Anyone else not excited by the Open this week ?

by Diggers Mon 16 Jul 2012, 10:10 am

This isnt helped for me by the fact that the viewing will probably all be bleak, grey, wet and miserable and links golf in those conditions is not very easy on the eye. But the main reason is to be honest the majors just seem like any other event now because the winners are pretty much all just good, regular tour golfers. The old Nicklaus quote that Harringon has just said, about majors being easier to win because 90% of the field dont think they can win one...well im sorry but I dont think its true anymore. I reckon nearly everyone...bar the English players...who tees up this week will fancy their chances, I mean why wouldnt they. Any player can look at his peers whio have won majors recently and think well if he can win one then so can I.
I know some people might think this is a good thing, but for me it takes away the kudos and mystique surrounding the majors.

by super_realist Mon 16 Jul 2012, 10:13 am

I agree Diggers, I like playing links, but I'd rather watch golf played over a heathland course.

I've no idea why they insist on links for The Open (boring old tradition I suppose) as it isn't good for spectators or tv viewers.

by McLaren Mon 16 Jul 2012, 10:38 am

I agree that the open should be kept away from the classic links courses, but for very different reasons to those already mentioned. Give the pro’s a ball suitable for the game and the courses they play on and I will be glad to see the worlds best tackle some very interesting challenges.

But no diggers, I am not really that excited by the prospect of the open or any other major come to think about it. For the very reasons you pointed out. It is great in some ways that the quality/depth of the fields has increased but sadly at the expense of watching the golf I want to see.

Maybe four days is no longer enough to establish the very fine margins between the worlds best and the guys in positions 50+? All I know is that seeing also ran after also ran win a major is becoming a real turn off for me.

What I really want to see is the best players win. I would much rather the golf majors were like the tennis majors and you were guaranteed show downs between the worlds best players.

by Tinmar Mon 16 Jul 2012, 10:41 am

I completely disagree. This is one of my favourite weeks of the entire sporting year. As usual, I have arranged so that I don't have to work on Thursday & Friday and I don't plan on missing too much of the play over the entire four days.

I think the links courses look fabulous on tv and I certainly hope the R&A never change. Hopefully there won't be much rain but I also hope there will be a stiff wind as this helps to separate the field and really identify who's playing well. For the sake of fairness, I would prefer that conditions are consistent throughout any given day. The easier conditions at Castle Stuart meant that there were about 30 players within 5 shots of the lead going into Sunday. More difficult conditions and set-up should prevent this happening at Lytham.

As an aside, I loved this year's US Open also. I thought it was far more interesting and exciting than the 2011 version. The tougher the set-up the better in my opinion. They are Majors after all and not just ordinary run of the mill events. I can't wait for Thursday.

by super_realist Mon 16 Jul 2012, 10:50 am

Mac, you can't make it like tennis, because there aren't enough good players in tennis. The top 4 are miles ahead of the rest so always challenge.
There are a 100 people who could win the Open, that's not what makes it boring, its the bleak courses, poor spectating areas etc .
Links courses just aren't photogenic, at least those on the rota aren't really, so from an armchair perspective it isn't great viewing, regardless of the golf played.

I see your idol Woods is already moaning the course is too penal. Good, go home then.

by Lairdy Mon 16 Jul 2012, 10:51 am

What we are missing is an Open with baked hard greens and brown fairways. That might allow the cream to rise to the top. Saying that, I'm not overly bothered about the recent pariety in majors. It goes in cycles and the good thing is the current cycle is always the run up to the next.

Not playing The Open on links courses is just tosh though.

by super_realist Mon 16 Jul 2012, 10:52 am

Why is playing on courses other than links tosh? Only one links specialist in about 20 years (Clarke)
It hardly favours anyone. Much rather see a Walton Heath or Sunningdale in there than a boring TOC or Hoylake

by **navyblueshorts** Mon 16 Jul 2012, 10:55 am

I'll be watching what I can. I'm 'excited' (if that's the right term) as I don't have Sky and therefore it'll be one of the few events with decent terrestrial coverage.

Mac

McLaren wrote:...All I know is that seeing also ran after also ran win a major is becoming a real turn off for me.

What I really want to see is the best players win. I would much rather the golf majors were like the tennis majors and you were guaranteed show downs between the worlds best players.

