]

Didn't Rose play Mickelson?

[Ronald Montesano]

Domination happens when one of our "A" league schools plays a "B" league school and wins 24-0 or 23-1.

Dominance happens when that scenario is repeated, year in and out, relentlessly.

The Ryder Cup has been a series of close matches, with an exception from time to time.

This is neither dominance nor domination. It is a tendency and that is that.

[Rick Shefchik]

Didn't Rose play Mickelson?

Yes he did, Mark. Thanks for the correction. Mickelson doesn't fit my "afraid to lose" theory, but he did get beat by a guy who looked even more eager to win.

[David_Tepper]

SEVE!!!

[Phil McDade]

Didn't Rose play Mickelson?

Yes he did, Mark. Thanks for the correction. Mickelson doesn't fit my "afraid to lose" theory, but he did get beat by a guy who looked even more eager to win.

Rick:

I think Mickelson's loss in singles was a pretty classic case of being outgunned vs. outplayed, which happens sometimes in match-play. Mickelson shot -4 that day, if memory serves, which I think was second-best for the U.S. side that day; Rose shot -6 (only Lawrie played better in singles for Euro). If Mickelon's chip goes 2 inches further to the right on 17, he's in for a birdie. If Rose's putt goes 2 inches further to the right on 17, he might make bogey, because they only thing in between that putt and going 10 feet past was the cup. Of course, that's the difference between winning and losing, and Rose deserves full credit for winning (and making his birdie on 18, after Mickelson over-thought his approach and flew the green; Lefty also over-thought his way into the most incredible shot the entire tourney -- the one on 16 over the trees during partners play).

If you want to assign responsibility among the 13 U.S. members of the team (Love and his 12 players) for the loss, Mickelson's about 11th or 12th in line.

[John Kirk]

Removed.

[Pete_Pittock]

In the last few years the FedEx Cup. All our players are on low battery power after playing 5 of 6 weeks (includes the PGA). Not so for Europe. If an extensive period of tournament play wasn't detractive, we'd see more of it in the regular season. You seldom see a US pro play more than two weeks in a row.

[Bill Seitz]

I have to agree with "Stan".  I'm a big baseball fan, and virtually all of the smartest baseball analysts I know would attribute wins in the playoffs to little more than random variation, or what we might more commonly refer to as luck. Over the last two Ryder Cups, Europe has a two point advantage, which is less than 5% of the available points.  I think anyone in the world top 150 could beat anyone else in the world top 150 on any given weekend, or else we'd see the same guys win every week. The Ryder Cup is a manifestation of that.

Europe was clearly superior at the K Club, but the last few competitions could have gone either way with a few different bounces.  One point wins are more likely due to random variation than anything. As they say in baseball, flags fly forever, and Europe should absolutely feel entitled to celebrate those victories, but 12 really good guys playing very slightly better than 12 other really good guys over three days isn't exactly a demonstration of dominance.  And I'd say the same thing if the U.S. had won this year

[Jon Wiggett]

I do not believe that Europe has been dominating the US in recent years except in the result. I think in most cases it has been a close contest between two equally matched teams. If you stopped looking at the mistakes and looked at the positives instead then you might see why the US team have the potential to dominate in the result as well.

Jon

[Niall C]

Like Jon, I really don't think the swing in results in recent Ryder Cups reflects how close the teams are in ability. I also don't believe that the Europeans necesarilly want it more then the US guys, just look at the hurt on the faces of the US guys after they lost this time. Perhaps where there might be an edge for the Europeans is that they are on a winning run and as we know winning breeds confidence and that might be the extra edge that counts coming down the stretch. Anyway, these things go in cycles and I'm absolutely certain the US will have its day in the sun in the not too distant future.

One final thought, I thougt this RC was the one where Mickelson came of age in this competition notwithstanding losing in his singles to an inspired Justin Rose.

Niall

[Mike_Clayton]

Has anyone thought that maybe they are just better players?

[Jud_T]

I agree with Bill in mathematical terms, but here's my theory.  Too much money and ego on the U.S. team.  You've had Tiger and Phil on every team for the last 8 (?) RC's and these guys despise each other.  The extent of their conversation is a terse "nice shot" when they're forced to play together.  They are the veteran leaders on the team and you simply can't have a cohesive team spirit when the two biggest names aren't even on speaking terms.  I don't really believe the U.S. team doesn't want it badly.  If anything I'd say they want it too much and feel the pressure as the better team on paper.  Also, I don't know about historically, but this year the captain's picks were a joke.  Stricker and Furyk should have been home filling their Alopecia and Viagra prescriptions.  Instead you had them tanking vital points while Hunter Mahan and Ricky Fowler were home asking a plastic Jesus for forgiveness for not making the team on points.

[Phil McDade]

IToo much money and ego on the U.S. team.  You've had Tiger and Phil on every team for the last 8 (?) RC's and these guys despise each other.  The extent of their conversation is a terse "nice shot" when they're forced to play together.  They are the veteran leaders on the team and you simply can't have a cohesive team spirit when the two biggest names aren't even on speaking terms.  

All the more reason not to choose Tiger for the RC, if given a choice (like Pavin two years ago). Note the U.S. won in 2008 with Mickelson on the team, not Tiger. Phil's actually somewhat well-liked on Tour; Tiger -- not so much. That's why captains are always pairing Stricker -- maybe the nicest guy on the planet -- with Tiger (Strick's like the little kid on the LIFE cereal commercial; he likes everyone!). And Lefty has a superior overall RC record.

[A.G._Crockett]

There probably isn't any one thing that can explain this; if there was, it would be addressed and wouldn't happen again.  But I'm pretty sure of some things that it is NOT.

The idea that the Americans don't care as much is silly; nobody becomes world class in any sport without caring, and with a very few exceptions (Randy Moss?) caring doesn't turn on and off like a light switch.  That doesn't even happen to you and me in casual rounds of golf, much less to those guys.  The money/ego/get along/Tiger stuff doesn't ring true either.

The Euros somehow have managed to stay in an underdog frame of mind, and golf (like pretty much any other sport) is much, much easier to play if you are really good AND an underdog.   Maybe this comes from the view of most of the world that the Euro Tour is inferior to the PGA Tour (which it almost certainly is, btw).  But whatever, they play with a bit of a chip on their shoulder as well, and that seems to help.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()