Jump to content
IGNORED

The Open Championship


mcfc_nick
 Share

Note: This thread is 3978 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

It wouldnt have mattered, he was heads and shoulders above every golfer out there the last 3 days anyways. Nobody else came close to how Oosthuizen played. No one closed the gap in good weather either. Oos.....dominated the field.

dont kid yourself, Oosthuizen shot a -5 67 on Friday in the very best of the weather conditions, had he had the later tee time and played in the wind i believe he would have struggled to shoot par (as everyone did) so lets say he shoots +2, we then have a play off. But overall he did deserve it, he was the best player over the week but it would have been nice to see him have to play in the conditions of friday and see how he would have coped

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 380
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Congrats to Oosthuizen. He played really well, and like most "journey-men" leaders, he never cracked. I salute him for that.

With that said, I'd have to say that was one of the more boring Major Championships I've seen in a while. Not a lot of great golf shots (really because of the wind) and not a lot of big names atop the leaderboard, and it really was never close much of the way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


dont kid yourself, Oosthuizen shot a -5 67 on Friday in the very best of the weather conditions, had he had the later tee time and played in the world i believe he would have struggled to shoot par (as everyone did) so lets say he shoots +2, we then have a play off. But overall he did deserve it, he was the best player over the week but it would have been nice to see him have to play in the conditions of friday and see how he would have coped

That is a good point. But I imagine other Open winners have had similar luck with respect to tee times. He certainly had a good golf swing and deserved the win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


dont kid yourself, Oosthuizen shot a -5 67 on Friday in the very best of the weather conditions, had he had the later tee time and played in the world i believe he would have struggled to shoot par (as everyone did) so lets say he shoots +2, we then have a play off. But overall he did deserve it, he was the best player over the week but it would have been nice to see him have to play in the conditions of friday and see how he would have coped

Kid myself? Where were the super stars when they caught the good weather? Other than Casey, they all folded up like lawn chairs after labor day. Tiger and Phil looked like a couple of chumps. Oos wasnt exactly having it easy in the down pours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Kid myself? Where were the super stars when they caught the good weather? Other than Casey, they all folded up like lawn chairs after labor day. Tiger and Phil looked like a couple of chumps. Oos wasnt exactly having it easy in the down pours.

i think he'll be the first to tell you that he'd rather have the downpours (which there wasnt a lot of by the way during his round) than the extreme wind that was causing balls to move about on the green and forcing players to be very tentative when putting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Sometimes, the scheduling of the first two rounds benefit certain players. Oostie was in the second group of the afternoon/morning flight, so he his first round was mostly over when the wind hit on Thursday, and was long gone when the wind really hit Friday. He had scoring opportunities, and he made the best of them.

If you recall the US Open last year, the late Thursday groups ultimately played most of their two rounds in a break of weather Friday afternoon, while the earlier groups were washed out after a few holes Thursday, finished their rounds in the muck Friday morning, then played their second rounds just as the weather turned again early Saturday. Most of the top finishers came from those late groups. Again, these things happen in tournaments.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Did the "Champion Golfer of the Year" really wear a hat during the awards ceremony

actually, the brits, at least the ones commentating on bbc sport, quite often referred to the tourney as the ''british open.''

Link to comment
Share on other sites


umm... you really think nike ads had something to do with people liking tiger? i think the fact that winning 5 tournaments in a season is almost a letdown for him, and him crushing the field by double digit strokes, and the fact that he has, along with phil, the greatest short game ever has to do with people liking him. plus he's an athletic black/asian american, which was the antithesis of the cigar smoking fat white guy image most had in their minds eye of the avg. pga tour player. he made golf better, made people become athletes to compete with him, and forced everyone to up their game. all that is why people love tiger, it's got nothing to do with a nike ad.

For you and me, no, but for the casual fan, which is what the original comment was about, or the general public who has nothing to do with golf and wouldn't know a short game for a shortstop, the Nike ads were instrumental in parlaying his record on the course into making him one of the most recognizable and admired people on the planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


It wouldnt have mattered, he was heads and shoulders above every golfer out there the last 3 days anyways. Nobody else came close to how Oosthuizen played. No one closed the gap in good weather either. Oos.....dominated the field.

He wasn't though. McIlroy was -9 after day one and the conditions were directly relevant to his deterioration. He has never shot a round in the 70s at St Andrews so supposing that he played in the conditions Oosthuizen enjoyed on Friday. A 66-71 would have been more than likely and that alone would have won him the tournament. Give Oosthuizen McIlroys conditions and his 67 likely become a 72.

McIlroy could have finished the tournament 22 under and Oosthuizen 11 under but for the luck of the draw. Edit: And if they had played identical conditions then it would have been very even in the end with McIlroys second round determining just how close it would be. Anyone who watched McIlroy on the second day, much as his 80 was fully deserved, couldn't help but think a record breaking performance had been snatched from his grasp.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


He wasn't though. McIlroy was -9 after day one and the conditions were directly relevant to his deterioration. He has never shot a round in the 70s at St Andrews so supposing that he played in the conditions Oosthuizen enjoyed on Friday. A 66-71 would have been more than likely and that alone would have won him the tournament. Give Oosthuizen McIlroys conditions and his 67 likely become a 72.

what would you suggest? a giant dome over st. andrews?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


He wasn't though. McIlroy was -9 after day one and the conditions were directly relevant to his deterioration. He has never shot a round in the 70s at St Andrews so supposing that he played in the conditions Oosthuizen enjoyed on Friday. A 66-71 would have been more than likely and that alone would have won him the tournament. Give Oosthuizen McIlroys conditions and his 67 likely become a 72.