I can't even begin to describe how bad this is. What you want is a closed shop where your presumed best players just play against one another. Who's to say someone like Keegan Bradley or Webb Simpson won't, in the next couple of years become the World's #1 and win a grand slam? What you want is a bore-fest of the same players winning all the time. Sorry, I'll take the polar opposite please.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon 16 Jul 2012, 10:57 am

Further more, I don't care who's playing the good golf as long as it is good golf. Dare I suggest you seem to be more obsessed with the personalities rather than the actual golf?

by Diggers Mon 16 Jul 2012, 10:58 am

I think the fact we have a lot of major winners just shows we have a pretty weak top 10 at the moment and a very weak top 5 compared to other eras.
Sport needs great players, or rather I need to have great players to watch, and there arent any peak great players out there right now.

by super_realist Mon 16 Jul 2012, 10:59 am

navyblueshorts wrote:Further more, I don't care who's playing the good golf as long as it is good golf. Dare I suggest you seem to be more obsessed with the personalities rather than the actual golf?

One in particular Navy, the one on his bedroom ceiling above his bed.

If you win a major, it's because you played better than everyone else. Not sure why he thinks the so-called better players "deserve" to be winning these.

by Diggers Mon 16 Jul 2012, 11:00 am

navyblueshorts wrote:Further more, I don't care who's playing the good golf as long as it is good golf. Dare I suggest you seem to be more obsessed with the personalities rather than the actual golf?

Why not just have robots out there playing then ? Or in fact, dont bother watching live golf, just watch repeats of good shots.

by super_realist Mon 16 Jul 2012, 11:00 am

Like Woods? He's a robot with no personality. Laugh

by Diggers Mon 16 Jul 2012, 11:02 am

super_realist wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:Further more, I don't care who's playing the good golf as long as it is good golf. Dare I suggest you seem to be more obsessed with the personalities rather than the actual golf?

One in particular Navy, the one on his bedroom ceiling above his bed.

If you win a major, it's because you played better than everyone else. Not sure why he thinks the so-called better players "deserve" to be winning these.

They deserve them when they win them....thats the point...when they do win many times it makes them great players. Nobody is suggesting you gift them majors, just that we want to see great players. Peopel who might be legends of the game rather than footnotes.

by super_realist Mon 16 Jul 2012, 11:03 am

Does that mean then with 19 or so different winners in majors that there are no "great" players in the game anymore?

by Diggers Mon 16 Jul 2012, 11:06 am

There isnt a great player at their peak anymore.

by super_realist Mon 16 Jul 2012, 11:09 am

Fair enough, still think THe Open has the potential to be exciting regardless of who wins if the course is one that can produce drama, e.g. Carnoustie, but equally even when players are at their height a "great player" can still win a major that is a dreadfully turgid spectacle, e.g. Woods @ TOC 2005. Nothing memorable about that tourney at all, whereas Harrington @ Carnoustie was a much better spectator, and it was his first major.

by Lairdy Mon 16 Jul 2012, 11:11 am

super_realist wrote:Why is playing on courses other than links tosh? Only one links specialist in about 20 years (Clarke)
It hardly favours anyone. Much rather see a Walton Heath or Sunningdale in there than a boring TOC or Hoylake

I'm sure there are loads of great non links courses that could host a large tournament - you and Mac could tell us all about them... - but you change the ethos of the oldest tournament in golf if you move it away from links. Change isnt and shouldnt always be bad but if this happened we'd go from 4 to 3 Majors, which would then all be in the US.

Pariety, however, in major winners is no bad thing. Lets face it a lot of people got fed up watching Schumacher win all the time, Federer, Tiger etc. Its just part of the cycle.

by super_realist Mon 16 Jul 2012, 11:14 am

Pariety? You mean "parity"?

I think moving the Open away from Links, or swapping every second year to heathland might make it more interesting because at present it produces too many boring tournaments, so tradition is rather cutting off it's nose to spite it's face.

Not sure how making The Open anything other than Links would result in 4 majors going to 3? Headscratch

by Tinmar Mon 16 Jul 2012, 11:29 am

Diggers wrote:I think the fact we have a lot of major winners just shows we have a pretty weak top 10 at the moment and a very weak top 5 compared to other eras.
Sport needs great players, or rather I need to have great players to watch, and there arent any peak great players out there right now.

I don't have the link but there was an article a couple of years ago from some guy in the Wall Street Journal that was rightly savaged by most genuine sports fans. I'm sure it wasn't your intention but the point he was making was a fairly logical extention of what you are saying above.

He was talking about McDowell & Oosthuizen winning successive Majors and he said that the organisers should be asking themselves how these guys even got into the field in the first place. His suggestion was that the top ranked players should be given extra shots compared with the "lesser" players. In other words, Tiger would start every Major on -10 while the ordinary plebs would start at Par. This would ensure that Tiger was always there on Sunday battling for victory which is apparently what the viewers want to see.

