Open regional qualifying

Gone onto the official site to look at the results of yesterday's regional qualifying but it still says In Progress and no results are shown for any course. But in the news section they have details of a few notables who got through.
 
Anybody got any ideas why the results haven't been updated and when they will?
 
Thanks.

Humpy,
The first two I checked seem to be complete "results".
Here's the Bucks page:

http://www.theopen.com/Qualification/RegionalQualifying/Buckinghamshire.aspx#results

A mate of mine made it through to Final Qualifying from regional qualifying.
The whole thing reeks of a money making racket though. 250 quid approx per player.
From the four Final Venues only 3 go through from each.

Thanks Kwini.

Suspect the problem could be the internet browser on my work PC as the full list of results still doesn't show.

Couldn't agree more s_r, the whole thing is a stitch-up, giving places to PGA Tour no-names who probably don't even have a passport in favour of shrinking the number of Open Qualifiers is shameful.
Would fire Dawson's fat arse for any number of reasons but this is among the more egregious. Horrible man.

Humpy,
If there's a specific result you're after I'll dig it out for you!

Kwini, nobody in particular. I just like to have a look through!!

Thanks though.

Entry to the Open is £140, and there are at least 12 qualifiers from each course that go on to final qualifying. There are at least three qualifiers from each final qualifying course.

How much would you pay to play two rounds at (say) the Buckinghamshire, then a couple more at Sunningdale, then potentially four at Hoylake?

More than £140 I'd guess. Let's not the facts get in the way of a chance to bash the R&A though.

George1507 wrote:Entry to the Open is £140, and there are at least 12 qualifiers from each course that go on to final qualifying. There are at least three qualifiers from each final qualifying course.

How much would you pay to play two rounds at (say) the Buckinghamshire, then a couple more at Sunningdale, then potentially four at Hoylake?

More than £140 I'd guess. Let's not the facts get in the way of a chance to bash the R&A though.

Pro's have a card accepted at most courses George where they don't have to pay Green Fees.

There is a MAXIMUM of 12 from each course George in regional qualifying.  Of the 13 venues 6 had between 7-11 qualifiers.
Entry is also more than 140 for qualifying, as my friend who got through to FQ has paid more than that.
I'm guessing that the R&A is trying to recoup the 30k+ it pays each course to host qualifying.

Also, Regional Qualifying is ONE round and Final Qualifying is ONE round (I think), so £140 for a struggling pro is serious wonga when you consider what they lay out every week for Europro and Challenger Tour costs, especially when they could be out on their arse after Regional Qualifying.

You'd think that a minted organisation like the R&A might want to help these guys instead of making it just another expensive week.

People entering the regional qualifying play one round, but they can practice for a round as well.

The local final qualifying is two rounds, unless they've changed the format this year. It was two rounds last year - I refereed so I am sure of that.

George,
The thing I don't like is the loss of local final qualifying places to qualifying via every other country in the world, often offering places via tournaments where the field aren't invested in The Open whatsoever.
At one time American pros might do a two-fer trip, playing a European tournament plus Open qualies; then you'd really get guys that wanted to play Open Championship golf. Similarly, one or two Europeans would fly over for US Open qualies.

Very much a sense from thousands of miles away that both the R&A and USGA are feathering their own nests via commercial interests rather than investing in grass roots sport.

Good for you for reffing by the way.

George1507 wrote:People entering the regional qualifying play one round, but they can practice for a round as well.

The local final qualifying is two rounds, unless they've changed the format this year. It was two rounds last year - I refereed so I am sure of that.

George you're right THIS document gives the details in the conditions section, and confirms the entry is £140.  It's actually quite interesting - regional qualifier entrants have to list the manufacturer, model and spec of each of their clubs.

kwinigolfer wrote:George,
The thing I don't like is the loss of local final qualifying places to qualifying via every other country in the world, often offering places via tournaments where the field aren't invested in The Open whatsoever.

Kwini,

I couldn't agree more. I'm afraid I'm not a fan at all of pro golf, and it dismays me that the PGA and European Tours seem to be intent in spreading their influence way beyond the US and Europe. I'd be very happy to see a return to the exemption list that the Open used to have - the top 30 or so from last year, some previous winners, various Amateur Champions, various other countries' Open champions, various order of merit winners, Ryder Cup players and that's about it. It would make qualifying more interesting, the players who are there would all want to be there, and some younger players from the UK would get the boost that SuperRealist wants. Somehow I don't see it happening though, because the R&A seem to be swept along on the same wave as the European Tour - trying to build golf in countries where it has no history, no footing, and (in reality) hardly anybody is interested.

