Jump to content
IGNORED

Whatever Happened To European Domination?


stogiesnbogies
 Share

Note: This thread is 3376 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

Is that Lol knighting Matt Giteau for services to English rugby?

The other is clearly high.

Your boys were awesome first 30 last week, any chance of them turning off for the full 80 this week?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by Mr3Wiggle

17 of the 72 players who made the cut were from Europe.  24%

36 of the 156 players in the tournament were from Europe.  23%

38 of the 72 players who made the cut were from the US.  53%

84 of the 156 players in the tournament were from the US.  54%

Percentage-wise, one could argue that the Europeans held their own, as their percentage of those who made the cut was greater than their percentage of those entered in the tournament.  While that was not the case for the US.

It will be interesting to see if the Open Championship stats mirror this or if the field ends up being more than 23% US and less than 54% Euro (and if one group plays better than their %)

Looking at the OWGR Top 50, it looks like 21 from the USA and 20 from Europe...seems pretty even

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by MEfree

It will be interesting to see if the Open Championship stats mirror this or if the field ends up being more than 23% US and less than 54% Euro (and if one group plays better than their %)

Looking at the OWGR Top 50, it looks like 21 from the USA and 20 from Europe...seems pretty even

Its almost certain not to mirror each other.

The final regional qualifying provided 58 (mainly American) players for the US Open just gone whereas last year's final regional qualifying provided 11 (mainly European) players. I think the Open is now probably less "open" and gets more of the players based on performance around the world rather than from qualifying.

I wish the Open still did it like the US Open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by Wansteadimp

Its almost certain not to mirror each other.

The final regional qualifying provided 58 (mainly American) players for the US Open just gone whereas last year's final regional qualifying provided 11 (mainly European) players. I think the Open is now probably less "open" and gets more of the players based on performance around the world rather than from qualifying.

I wish the Open still did it like the US Open.

Do you think the reason more Americans got in has to do with the way the British allocates its open qualifying spots compared to the US or because Americans played better in the qualifiers?

I think I read somewhere that about half the spots at the British come from open qualifying compared to 2/3s for the US Open.  I stated elsewhere that I think half to open qualifying is preferable to 2/3s as I think too many guys that have proved themselves over an extended time period are left out when only 1/3 the spots are awarded based on prior play.  Sure it is fun to see open qualifiers play well and it gives a chance to guys like Jon Peterson who didn`t advance in q school, but half the field is enough for this IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by michaeljames92

Greg Norman. Brought a choking culture to Australian golf. Lets not forget for a country of 20 odd million people, we do alright for ourselves in world sport. One could say, perhaps the greatest sporting nation when taking into account population.

NZ disagrees. . 4 million people, country smaller than Alberta, little funding from the government. We do pretty good.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by michaeljames92

Greg Norman. Brought a choking culture to Australian golf. Lets not forget for a country of 20 odd million people, we do alright for ourselves in world sport. One could say, perhaps the greatest sporting nation when taking into account population.

Just did the math for Australia and Switzerland, for Winter (2010) and Summer (2008) Olympics combined:

Australia

20'555'008 population (only citizens), 46 medals in the Summer and 3 medals in the Winter games = 1 medal per 419 489.959 citizens.

Switzerland

6'137'800 population (only citizens), 7 medals in the Summer and 9 medals in the Winter games = 1 medal per 383 612.5 citizens.

On top of that, Switzerland's got Roger Federer and Australia's got Lleyton Hewitt

Link to comment
Share on other sites


To be fair, most of the worlds populations has zero chance to do most of those winter sports with most of the worlds population living in places that get no where near enough snow/ cold weather.

To bring it back to golf, what the heck do the south africans do to have so many good golfers. There are like 5 million white south africans (I am unaware of any black golfers from the area) but have 5 different major winners in the past 10 years.

And we should mention the under achieving countries. How has england done over the past 10 years? Heck go back 30 years and you pretty much have just Faldo and Woosnam (never sure if he counts.).

Originally Posted by Zwick

Just did the math for Australia and Switzerland, for Winter (2010) and Summer (2008) Olympics combined:

Australia

20'555'008 population (only citizens), 46 medals in the Summer and 3 medals in the Winter games = 1 medal per 419 489.959 citizens.

Switzerland

6'137'800 population (only citizens), 7 medals in the Summer and 9 medals in the Winter games = 1 medal per 383 612.5 citizens.

