Which Open Championship Collapse was Worse: Adam Scott or Jean Van de Velde?

Van de Velde by far in my opinion.  Scott's just kind of faded into a loss.  Got on the bogey train and couldn't get off.  Van de Velde was more of a comedy of errors all in one hole.  His was a true meltdown. 

Totally agree.  4 shot leads with 4 holes to play are a lot less "in the bank" than a 3 shot lead with one hole left.

Van De Velde, and it's not even close.  Scott had a bad 3-putt on 16, but otherwise played reasonably well.  Even on 18 after making a bad tee shot, he still put his 3rd in range to have a very makeable putt to send it to a playoff. 

 

Van De Velde blew a 3 shot lead on the 18th hole.  Scott was tied on 18.  I felt terrible for Scott, he will certainly rightly feel that he let this championship get away, but Ernie closed in on him with a stellar back 9, including a big birdie at 18. 

Scott was leaking oil and Van de Velde threw a rod. I have to agree with Sobel (see Golf Channel link below) on this one. Scott never lost his composure and will lose less sleep than the collapse of Van de Velde whose loss will be the standard for a long time to come. The real test will be the next time someone blows a lead would we say, "He pulled a Scott" or "He pulled a Van de Velde"? In this scenario Jean wins every time.  

 

 

Here is the Golf Channel Version of the debate that was posted last night: 

 

http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golftalkcentral/scott-or-van-de-velde-bigger-open-collapse/

IMO, I think blowing it on the last hole for Van de Velde is worse than Adam Scott's bogey streak to lose. Van De Velde had his name on the trophy by the time he reached 18. Basically, he knows he won especially if you just have to shoot double bogey or less. But it was a lot of mental mistakes and poor decisions that did Van de Velde in on just one hole. 

Oh definitely Van de Velde. As stated, a 3 shot lead with one hole to play is far different than a 4 shot lead with 4 to play.

scott by far.  van de Velde buried an 8 footer to force a playoff; scott missed an 8 footer that would have forced a playoff.  it's a lot easier to come unraveled in one hole (see tiger at #6) vs having chance...after chance...after chance...after chance...to pull it together.  absolutely no excuse for scott's meltdown - els was 6 shots back at the turn for chrissake!     

 

So you're basing it on one putt? Yeah, JVdV made his eight footer...for a triple bogey. Does it matter that Scott's was for par? Didn't that factor into your thinking?

 

So in other words, forget all the hacking JVdV did prior to the putt - all forgiven since he made it?

 

he made the putt when it counted the most, and scott didn't.  regardless of what van de Velde carded for the hole, and how bad he looked doing it, he put himself in a position to still win the championship.  my opinion is based on more than the putt: scott had an hour (literally) to compose himself, and get his round back together after the levee started to leak - it was a lot easier for vdv to make some rushed, ill-advised decisions in the heat of the moment over the course of a 12 minute hole - and for that, (coupled with the fact scott didn't even force a playoff) imho, scott's fall from grace is worse.

Edited by Infamous 273 - 7/24/12 at 4:51pm

Van De Velde and it isn't even close, if I was VDV's caddy I would have busted every club in the bag up to the 7 iron on the 18th hole like Ceech Marin did to Kevin Costner in Tin Cup when VDV asked for driver. Fortunately for VDV he found dry land with his driver but then proceded to try and hit a shot on the green over grandstands!!!! He once again lucks out and mises the hazard with a shot blown way right into the stands,he has drawn a bad lie and instead of playing out to the fairway so he could hit up on the green and two putt for the win he once again tries to hit it over the hazard!!! At this point hes screwed in the hazard sitting 4, he has no choice but to take the drop and penalty chunks it in the sand trap blasts out and remarkably sinks the putt. The first and second shot where total mental breakdowns the third is hard to say because his lie may have made a shot to the fairway more difficult and I think I remember he feared that he may have wound up in a worse lie. It took 3 holes for Scott to lose his lead VDV did it in one.

The only decision Scott made over the last four holes that I would call an unforced error was hitting a fairway wood off the 18th tee, bringing the bunkers on the left into play. Scott made no questionable decisions; he just couldn't execute. Van de Velde's entire 18th hole was one questionable decision after another. Scott had a bad stretch at the most inopportune time, and there's little shame in that; Van de Velde was burned after taking a load of unnecessary risk, and there is plenty of shame in that. Van de Velde was worse - much worse.

VDV and it's not even close IMO.

Let's look at it a different way ... what if I told you that you HAD to bet your life savings on either A) A guy with a 4 shot lead with 4 holes to play OR  B) A guy with a 3 shot lead with one hole to play.

 

Wouldn't every last one of you put your money on 3 shots/1 hole?  It is a slam dunk, which is why it is way more of a choke than what Scott did.

Don't consider either a collapse. Jean VdV had a horrible case of "rub of the green."

 

Adam Scott basically went to sleep because he had too big a lead. With a 4-shot cushion, he thought he could play it safe, slide through holes and pick up the Claret Jug on his way to the pub. He lost his competitive edge, and couldn't stay focused at the end.

 

On the final hole, he should have bounced a low shot onto the front fringe and gone for a two-putt. I couldn't tell if... he rolled over on the shot and delofted the club... or overclubbed... or possibly caught a gusting tail wind at the top of his swing.

 

So how many strokes lost down the stretch, or on the 72nd hole, would you consider a collapse?

One, two, three, three. Or maybe that is how many licks it takes to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop. The world may never know, but three seems like a good number to qualify for a 72nd hole collapse.

VDV made at minimum 2 huge mental mistakes on the last hole maybe 3 depending on the lie he had for his third cause if he could've chiped to the fairway then it's 3. Like someone else said Scott only made one debatable error on the 18th by hitting a club that could find trouble or maybe he was trying to hit a cut and came over on it we just don't know but I'll bet VDV would have tried to advance that ball out of that trap instead of blasting to the fairway like Scott did.