It's certainly not what this viewer wants. At his best, Tiger was extraordinarily brilliant. However, there was always a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach when he took a two or three shot lead after 36 holes of a Major. I just knew that the weekend was all set to be a complete anti-climax. I find the Majors much more enjoyable to watch now. Other than Ben Curtis & Shaun Micheel who were really random at the time, it's not as though any potential winner is going to be completely unknown to me. I find it fascinating watching how players unfamiliar with the situation cope with the extra pressures of a Major.

by McLaren Mon 16 Jul 2012, 11:31 am

From 1990 to 1999 the following players won a major and were or became multiple major winners;

Faldo
Hale Irwin
John Daly
Payne Stewart
Nick Price
Bernhard Langer
Jose maria olazabal
Ben Crenshaw
Tiger Woods
Mark o’meara
Ernie Els
Vijay singh
Lee Janzen

26 of the 40 majors were won be a multiple major winner (65%)

for 2000 to 2010;

Tiger Woods
Vijay singh
Retief Goosen
Ernie Els
Retief Goosen
Phil Mickelson
Paddraig Harrington
Angel Cabrera

26 of 40 (65%)
singh, goosen, mickelson, Harrington and Cabrera are new additions

I also appreciate that the likelihood of this proportion increasing for the most recent years is high as some players have ten or more years of careers to add to their total. (Kaymer and oostie in particular)

So maybe we are just at the start of a new cycle of top players and in time Keegan, R-mac, schwartzel, kaymner and oostie will all prove to have been of the quality that makes someone a multiple major winner. As it seems in the last 20 years 35% of events are won by people not able to repeat the feat.

Sadly this doesn’t stop me feeling some disappointment when the likes of bubba and Simpson win a big one.

by super_realist Mon 16 Jul 2012, 11:32 am

I'm glad he was roundly slated for that. It's an absolutely absurd statement to make.

Unpredictability is what makes golf a great game.

by kwinigolfer Mon 16 Jul 2012, 11:49 am

Can't wait! Except we'll have ESPN's commentary with the unwatchable Mike Tirico and the prejudice of Azinger, Strange and Weiskopf to listen to. Mute.
Sure some of Woods's comments about the rough etc were just to get in the heads of others.
Must agree though that it's high time for some of the "one-and-(so far anyway)done" Major winners to snaffle another one or two.

by Lairdy Mon 16 Jul 2012, 11:49 am

Cant have everything we want in life Mac. Would be boring otherwise. I suppose this cycle is good for fans of golf. If you are a golf player fan then not so much.

Super - I think if The Open was moved from links the win would be devalued. People would lose the association of winning something prestigious (spell checked for you). The risk then being it would not be viewed as the same tournament, therefore a Major. We just need a great Open, not really had one for a while IMO and I'm not sure its soley down to the courses... lots of things need to come together for it to happen.

by NedB-H Mon 16 Jul 2012, 12:08 pm

Tinmar wrote:
Diggers wrote:I think the fact we have a lot of major winners just shows we have a pretty weak top 10 at the moment and a very weak top 5 compared to other eras.
Sport needs great players, or rather I need to have great players to watch, and there arent any peak great players out there right now.

I don't have the link but there was an article a couple of years ago from some guy in the Wall Street Journal that was rightly savaged by most genuine sports fans. I'm sure it wasn't your intention but the point he was making was a fairly logical extention of what you are saying above.

He was talking about McDowell & Oosthuizen winning successive Majors and he said that the organisers should be asking themselves how these guys even got into the field in the first place. His suggestion was that the top ranked players should be given extra shots compared with the "lesser" players. In other words, Tiger would start every Major on -10 while the ordinary plebs would start at Par. This would ensure that Tiger was always there on Sunday battling for victory which is apparently what the viewers want to see.

It's certainly not what this viewer wants. At his best, Tiger was extraordinarily brilliant. However, there was always a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach when he took a two or three shot lead after 36 holes of a Major. I just knew that the weekend was all set to be a complete anti-climax. I find the Majors much more enjoyable to watch now. Other than Ben Curtis & Shaun Micheel who were really random at the time, it's not as though any potential winner is going to be completely unknown to me. I find it fascinating watching how players unfamiliar with the situation cope with the extra pressures of a Major.

