[Phil McDade]

take away America's home field advantage. Should America host on a parkland course rather than one that plays more "European"?  Hasn't the exact opposite happened at venues like the K Club!

If you think you have the better team , to increase your chances of victory a captain would prefer to play a course that is less tricky.  If you think that the Americans had the better team then Colorado Golf Club was not a good choice, there is a lot , and I mean a lot of luck out there on that golf course. 

That being said, the golf course looked and played fantastically! 

David:

How'd that work for the US in the 1995 Ryder Cup at Oak Hill -- a match that featured by most accounts a more accomplished US side and a course expressly set up in US Open fashion (narrow fairways, thick rough) to better American golfers' chances.

The only captain -- Solheim or Ryder Cup -- who truly "got" set-up and his players was Zinger at Valhalla.

And if you think luck had anything to do w/ Euro winning this year's Cup, well, you must've been watching a different tournament.

[John Kavanaugh]

take away America's home field advantage. Should America host on a parkland course rather than one that plays more "European"?  Hasn't the exact opposite happened at venues like the K Club!

If you think you have the better team , to increase your chances of victory a captain would prefer to play a course that is less tricky.  If you think that the Americans had the better team then Colorado Golf Club was not a good choice, there is a lot , and I mean a lot of luck out there on that golf course. 

That being said, the golf course looked and played fantastically! 

I don't think it is so much luck as the ability to control trajectory and spin.  Of course I have already been informed that all golfers are the same.

[David Bartman]

take away America's home field advantage. Should America host on a parkland course rather than one that plays more "European"?  Hasn't the exact opposite happened at venues like the K Club!

If one thinks that a particular team is better than another you would think that the team with the advantage would pick a course that doesn't have as many quirky slopes and resulting bounces.

If the Americans had a better team than the course certainly wouldn't lend itself to taking advantage of the better team by incorporating luck and chance into the results much more so than courses with less "quirk."  

That being said, the course looked and played wonderfully, just not sure it was a good choice for the American team to be victorious.

[Jeff Shelman]

There are certainly many things that go into picking host sites. The biggest of which is that you have to select the site years before the event. That allows for logistics to be figured out, corporate hospitality to be sold, community interest to be generated.

Colorado Golf Club was selected as this site four years ago, in August of 2009.

You have no idea who is going to be on the team. Heck Lexi Thompson and Charley Hull were in middle school when the course was selected.

[Garland Bayley]

... Of course I hit it like a girl...  

You hit it tthhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaattttttttttttttttttt straight? Why the high handicap?

[Andy Shulman]

Wish I had something original to say other than that this girl would love to give that course a try.    Looks like a blast to play.  As Tim said, balls rolling into bunkers is just one of many nice touches.

As for the play and the coverage, I tend to agree with those who thought an awful lot of putting was shown.  I say DVR it and FF thru the endless grinding over those putts.  All in all, I enjoyed watching what was essentially a Euro blowout that did briefly look like it might feature a miracle rally by the US.

[David Bartman]

take away America's home field advantage. Should America host on a parkland course rather than one that plays more "European"?  Hasn't the exact opposite happened at venues like the K Club!

If you think you have the better team , to increase your chances of victory a captain would prefer to play a course that is less tricky.  If you think that the Americans had the better team then Colorado Golf Club was not a good choice, there is a lot , and I mean a lot of luck out there on that golf course. 

That being said, the golf course looked and played fantastically! 

I don't think it is so much luck as the ability to control trajectory and spin.  Of course I have already been informed that all golfers are the same.

I certainly agree that controlling trajectory and spin are skills that are needed to be successful at a course like CGC , and even more so when it is set up as firm and fast as it was, however, if you don't think luck is more apt to play a roll on a golf course such as CGC as opposed to another course nearby like the Broadmoor, well, I would strongly disagree.   Throw in altitude and up and downhill shots and guessing becomes a factor as well.  

[David Bartman]

take away America's home field advantage. Should America host on a parkland course rather than one that plays more "European"?  Hasn't the exact opposite happened at venues like the K Club!

If you think you have the better team , to increase your chances of victory a captain would prefer to play a course that is less tricky.  If you think that the Americans had the better team then Colorado Golf Club was not a good choice, there is a lot , and I mean a lot of luck out there on that golf course. 

That being said, the golf course looked and played fantastically! 

David:

How'd that work for the US in the 1995 Ryder Cup at Oak Hill -- a match that featured by most accounts a more accomplished US side and a course expressly set up in US Open fashion (narrow fairways, thick rough) to better American golfers' chances.

The only captain -- Solheim or Ryder Cup -- who truly "got" set-up and his players was Zinger at Valhalla.

And if you think luck had anything to do w/ Euro winning this year's Cup, well, you must've been watching a different tournament.

I didn't say the Americans had the better team, I said if they did or thought they were going to it was a bad choice to accomplish the desired outcome of winning.  

Was the 1995 team made up of a bunch of players that traditionally do well on US Open courses?   If you make the course too difficult, and recovery shots away that might take away the advantage of the better team , if that is one of their strengths.  

The Euros putted much better than the Americans all week long that is why they won, period.  That being said, because the ball striking into the greens was so much based on the bounce one received from whatever portion of a slope the ball landed , the course emphasized putting more than some others would have , which was clearly to the advantage of the European players.  

[JMEvensky]

 

The Euros putted much better than the Americans all week long that is why they won, period.  
  

Isn't this always the case in any team competition--amateur or professional?

[David Bartman]

 

The Euros putted much better than the Americans all week long that is why they won, period.  
  

Isn't this always the case in any team competition--amateur or professional?