I think it's shameful that Western Europe in general and the British Isles in particular are European golf's biggest markets, yet tournaments in those areas are few and far between. China, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Russia, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong all are European venues and there are no less than EIGHT tournaments in South Africa. Crowds always turn out at Wentworth, the Scottish Open and the Dunhill - but hardly anyone turns out at most of those places I listed above, and the ones that do look utterly bewildered. It's time that the people who support the European Tour tell them where their audience really is.

If you think I'm ranting, I am.

Bob_the_Job wrote:  It's actually quite interesting - regional qualifier entrants have to list the manufacturer, model and spec of each of their clubs.

Bob - all competitors have to present their clubs for inspection before they start their first round, to ensure all their equipment is conforming. I guess there's no point in having rules if you don't ensure the players adhere to them.

 
But the other "villains" are the European golfers who don't support the European-based tournaments - we're only a year or two removed from Donald, Westwood and others lamenting no more tournaments in England, yet they don't support the Wales Open, barely in Wales or the Irish Open, let alone the Continental European events.

Off at a tangent here, but it's hardly surprising that Trump thinks he can buy his way to the best courses, the best events, because everyone's for sale. And he's right.

kwinigolfer wrote:George,
The thing I don't like is the loss of local final qualifying places to qualifying via every other country in the world, often offering places via tournaments where the field aren't invested in The Open whatsoever.
At one time American pros might do a two-fer trip, playing a European tournament plus Open qualies; then you'd really get guys that wanted to play Open Championship golf. Similarly, one or two Europeans would fly over for US Open qualies.

Very much a sense from thousands of miles away that both the R&A and USGA are feathering their own nests via commercial interests rather than investing in grass roots sport.

Good for you for reffing by the way.

To be fair Kwini, LFQ places have been limited to 3 per course, 12 in total, for a few years before this. But I do agree with the general consensus that offering places via finishes in random tournaments, rather than a proper qualifying tournament, is ridiculous, and I'd much rather see those exemption places returned to genuine qualifiers, either locally or internationally. Also not a fan of the other change made this year, with the LFQ courses being spread around the country instead of local to the host Open course; although I do see the reasoning behind that one.

It was always a nice source of income for local courses. I think my club got 30k for holding the Qualifying in 2010.
Now the same clubs will get this every year. Seems a bit harsh.

Ned,
Yup, and I've bellyached about the reduction several times before!

Eric Compton & KJ Choi also have a right to feel aggrieved about ambiguous qualifying criteria . . . . . .

Dawson's tied himself up in knots - must rival Sepp Blatter as the most unctuous man in sport.

Finchem and that d1ck in charge at Augusta must run him pretty close.

Very much a sense from thousands of miles away that both the R&A and USGA are feathering their own nests via commercial interests rather than investing in grass roots sport.

To what end kwini?  You make it sound all rather sordid.  

Ok, let's for example take the Boy's Home Internationals.  No entry fee required for this one of course.  Neither do the boys have to pay for accommodation and, of course, the host club has to be compensated for loss in revenue for the thick end of a week.  Then you've got a bunch of officials who have to be billeted too.  It's a very expensive loss-making exercise.  Where on earth do you think the money is going to come from to do all the loss-making stuff it does in order to maintain and promote the game if not from events like The Open Championship?

"Sordid" is in the eye of the beholder, and it's true that both the R&A and USGA stage a dozen or so events each that are heavy loss-leaders.
But we're talking hundreds of thousands when their commerical deals can reach the tens of millions, TV rights probably even more.

I think the Open at Hoylake is the biggest profit making venue too, plus lucrative sponsorship from Nikon and Rolex and TV rights the world over. Must make a bloody fortune.

kwinigolfer wrote:"Sordid" is in the eye of the beholder, and it's true that both the R&A and USGA stage a dozen or so events each that are heavy loss-leaders.
But we're talking hundreds of thousands when their commerical deals can reach the tens of millions, TV rights probably even more.

But kwini, to what end?

It's not only non profit making tournaments they sponsor though, is it?  It's administering the Rules of Golf and Amateur Status as well as overseeing equipment testing.  Supporting junior/university golf.  None of these things come cheap.  As for the cost of staff salaries ... pick a number!  Please also remember The R&A, as the accepted governing body for ROW (outside of USA/Mexico), has promoted the game to far flung corners of the globe.  Indeed, I think The R&A's next mission should be to send a bunch of golf clubs to those pesky jihadists so they can fire off golf balls instead of bullets (Peter Dawson could take them ... that should please you   )

Oh and if The R&A is as greedy as you seem to think it is, then shouldn't it have 'gone over' to commercial tv eons before now?  It would have made buckets more money had it gone down that route.  It didn't because it believed the best way to promote the game to all income levels was via the BBC.  This doesn't smack of greed to me.