I agree with this for the most part, but hey, that's how it goes. You knew it was gonna be like that going in. Luck of the draw type of thing, and it's who can survive.

what would you suggest? a giant dome over st. andrews?

LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Whatever you care to conclude about factors over which he had no control, Oosthuizen played great golf.

For the week he was first in fairways hit (86%), tied for first in birdies (with 20), tied for third in total putts (with 121), fourth in driving distance (306 yards) and tied for eighth in greens in regulation (83%).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

McIlroy could have finished the tournament 22 under and Oosthuizen 11 under but for the luck of the draw.

Could have, should have, might have, didn't. What pointless conjecture. The results are in, and McIlroy is the last person who'd agree with you. You may as well say If Tiger had putted well he would have won.

Since when has the "luck of the draw not played a part in golf tournaments where weather is involved?
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Did the "Champion Golfer of the Year" really wear a hat during the awards ceremony

Some people just don't get it, do they, no matter how many times it is explained to them. Nobody cares if it is called the "British Open", in fact it is useful to do so as a point differentiation, but they are irritated when some moronic golf newbie thinks that the term "The Open" is a pretentious term, invented in the last five minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Did the "Champion Golfer of the Year" really wear a hat during the awards ceremony

wow, at the end of the day if you go around asking people what tournament is 'The Open' 99 times out of 100 the answer you get would be that it is our open

by the way, who cares anyway?
Link to comment
Share on other sites


wow, at the end of the day if you go around asking people what tournament is 'The Open' 99 times out of 100 the answer you get would be that it is our open

Yeah well over here they keep calling the Masters the 'US Masters' and the PGA Championship the 'US PGA' so I think we can freely continue to call their tourney the British Open. Why not?
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Yeah well over here they keep calling the Masters the 'US Masters' and the PGA Championship the 'US PGA' so I think we can freely continue to call their tourney the British Open. Why not?

all in all matey, i really could not care less, i dont call the Masters the US Masters or the PGA the US PGA because the tournament is not called that, the same as our open is called The Open Championship, not the British Open Championship

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: This thread is 3978 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Support TST Affiliates

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    Whoop
    SuperSpeed
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo and the code "iacasjun21" for 10% off SuperSpeed.
  • Posts

    • It looks like we came to more or less the same conclusion, then. Curious if others have thoughts. I also wonder if moving back on par 3s might make some sense. Just thinking about a hole from 75 or 150 yards. A par from 150 is the same as a birdie from 75. If the hole has little chance of a double bogey (no water, easily avoidable sand, etc.), it might make sense to move back there. Let's try some math. I looked at my GameGolf stats to come up with something approaching what's accurate for me: From 75: From fairway from 50-75 yards, I'm within 15 yards of the hole 81% of the time; from 75-100, I'm within 15 yards 73% of the time. So, just a rough estimate of what I think would happen: 15% chance at bogey, 77% chance at par, 8% chance at birdie Average score = (0.15*4) + (0.77*3) + (0.08*2) = 0.6+2.31+0.16 = 3.07 Points for the game is (0.15*0) + (0.77*75) + (0.08*150) = 0+57.75+12 = 69.75 From 150: From tee box from 125-150, I'm within 15 yards of the hole 79% of the time; from 150-175, I'm within 15 yards of the hole 58% of the time. Another rough estimate (probably a little optimistic, to be honest, but I'm not sure it changes all that much): 25% chance at bogey, 70% chance at par, 5% chance at birdie Average score = (0.25*4) + (0.7*3) + (0.05*2) = 1+2.1+0.1=3.2 Points for the game is (0.25*0) + (0.7*150) + (0.05*300) = 0+105+15 = 120 I'm assuming that the hole is unlikely to yield a double bogey. I'm not sure I can think of a hole in real life that's not on a par 3 course where that would be the case, but it looks like I might be able to get more points by going a bit further back on par 3s.  That said, I don't see a scenario where moving back on par 4s and par 5s would make sense, barring some weird lay up hole or something like that.
    • Try a Callaway dealer or Callaway themselves.
    • I assume you're in the USGA jurisdiction, so I suggest that you refer him to the USGA Handicap Rules.  1.3(i) discusses player responsibility, including the expectation that the player will enter "acceptable scores" into the system in a timely manner.  2.1 talks about what an Acceptable Score is, and defines what are Acceptable Formats, which specifically include fourball formats.  Rule 3 talks about adjusting hole scores, which specifically addresses situations where a hole isn't completed.  In sum, the Rules require fourball scores to be posted (within the USGA jurisdictions, not everywhere), and gives the player the mechanisms to do so.  It sounds to me as if the pro is using his own personal opinion to override the requirements of the Handicap Rules.
    • Sure. Umm..... for a price. 😜
    • Yeah, I was dumb enough (or passionate enough) to play golf in the heaviest part of the storm. Mostly finished passing through my area yesterday afternoon, but I think we got around 10 inches of rain, so everything is soaked.
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. 4FrugalGolfers
      4FrugalGolfers
      (75 years old)
    2. basketcase01
      basketcase01
      (43 years old)
    3. JimF27
      JimF27
      (70 years old)
    4. Mark Bradshaw
      Mark Bradshaw
      (60 years old)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...