Shopping & Style0 min ago
The Open, Golf, The R&a And All That.
16 Answers
The Open was a bit of a damp squib, wasn't it? I'm pleased for Molinari. Nobody saw him coming. He never got a mention from any of the useless pundits until the last few holes, who only focused on the Americans, McIlroy, and Fleetwood. Everyone fell away. Molinari just played a fairly steady round. Nothing spectacular. McIlroy said he was pleased with his failure. Tiger Woods was annoyed that he didn't win. Spot the difference. Just why the BBC waste our money on some of these idiots is beyond me. Ken on The Course was an idiotic feature. Ken Brown bouncing golf balls and tennis balls all over the place showing you what can happen over all the humps and hollows that haven't had any rain for months. What do they imagine we are thinking in those circumstances? Every shot was tricky/not easy/awkward/difficult/almost impossible, etc. Every shot.
The R&A is always full of self-congratulations about it's approach to fairness and equality. As a golf club secretary for many years, I can vouch for that with all the correspondence we've had. The new rules in 2019 have a big emphasis on that. In my opinion, to give a lot more fairness and equality in The Open, the R&A should SHORTEN The Open venue by 100 yards on every par 4 and par 5, and every par 3 should be no longer than 150 yards. That would make the competition a lot more even and interesting, rather than pandering to the long hitters. All they have to do is move the tees forward by those amounts. Will they do it? Will they consider it? What do you think? Apart from that everything's fine. It was my birthday yesterday. 70. Had a nice day with the family.
The R&A is always full of self-congratulations about it's approach to fairness and equality. As a golf club secretary for many years, I can vouch for that with all the correspondence we've had. The new rules in 2019 have a big emphasis on that. In my opinion, to give a lot more fairness and equality in The Open, the R&A should SHORTEN The Open venue by 100 yards on every par 4 and par 5, and every par 3 should be no longer than 150 yards. That would make the competition a lot more even and interesting, rather than pandering to the long hitters. All they have to do is move the tees forward by those amounts. Will they do it? Will they consider it? What do you think? Apart from that everything's fine. It was my birthday yesterday. 70. Had a nice day with the family.
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 10ClarionSt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Not a golf fanatic myself, 10C, but i do have a look at all the Majors from a betting perspective. And it's fairly true what you say as regards the concentration on the Yanks and one or two top Brits. I visited many web sites prior to placing my bets, looking for decent tips, and only one tipster mentioned Francesco Molinari. Trouble is, i can't remember who that tipster was, now, but he is responsible for my £2.50 e.w. bet on the Italian and my subsequent £89+ return. Serious question here; do ALL the venues for the British Open pander to the big hitting players?
Yes they do, Ken. The length of the par fours is ridiculous to a club player, e.g. the 18th at Carnoustie is 508 yds. Really long, that. The minimum length for a par 5 is 460 yards. I really would like to see The Open become a more even contest and make it more interesting for the spectators. Shortening the courses would do that.
Thanks for the birthday wishes Sandy. It was Mark Twain who said that, because he was useless at golf, as is anyone who thinks it, which is probably every amateur golfer in this country.
Thanks for the birthday wishes Sandy. It was Mark Twain who said that, because he was useless at golf, as is anyone who thinks it, which is probably every amateur golfer in this country.
Back to Molinari, if i may. You say he did nothing spectacular, true, but he was the only player not to drop a single shot on the day - 16 x pars and 2 x birdies. That was still some achievement by any golfers standards, in a major tournament, surely? Eddie Pepperell, who arguably had the better conditions having been an early starter, finished 4 under, the next best being 2 under achieved by Molinari and 2 others.
A slight correction, Ken. I didn't say he did nothing. I said he did nothing spectacular. Which he didn't. 2 under in the final round isn't what I'd call spectacular for an experienced professional. It was a steady round. Nothing wrong with that. It worked in his favour as the Americans fell away, and McIlroy was pleased with his failure, as I've said.
Nothing wrong with the length, I've played plenty of 475 plus par 4s in the States - good drive and hybrid should have you home.... technology has improved - when I was at Uni at St Andrews, 240-260 was a good drive for me, now I am 60, I can still bang them out 320 plus - a 450 yards at N Berwick played driver wedge and driver chip over the wall with a 7 from 80 yards (down wind).
The cheaper way to keep the courses as they are would be to de-compress the ball to 85 or 90.....
The cheaper way to keep the courses as they are would be to de-compress the ball to 85 or 90.....
DT, I never mentioned boring. I've done the same in America. I still think the courses should be shortened. It would make the competition a lot more open and even, but the R&A want it to be as tough as it can be for the pro's. Remember the last time it was at Carnoustie? Many, many complaints then. They would be happy if there was heavy rain and wind for the four days to make it extremely difficult and probably would be quite satisfied to see someone win it with 10 over par. The tougher it is, the more the R&A like it. It's got to be tough. It must be tough. We can't give these pampered pro's an easy ride. But in my opinion, that makes for a poor contest.
Decompressing the ball isn't going to happen, just like shortening the courses isn't going to happen. There's too much money involved. The R&A will not give consideration to either because it will scare off the sponsors. Money rules. The sponsors have the upper hand. And a more even contest is just a pipe dream because of the money.
I dipped in/out of the Sky coverage through the four days and found the whole thing curiously uninvolving and lacklustre.
I put that down to Sky's usually excellent pundits having a poor week - but if the people watching the BBC thought the same, then perhaps it was actually the golf that was rather ho-hum?
Carnoustie is not one of the better Open venues - relies too much on 'fearsome rough' and 'the wind' to tame the players, rather than being an interesting tactical challenge (like Royal Lytham for instance) or being monumentally historic (like St Andrews).
I put that down to Sky's usually excellent pundits having a poor week - but if the people watching the BBC thought the same, then perhaps it was actually the golf that was rather ho-hum?
Carnoustie is not one of the better Open venues - relies too much on 'fearsome rough' and 'the wind' to tame the players, rather than being an interesting tactical challenge (like Royal Lytham for instance) or being monumentally historic (like St Andrews).
1 to 16 of 16
Latest Posts
Crosswords8 mins ago
News11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Good Morning Late Wednesday Birds.
ChatterBank15 mins ago