£140 to enter the Open doesn't sound bad to me. Might keep a few Maurice Flitcrofts away

I think it's more the stingy number of places they have on offer.

13 venues with approx 140 players at each for regional qualifying equals 1820 players each chasing just a meagre 12 spots on offer at Final Qualifying.

Seems a bit tight.

How many players make the first tee off at Hoylake? I genuinely don't know - but whatever the number is, how do you suggest it's broken down in terms of qualifiers? As I understand it in the last 10 years or so they have cut down on the number of old winners who used to get a free ticket .. maybe they could trim 3 or 4 more from that criteria .. but how else should the 1st round proper be allocated?

The issue is that it's The Open, with the emphasis on Open.
I've no idea what the number of qualifiers ought to be or what it's been in the past, but in terms of those qualifying from UK courses 12 seems a woefully small number for the number of qualifying events.

Old winners get an exemption for 10 years I think.

It's not all that Open if there are only a couple of dozen places up for grabs the world over.

Maybe top 50 players should get in, plus major winners from the last calendar year then make everyone else qualify. Who cares if you came 9th last year? Shouldn't give you a free ride the next.
The Open is already one of the worst majors in my book due to bad courses, be good to shake it up a little and actually have it live up to it's name of being a more "Open"

Fair enough if you don't like The Open; but all the majors have that exemption category: The Masters lets in the top 12 from the previous year's tournament, the US Open the top 10, and the PGA the top 15. I don't see why not, it definitely adds something to the tournament if you know that the guy who gave it a good run last year will be there again this time; and it also adds something to the final day if players are competing to come back next year.

For the record, this year's routes to playing the Open are here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Open_Championship

If it was up to me, I would get rid of categories 12, 15 and 19, and swap the number of exemptions available from the Asian Tour and the Japan Tour. Then I would scrap the entire "Open Qualifying Series", and local qualifying as is, and readjust it to a 3-spot qualifier in Asia, a 2-spot in Africa, a 6-spot in the US and the rest from European Qualifying, held the same way as US Open qualifying is.

I've really only started to think about what the Open means.

I guess using tour events, which themselves have fairly strict entrance criteria or processes, to fill the bulk of the entrants for the Open seems to fly in the face of it being "open". However I don't really see that it's financially motivated since, as as been pointed out by others, the cost of running the open qualifiers is not significant compared to all the sponsor revenue generated.

Is it not more a case that it's the only way to maintain a very high quality field? If more spots were available through open qualifying and less through existing tours, given the busy schedule of most top pros, if they didn't get qualified through a tour competition, they wouldn't be able (or maybe willing if it meant missing out on a tour payday) to fit in playing an open qualifier, and so the field strength would be diluted?

Bob_the_Job wrote:I've really only started to think about what the Open means.


Is it not more a case that it's the only way to maintain a very high quality field?  If more spots were available through open qualifying and less through existing tours, given the busy schedule of most top pros, if they didn't get qualified through a tour competition, they wouldn't be able (or maybe willing if it meant missing out on a tour payday) to fit in playing an open qualifier, and so the field strength would be diluted?

That's an interesting point, but I think most people would argue the opposite - that by exempting a lot of guys who hardly ever set foot in the UK, never play links golf and have no idea of the history of the Open, the R&A is ensuring that the field is not as good as it could be.

Furthermore all those guys who fight their way through Regional qualifying are then joined by the likes of Dyson and Goosen in final qualifying.
Makes it almost impossible, obviously you want to have as good a field as possible in the event proper, but isn't 13 regional venues overkill to select a load of guys, that are simply going to get outgunned as soon as Final Qualifying comes round, makes regional qualifying almost an irrelevance and token gesture.
Is it simply pretending to be "open" when in reality it's almost a closed shop.

George1507 wrote:

Bob_the_Job wrote:I've really only started to think about what the Open means.


Is it not more a case that it's the only way to maintain a very high quality field?  If more spots were available through open qualifying and less through existing tours, given the busy schedule of most top pros, if they didn't get qualified through a tour competition, they wouldn't be able (or maybe willing if it meant missing out on a tour payday) to fit in playing an open qualifier, and so the field strength would be diluted?

That's an interesting point, but I think most people would argue the opposite - that by exempting a lot of guys who hardly ever set foot in the UK, never play links golf and have no idea of the history of the Open, the R&A is ensuring that the field is not as good as it could be.