I agree completely with this. Tennis is great to watch currently because you have three legends of the game playing amazing stuff every tournament. But that doesn't make golf any less exciting, for different reasons. I used to get bored senseless by seeing Woods move slowly into the lead at a major and knowing I may as well switch off and go for a walk for the final day and a half. There's nothing more exciting in sport than watching a tight finish where a mix of better- and lesser-known names have a chance of winning.

by Skydriver Mon 16 Jul 2012, 12:28 pm

kwinigolfer wrote:Can't wait! Except we'll have ESPN's commentary with the unwatchable Mike Tirico and the prejudice of Azinger, Strange and Weiskopf to listen to. Mute.

Speaking of on-air commentary, the Beeb are borrowing Sir Nick so I understand.

by sirbenson Mon 16 Jul 2012, 1:11 pm

I am very excited tbh, and I am a huge fan of tennis (as well as golf) but the grand slams in tennis on the mens side is so predictable and yes the top 3 are superb but I think grand slams have a tendency to become boring.

by Shotrock Mon 16 Jul 2012, 1:15 pm

Count me as one who would like to see this played on a greater variety of courses as well. Walton Heath could certainly handle it, as I'm sure Sunningdale could (and others).

Enuf with the rain already! Hope they get better weather than they did in Scotland this past weekend.

If any of the current top 5 are in contention on Sunday it should be great drama. My gut says McIlroy, but I would like to see Sergio silence a critic or Tiger get another Claret Jug.

by Fader Mon 16 Jul 2012, 1:17 pm

Can't say i'm overly excited about watching it, based on the weather were having can see tis being a bit of a wash out and bit of a slog, can't see it being overly compelling viewing as such.

by super_realist Mon 16 Jul 2012, 1:19 pm

Sergio and Rose are drawn to play with Charisma Bypass

by Roller_Coaster Mon 16 Jul 2012, 1:19 pm

I think that tradition for tradition's sake is ultimately self defeating, but in my opinion The Open Champioinship on links courses is one I think continues to add to golf.

Shot selection, flight shaping, trajectory control, imagination, battling less than ideal conditions (and luck) all seem to be more prevalent at The Open than the other Majors. Whilst luck perhaps shouldn't be at the top of potential differentiators, I'm sure we all know from our own weekend efforts that it does impact everyone every week.

I don't think it's the best TV as I can struggle to see the ball against the links grass and often grey British skies, but having golf on telly in the office (and the arguments with the people that want the Tour de France on) is part of the British summer.

Whether it results in a dominating display (but perhaps boring as a spectacle) from one of the "big guns" (imo Woods at Hoylake) or a more "under the radar" (with the regulation holes full of drama) winner (imo Cink at Turnberry) it is compelling viewing in some way every year.

Bring on Thursday.

by AlciG Mon 16 Jul 2012, 1:21 pm

super_realist wrote:
I see your idol Woods is already moaning the course is too penal. Good, go home then.

I guess you don't like the man... but he wasn't really moaning. He said the rough is penal but the course is fair. Isn't that what you want out of a major? Tough and Fair?

by kwinigolfer Mon 16 Jul 2012, 1:27 pm

http://www.theopen.com/en/TeeTimes/TeeTimes.aspx

What's with starting with two twosomes? Gets more like The Players every year.

by Tinmar Mon 16 Jul 2012, 1:36 pm

kwinigolfer wrote:http://www.theopen.com/en/TeeTimes/TeeTimes.aspx

What's with starting with two twosomes? Gets more like The Players every year.

Due to exempting players from the world rankings at two or more different cut-off dates, they've ended up with a field of 157, one player more than they wanted. They were probably hoping one more player would withdraw.

I wonder what will happen if someone withdraws now the draw has been made. Will they not replace him and juggle around the existing draw or will they definitely start with 157?

by barragan Mon 16 Jul 2012, 1:46 pm

Why is there such a big gap after e.saltman - does no one want to play behind him?

by EmmDee57 Mon 16 Jul 2012, 1:48 pm

I'm excited, always am. Can't get the 2 days off work so planning to come into office at 6.30am to get away at 2pm so I can catch the afternoon groups.

Sunday will be a great day. Beers with the mates from 10am and freezer full of pizzas.

Tiger to win but only if he leaves the driver in the locker room. 3 wood stingers all the way.

by incontinentia Mon 16 Jul 2012, 1:52 pm

I'm looking forward to the British open.