On top of that, Switzerland's got Roger Federer and Australia's got Lleyton Hewitt

Link to comment
Share on other sites


To bring it back to golf, what the heck do the south africans do to have so many good golfers. There are like 5 million white south africans (I am unaware of any black golfers from the area) but have 5 different major winners in the past 10 years.

And Northern Ireland has about 1.7 million people, and three major winners in the last two years (plus a week).

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by newtogolf

We need to be careful not to equate name recognition with golf skills.  DJ has been MIA most of the season.  Rickie got his first win but not exactly a consistent top golfer and Bradley is struggling right now.

Don't agree... Rickie had 5 top 10's in a row I believe in that stretch around the PLAYERS and Quail Hollow. I do agree that Bubba isn't good for the team he just isn't a very good golfer

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Yeah but what did they do for the previous 50 years?

Originally Posted by brocks

And Northern Ireland has about 1.7 million people, and three major winners in the last two years (plus a week).

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by MEfree

Do you think the reason more Americans got in has to do with the way the British allocates its open qualifying spots compared to the US or because Americans played better in the qualifiers?

I think I read somewhere that about half the spots at the British come from open qualifying compared to 2/3s for the US Open.  I stated elsewhere that I think half to open qualifying is preferable to 2/3s as I think too many guys that have proved themselves over an extended time period are left out when only 1/3 the spots are awarded based on prior play.  Sure it is fun to see open qualifiers play well and it gives a chance to guys like Jon Peterson who didn`t advance in q school, but half the field is enough for this IMO.

Last year's Open had 5 lots of international qualifying, Australia (3 spots), Asia (4), Africa (3), America (8), Europe (9) and local final qualifying with 12 spots so 39 out of 156 which is about 25%.

Last week's US Open had international qualifying in Japan (6 spots), Europe (11), and Sectional in the US with 58 spots so a total of 75 qualifiers out of 148 so about 50%.

So more US players in the US Open than Europeans in the Open because of allocation of qualifying spots, and a much greater percentage of qualifiers in the US Open.

Personally I'd like another 12 spots for local final qualifying for the Open which would give about a third of the field, and give more chances to qualify for non tour pros/amateurs in the Open.

Woosnam is Welsh he won't take kindly to being called English. The last time an Englishman won an Open in England? Jacklin at Lytham in 1969, 43 fing years, not in my lifetime! All Faldo's wins were north of the border.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: This thread is 3376 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

    • Best 92 ever for me. 2nd time on this course that has many elevation changes and hidden hazards. 6 penalty strokes and never really put anything together. But also hit everything solid. I'll take it any day.
    • Day 13 Full swing iron practice with a 6i, 8i and GW.
    • Obviously, if a person made 100% of them on perfect greens, then on substandard greens they would miss putts. So, it would never benefit them.  Let's say a golfer makes 50% of putts on perfect greens, and on bad greens 50% of putts made were deflected away, and 50% of putts missed were deflected in, then their made % would not change.  I don't know we could assume that the green would cause 50% of the putts to miss for the golfer who made 100% on perfect greens, but it would cause a certain % of their putts to miss.  I would say that it hurts the better putters more and maybe doesn't effect bad putters as much. A horrible putter it may never help 😛. If you're not even close for a deflection. 
    • Day 204.  Several times during football Sunday, I took 5-10 minute breaks to hit a few practice balls.  As always, the focus was on the slow correct swings.  I think several small sessions might be better for me than one extended long session:  I don't always have good discipline as I go past the 15 minute mark, and sometimes I catch myself raking in a ball and hitting it right away;  by contrast, when I consciously start a short session, I'm going to at least set in with what I set to do. 
    • (Written without reading anyone else's replies) I voted the difference would increase.  Here's my line of thinking.  The good putter would have been in or close on the ideal surface;  so while the bumps can keep some out, it can also push some that were going to be close into the cup.  Luck at least has a chance to be at least as beneficial as it is hurtful.  By contrast, the poor putters can't really benefit much from luck -- sure, it might cause a ball to finish closer to the cup, but they aren't missing by two bumps instead of one.
  • Today's Birthdays

    1. AmirReza
      AmirReza
      (34 years old)
    2. BushwoodCC
      BushwoodCC
      (55 years old)
    3. cozelos
      cozelos
      (36 years old)
    4. RollingStoppie
      RollingStoppie
      (52 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...