In close matches I would agree, but in landslides like the one we just watched, it is usually both ball striking and putting.

Amateur golf competitions usually come down to ball striking and due to the lack of consistency in the players the individual matches themselves are not usually close.  

[Tom Ferrell]

Is there a problem with posting here?  I just wrote a significant recap and got a "timed out" message, and the writing appears to have vanished.  Very frustrating.  The synopsis...

The course played beautifully.  Spent time with Ben and Bill walking it during the competition on Saturday and alone in the morning on Sunday.  They loved the F&F conditions - we now have to convince our super to keep the water off!

Americans spent too much time "learning the course" and not enough time bonding.  Instead of forcing a team practice at CGC following the Women's British (travel and logistical nightmare), they should have headed to North Berwick, banned yardage books and AimPoint charts and played for beers and dinner.

Watching the Americans attempt to "solve" this course with technical precision and robotic mastery was painful at best.

I think it's ridiculous to suggest that any course gives and advantage or disadvantage to truly top players.  The Americans are just not comfortable with casual matches played in the spirit of love of the game.  That's the difference.  The faux-intensity virtually guarantees a loss.  This is about loving playing golf with your fellows.  Period.  It ain't the U.S. Open.  It's a high-school golf match on a larger stage.

[Joe Bausch]

Is there a problem with posting here?  

Tom, for about 2 weeks now the site doesn't always play nice with my posts and I get "timed out".  However, I can just hit 'post' again and it takes my posts.  I'm thinking this could be browser related (I'm using various older versions of Mac Safari).

[PCCraig]

You guys actually watched the Solheim Cup? Eek.

[Michael Blake]

 The Americans are just not comfortable with casual matches played in the spirit of love of the game.  That's the difference.  The faux-intensity virtually guarantees a loss.  This is about loving playing golf with your fellows.  Period.  It ain't the U.S. Open.  It's a high-school golf match on a larger stage.

Perfectly stated, Tom.

[David Bartman]

Is there a problem with posting here?  I just wrote a significant recap and got a "timed out" message, and the writing appears to have vanished.  Very frustrating.  The synopsis...

The course played beautifully.  Spent time with Ben and Bill walking it during the competition on Saturday and alone in the morning on Sunday.  They loved the F&F conditions - we now have to convince our super to keep the water off!

Americans spent too much time "learning the course" and not enough time bonding.  Instead of forcing a team practice at CGC following the Women's British (travel and logistical nightmare), they should have headed to North Berwick, banned yardage books and AimPoint charts and played for beers and dinner.

Watching the Americans attempt to "solve" this course with technical precision and robotic mastery was painful at best.

I think it's ridiculous to suggest that any course gives and advantage or disadvantage to truly top players.  The Americans are just not comfortable with casual matches played in the spirit of love of the game.  That's the difference.  The faux-intensity virtually guarantees a loss.  This is about loving playing golf with your fellows.  Period.  It ain't the U.S. Open.  It's a high-school golf match on a larger stage.

I think its ridiculous to suggest that certain courses don't give the advantage to certain types of players.  If I set up the LPGA courses each week, the money list would be very different than it currently stands and that is simply with course set up, give me lay out options and I could skew it even more drastically.  

I certainly agree with your point about solving the course, american women golfers tend to be extremely technical with their games and it certainly limits their ability to be imaginative and play shots.  

[Tom Ferrell]

Obviously there are horses for courses, and certainly tracks fit certain individuals' eyes.  But Jack Nicklaus - with his famed power fade - won the Masters six times.  

The problem is in the American developmental programs.  The kids are put into "U.S. Open mode" too early, and they miss out on the simple love of playing golf.  If I were a Ryder Cup or Solheim Cup captain, I would have my team playing three-hole/three-club matches, with losers having to carry the winners' suitacases or something.  I would send them out and have them stand on a tee and play to a different hole's green or putt with only a sand wedge.  We'd have 7-up tournaments on the putting green.  You get the picture.

It's not that Americans can't play with imagination and fun.  It's that they don't.  And unfortunately, this "scientist" approach has become institutionalized.

It shows.

[Jud_T]

One of the talking head brought up a good point.  Ben Crenshaw was on site all week I believe.  The course co-designer and one of the all-time great putters.  Why wasn't he asked to hold a putting contest with the ladies on each green and throw in his 2 cents on hole strategy, where not to miss, where to be aggressive etc.?

[Phil McDade]

Obviously there are horses for courses, and certainly tracks fit certain individuals' eyes.  But Jack Nicklaus - with his famed power fade - won the Masters six times.  

The problem is in the American developmental programs.  The kids are put into "U.S. Open mode" too early, and they miss out on the simple love of playing golf.  If I were a Ryder Cup or Solheim Cup captain, I would have my team playing three-hole/three-club matches, with losers having to carry the winners' suitacases or something.  I would send them out and have them stand on a tee and play to a different hole's green or putt with only a sand wedge.  We'd have 7-up tournaments on the putting green.  You get the picture.

It's not that Americans can't play with imagination and fun.  It's that they don't.  And unfortunately, this "scientist" approach has become institutionalized.

It shows.

Tom:

Good points, but some of the Solheim Cup squad on the U.S. side didn't know they'd made the team until a few weeks before the competition. I'm not sure mini-tournaments before the Cup competition would've done them any good.

It's a problem that stretches all the way back to junior programs, and how kids are taught and developed as youngsters. Most U.S. golfers are brought up in a highly individualistic fashion that somehow doesn't always translate to team competition (although it should be pointed out the U.S. has won 8 of the 13 SCups...)

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()