One problem I have is that weather conditions can often make this Major a lottery. Rain and wind forecast for the rest of the week, my money's on "insert random golfer name here".

by Lairdy Mon 16 Jul 2012, 2:06 pm

super_realist wrote:Sergio and Rose are drawn to play with Charisma Bypass

Good because I'll get to see a lot of Sergio. Bad because I dont think he'll take to playing with Woodsy (he likes nicknames and I think this one would help his image).

by super_realist Mon 16 Jul 2012, 2:10 pm

Lairdy wrote:
super_realist wrote:Sergio and Rose are drawn to play with Charisma Bypass

Good because I'll get to see a lot of Sergio. Bad because I dont think he'll take to playing with Woodsy (he likes nicknames and I think this one would help his image).

What makes you think that Lairdy? Sergio could have a hole in one on a par 5 but all you'll see will be slow mo clips of Woods scratching his backside. I'm hoping he misses the cut again.

by Tinmar Mon 16 Jul 2012, 2:14 pm

incontinentia wrote:I'm looking forward to the British open.

One problem I have is that weather conditions can often make this Major a lottery. Rain and wind forecast for the rest of the week, my money's on "insert random golfer name here".

I don't agree with this at all. If conditions are poor for the four days, the number of potential winners is actually a lot less than would otherwise be the case in my opinion.

Call it the British Open if you want but I can't understand why you would correct others who call it by its proper name. It was called The Open Championship when it was first played in 1860 and that is what it is still called today.

by NedB-H Mon 16 Jul 2012, 2:22 pm

Maybe I'm in the minority but I think the Open is better when the weather's bad. In a calm and sunny year there's too often a tendency for shootouts where players just hit the lights out of the course with target golf shots, which is even more dull than a regular tour event because those are at least designed for that sort of golf. But when the wind and rain gets up, you get tougher scoring, which I always think makes for better viewing (within reason), and you also get the full array of links shots coming out. The worst of both worlds though is when the weather changes around lunchtime and stitches up one half of the draw.

As for always playing it on links courses - I love watching links golf so I'm happy with it. I could accept a change if there was still scope for a major every year in links-y conditions, for example 2010 when the US and the PGA were at Pebble and Whistling Straits. But too often the other three majors are on very similar parkland tracks, and a fourth repeat of that would be dull.

by super_realist Mon 16 Jul 2012, 2:25 pm

There's a big insistence on The Open not being called The British Open so I've no objection to it being taken abroad, especially as The Open rota is very tired indeed.

by kwinigolfer Mon 16 Jul 2012, 2:28 pm

Tinmar,
Re: 157.
Just a tongue in cheek comment as a posting yesterday on the same subject suggests, but given the number of withdrawals already it drives me crazy that they'd allow themselves to come up with an over-subscribed field with resultant twosomes. Silly really, but it does have the saving grace of making alternate #1 less likely to be taking part.

Ned,
Still don't understand why tradition should be usurped by leaving the links. Also agree that a little "weather", even a baking drought, can enhance The Open.

by Diggers Mon 16 Jul 2012, 4:13 pm

Lets face it, even by links course standards, Lytham is one ugly golf course. In the pouring rain its going to look dull as hell. We will be even more dependant on the commentary to tell us whether its a good shot or not as we wont be able to see the ball. Probably better off listening to it on the radio.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon 16 Jul 2012, 4:32 pm

Diggers wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:Further more, I don't care who's playing the good golf as long as it is good golf. Dare I suggest you seem to be more obsessed with the personalities rather than the actual golf?

Why not just have robots out there playing then ? Or in fact, dont bother watching live golf, just watch repeats of good shots.

Well, you could do as long as they play in different styles but there's something in the human ability to execute a good shot (i.e. the possibility of a calamity) that wouldn't be there with robots so robots would be a bit dull from that point of view.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon 16 Jul 2012, 4:35 pm

super_realist wrote:Sergio and Rose are drawn to play with Charisma Bypass

by mystiroakey Mon 16 Jul 2012, 4:38 pm

So exited ....

Cant wait.. Test cricket and golf for 4/5 days!! two tellys and work is gonna suffer..

Seve has won this twice (lytham)which tells me luke donald is the man to beat.. good short game, not that straight of the tee!! Donald is also in great form and didnt win at the weekend(would have jinxed him)

by Diggers Mon 16 Jul 2012, 4:40 pm

Navy for me if I dont care who is playing then the game is very dull. Any game, not just golf. I need to invest emotionally a little bit in the outcome which usually means having a favourite.

by mystiroakey Mon 16 Jul 2012, 4:40 pm

Btw the only place i would be happy for the open to go is ireland(other than the UK).. It has to be in these isles

by Diggers Mon 16 Jul 2012, 4:41 pm

Have to say Mysti im far morei nterested in the cricket, hope the weather doesnt ruin that. Just wish that they were playing 5 tests instead of 3.

by Sponsored content