The Open 2012

Kaymer tried to readjust his grip a year or so ago, and has 'done a Harrington.' I suspect he'll be back.

Westwood had another nightmare. He must be my most hated player in all of golf. He just lacks any kind of bottle to recover from a situation. He's a 9/10 player until he has a bad hole, when he becomes a 4/10 player.
 
It's been quite a grim day today for the Brits. The second day is just to get into some kind of position, which Tiger is doing quite well.
 
Nice sub plot developing now. Adams in the lead with Steve William has his caddy with Tiger chasing him down in second. Williams and Tiger parted with a little bit of bad blood so neither will want to lose to the other.
 
Adam Scott with a meltdown. 4 straight bogeys. Els wins his 2nd Open.

Feel sorry for Adam there.
 
Massive by the big easy. I never really thought he would win another major.
 
Awful meltdown for Scott. Real shame, great player and nice guy. The last time he seemed to have a major in the bag someone birdied the last four to snatch it away from him.

Congrats to Ernie though. One of my favorite golfers and a genuinely good guy.
 
The Open is sadly really becoming a bit random. I know there's no real stand out player on the tour right now and majors are flying everywhere, but The Open is getting based around a lot of luck mingled in with an ability to play the exact same type of course year in year out.

Can we not take the tournament to somewhere where you don't just play a pitch-and-run into the greens, every time? Maybe somewhere with slightly wider fairways, with tougher pins and more interesting hazards?

I've been fortunate enough to play most of the courses they use, and they're all exactly the same. Bunkers that are based entirely on luck, rough which is so dense that getting out becomes impossible. I'm all for having hazards and proper penalties, but the position Woods and McDowell found in the bunker on the 6th today was just absolutely stupid. A bunker, in my book, is a 1 shot penalty for an amateur, and a 1/2 shot penalty for a pro. All these pot bunkers with downslopes into them do is create a system where two players hit the identical shot, and one can easily make 4 and the other will make 5 at the very best. Or 7, as Woods found out.

It's just becoming a massively anticlimactic competition, with Clarke winning last year despite being completely out of form and now Els winning from nowhere as a result of a Scott collapse. There was no excitement at all. I just come away bored out of my mind at watching a tournament where no single player was going on a run or hitting brilliant shots or anything.

I've always given the Open a chance, and I always get excited for it to come around, but they need to make changes. Stop shifting it between the same group of courses(St Andrews is particularly bad) and let's make the players hit some more exciting shots once in a while.

I said earlier in the thread that it's four days of pure golf - I'll revise that now to four days of golf, unstoppable disaster and huge slices of luck.
 
alastair said:
The Open is sadly really becoming a bit random. I know there's no real stand out player on the tour right now and majors are flying everywhere, but The Open is getting based around a lot of luck mingled in with an ability to play the exact same type of course year in year out.

Can we not take the tournament to somewhere where you don't just play a pitch-and-run into the greens, every time? Maybe somewhere with slightly wider fairways, with tougher pins and more interesting hazards?

I've been fortunate enough to play most of the courses they use, and they're all exactly the same. Bunkers that are based entirely on luck, rough which is so dense that getting out becomes impossible. I'm all for having hazards and proper penalties, but the position Woods and McDowell found in the bunker on the 6th today was just absolutely stupid. A bunker, in my book, is a 1 shot penalty for an amateur, and a 1/2 shot penalty for a pro. All these pot bunkers with downslopes into them do is create a system where two players hit the identical shot, and one can easily make 4 and the other will make 5 at the very best. Or 7, as Woods found out.

It's just becoming a massively anticlimactic competition, with Clarke winning last year despite being completely out of form and now Els winning from nowhere as a result of a Scott collapse. There was no excitement at all. I just come away bored out of my mind at watching a tournament where no single player was going on a run or hitting brilliant shots or anything.

I've always given the Open a chance, and I always get excited for it to come around, but they need to make changes. Stop shifting it between the same group of courses(St Andrews is particularly bad) and let's make the players hit some more exciting shots once in a while.

I said earlier in the thread that it's four days of pure golf - I'll revise that now to four days of golf, unstoppable disaster and huge slices of luck.
Click to expand...

What course would you suggest? Genuinely interested as I'm sure you've played a few in your line of work. I don't agree with your view on the bunkers; Woods deserved his 7 because he refused to take his medicine, McDowell used his head and didn't suffer so much.
 
evra said:
What course would you suggest? Genuinely interested as I'm sure you've played a few in your line of work. I don't agree with your view on the bunkers; Woods deserved his 7 because he refused to take his medicine, McDowell used his head and didn't suffer so much.
Click to expand...