I don't see how not having set foot in the UK or not knowing the history of the Open determines if you're a good player or not, although I can see how playing less links golf might impact your chances of winning the Open (although it didn't seem a complete barrier to Mickelson, Cink, Woods, O'Meara, Hamilton, Curtis, Leonard, Duval etc.).

Bob, there are Links courses outside of the UK and Ireland you know.
You don't have to come here to have experienced one, besides there is no real difference playing links than any other type of course.

From tee to 30 yards from the green there may not be any real difference, but nobody wins an Open without being able to play run up shots. You know in your heart of hearts that a guy reaching for a 60 degree wedge when it's blowing 20 mph and he's 30 yards away with nothing between him and the pin but grass is not going to win.

super_realist wrote:Bob, there are Links courses outside of the UK and Ireland you know.
You don't have to come here to have experienced one, besides there is no real difference playing links than any other type of course.

George specifically said "guys who haven't played on links courses" so I thought I would address what he said - although as you'll note I changed it to "less links golf" as I'm fully aware that there are links courses all around the world (we've just watch as US Open on a course that had some strong links characteristics) . If indeed you had actually never played on a links course before, you would be at a disadvantage in the short term at the Open. I'd still expect any talented player to adapt fairly quickly though.

As for is playing a links course different than playing a parkland course? That depends on what you mean by different. I think you play a different mix of shots, but I can't think of a single type of shot you would have to be able play on a links that you also don't have to be able to play on a parkland course or can't use on a parkland course. In short, I think shot selection and course management is more the issue.

Anyway S_R - going to go and see any of the Scottish Open since it's in your neck of the 9Chins?

George, these are pro golfers, a running chip isn't new to them or something that's only played on links,they practice every shot in the book,  plus I very much doubt you'd see a pro play a 30 yard flop anyway unless he has to get over something like a hazard or deep bunker. You seem them play chip and run, low chips, low pitches on all types of course. Not remember 9C's infamous Chip and RUn at the Masters? That wasn't a links course. These guys have these shots in the bag. They wouldn't be pro's if they couldn't play them.

The only people I see doing that are complete hackers who don't understand that it isn't a clever shot unless you "have" to play it.

As was pointed out, all those non links experienced yanks seem to get the better of all the brits and all their links "experience".

Bob, got corporate tickets for Scottish Open, so might go down for a day or two.

Nice one - enjoy.

Played in regional qualifying in 2005 @ Old Fold Manor.
If memory serves me I think it was £200. Huge field there for the day. Had to park in a pub car park half a mile down the road. About 150 players there all tolled I think so that would be £30k back just from that event

longgame wrote:Played in regional qualifying in 2005 @ Old Fold Manor.
If memory serves me I think it was £200. Huge field there for the day. Had to park in a pub car park half a mile down the road. About 150 players there all tolled I think so that would be £30k back just from that event

How did you do? Always strikes me as a bit of a lottery over 18 holes. And what did you think of Old Fold Manor?

I don't mind old fold manor, but think its overrated based on the greens. Iv played a lot of golf there over the years even when playing well the best I have done is 2 under (69)

Its actually (in my opinion) a very short and very easy course but made very difficult by the fact they have the greens like Ice.

When I played the Open qualifying they were supposedly at12.5 which is ridiculous.

yes 18 holes I don't think is too fair, you shoot 73 and your out (which is what I shot)
if it were 36 I would have been in with a shout had I been able to shoot under par for the 2nd round.

I think -1 got through in 2006 when I played could have been level but I remember I was a couple away.

I used to be a member at Old Fold, if you broke par in Open qualifying it was usually enough to go through. At 6450 yards it's short by modern standards, but very few beat par there so it has got something about it. It doesn't have many intimidating shots (apart from approach on 18!). Most of the holes have an easy side of the fairway, which leads to a harder approach, but to find the best side of the fairway you have to take more risk. Think of the 2nd as an example. Looks easy but actually requires thought if you want to give yourself a birdie opportunity.

Greens clearly the main protection, but I always found them fair. Quick greens are fun as long as they are true, and although firm you could hold the ball if your approach was from the fairway.

I have only Played Old Ford once, last year. I hacked my way round in my usual style, but i did enjoy the course a lot. Greens very good from memory.

A lot of the guys I knew from OF are now either at the Shire or Brookmans Park so haven't played there for a while.

The greens are fantastic but I just think they got too carried away with how quick they are - club seems to love its reputation for having Icey greens and its to the detriment of the course sometimes.

Good point on the 2nd. Iv always played a long iron up the right and a wedge in. like the hole with the wall & houses at the back (5/6?) always like to have a go at the green there.
Last is a good finishing hole and the couple around the turn are nice as well. Just feel its a bit let down by lack of defence apart from greens.