I'd like them to take it to Walton Heath or somewhere like that. There's a lot of lovely courses in the south of England(I think Royal St Georges at Sandwich is the only one based south of Birmingham that is used on a semi-regular basis). Wentworth is a good test, and there's loads of golf courses around that peninsula that have potential - Swinley Forest and New Zealand are both lovely golf courses that have a little bit of room to expand into.

Without making this post too boring, the reason why they always stick it at the same courses is because they are the only ones long enough to stop the pros taking a long iron and a wedge into the pin. Even at Lytham, Tiger was doing that to reasonable success.

For me, though, I just think there are golf courses with a lot to offer that don't have a chance of holding a major tournament. If you look at even the amateur titles and senior opens and things like that, they are all at the traditional Scottish links courses. There are some great woodland courses that never get a look in.

I'd just like to see the R & A tell certain top class golf courses that they'll have a chance of an Open if they lengthen a tad and add a few more bunkers here and there. Otherwise it gets a bit repetitive.
 
alastair said:
I'd like them to take it to Walton Heath or somewhere like that. There's a lot of lovely courses in the south of England(I think Royal St Georges at Sandwich is the only one based south of Birmingham that is used on a semi-regular basis). Wentworth is a good test, and there's loads of golf courses around that peninsula that have potential - Swinley Forest and New Zealand are both lovely golf courses that have a little bit of room to expand into.

Without making this post too boring, the reason why they always stick it at the same courses is because they are the only ones long enough to stop the pros taking a long iron and a wedge into the pin. Even at Lytham, Tiger was doing that to reasonable success.

For me, though, I just think there are golf courses with a lot to offer that don't have a chance of holding a major tournament. If you look at even the amateur titles and senior opens and things like that, they are all at the traditional Scottish links courses. There are some great woodland courses that never get a look in.

I'd just like to see the R & A tell certain top class golf courses that they'll have a chance of an Open if they lengthen a tad and add a few more bunkers here and there. Otherwise it gets a bit repetitive.
Click to expand...

Personally I wouldn't want to see The Open played at a parkland course; it should be as traditional as possible and it doesn't get any more traditional than links golf. Plus it's usually the only major that is played at a links course and that needs to stay part of the golfing landscape.
 
I was rather jammy!

Group B / The Open Championship 2012
Winner Ernie Els Back 18-Jul-12
23:43 50 2.00 98.00

Group B / The Open Championship 2012 / Top 10 Finish
Ernie Els Back 18-Jul-12
23:34 4.8 2.00 7.60
 
Wait, did Tevez caddy for the whole round? Or just a publicity thing for a few minutes?
 
evra said:
Personally I wouldn't want to see The Open played at a parkland course; it should be as traditional as possible and it doesn't get any more traditional than links golf. Plus it's usually the only major that is played at a links course and that needs to stay part of the golfing landscape.
Click to expand...

Traditional isn't really working though - St Andrews and the like are getting absolutely pulverised by the top pros who are driving greens and getting eagles on par 4s. In fact, they're lengthening these courses to such an extent that the tradition of them is disappearing anyway.

I wouldn't write them off completely, I'd just like to see a different challenge once in a while. The R&A are living in about 1880.
 
alastair said:
Traditional isn't really working though - St Andrews and the like are getting absolutely pulverised by the top pros who are driving greens and getting eagles on par 4s. In fact, they're lengthening these courses to such an extent that the tradition of them is disappearing anyway.
Click to expand...

Does not the concern then lie with the technology rather than the courses?

Would you also have the Masters rotate away from Augusta to suit variety's dictates?
 
tbh, I'd worry about the PGA Champ tours before I'd worry about the Open ones, when was the last time the PGA was won over par? Like 40 years ago, plus they get battered fairly often.

Though I do agree, it'd be nice to see the Open adding a few extra courses, like keeping the current 9, but once a decade throw a curveball in there.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Does not the concern then lie with the technology rather than the courses?

Would you also have the Masters rotate away from Augusta to suit variety's dictates?
Click to expand...

We're going to reach a time where they're going to have to look at clubs and how far they go. I personally don't think it's sustainable to have balls carrying over 300 yards and expect golf courses to be able to cope. However, I don't think some golf courses do enough to combat this by introducing hazards at suitable distances, hence my comment about how bad St Andrews has got for tournament golf. It has to be windy otherwise it's like a pitch and putt for most of the pros.

And the Masters is fine for the minute - I have no problem with it being there every year since there are 2 other US based majors. When you only have 1, I'd like to see a little more variety, yes. It also remains a challenging golf course.

My view has always been that a par 70 golf course should be played by a pro in 70 strokes. I hate competitions where they're going a long way under par. The US Open has tried to address that(Winged Foot and Bethpage particularly good courses on the rota) but as of yet, nowhere in the UK seems to be bothered that the pros are tearing up the majority of the courses. Lytham is actually one of the hardest. We have Muirfield up next and even I've struck under par round there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.