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

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by Awsi Dooger

Van de Velde got the worst break in modern sports history on his second shot. Otherwise he can chump it around and still win.

Yet he could have gone wedge-wedge instead of hitting that shot & had a Claret Jug. His own fault.

[The Recreational Golfer]

Van de Velde's El Foldo was more shocking because you didn't have time to catch your breath after one mistake before he was making another.

Scott's collapse was like watching a car wreck in super-slow motion. I remember Mike Turico saying after the birdie on 14 that Scott had "one hand on the trophy." I also remember commenting to my wife, "This tournament is a long way from being over."

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by rustyredcab

+1. Nothing else like it. Mental error followed by physical error. Kept repeating that cycle over and over.

Originally Posted by The Recreational Golfer

Van de Velde's El Foldo was more shocking because you didn't have time to catch your breath after one mistake before he was making another.

I just watched the video that Mike posted to refresh my memory, and I came away with a little different opinion.  (I had previously agreed with Rusty, rec, et al that VDV's choke was 1000x worse but ...)  I really only see one mental mistake during the entire hole ... and that was his attempt to hit his second shot to the green instead of, like Zip suggested, going wedge wedge and coming away with probably no worse than a 5, certainly at least a 6.  And I'd say even that was less than or equal to Scott's mental mistake of hitting 3 wood off the tee on 18 instead of the iron he hit all three previous days.  The "worst" that could (should) have happened to VDV was he's lying 2 in the rough by the grandstand or in bunker and he couldn't make worse than 6 from there were it not for the bad break.  I think the dumbstruck look on his face the whole time, and the image of him standing in the water with his pants hiked up make us remember his debacle worse than it really was.

That said, he made more bad shots in a shorter period of holes (hitting into the water with his third, and into the bunker with his fifth) so I still consider it a worse "choke" than Scott's ... but its a lot closer than I previously remembered.

[ClayHbg]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

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.

Game, set, match.

[MSchott]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I just watched the video that Mike posted to refresh my memory, and I came away with a little different opinion.  (I had previously agreed with Rusty, rec, et al that VDV's choke was 1000x worse but ...)  I really only see one mental mistake during the entire hole ... and that was his attempt to hit his second shot to the green instead of, like Zip suggested, going wedge wedge and coming away with probably no worse than a 5, certainly at least a 6.  And I'd say even that was less than or equal to Scott's mental mistake of hitting 3 wood off the tee on 18 instead of the iron he hit all three previous days.  The "worst" that could (should) have happened to VDV was he's lying 2 in the rough by the grandstand or in bunker and he couldn't make worse than 6 from there were it not for the bad break.  I think the dumbstruck look on his face the whole time, and the image of him standing in the water with his pants hiked up make us remember his debacle worse than it really was.

That said, he made more bad shots in a shorter period of holes (hitting into the water with his third, and into the bunker with his fifth) so I still consider it a worse "choke" than Scott's ... but its a lot closer than I previously remembered.

This is easy to say in retrospect but with the trouble available of the tee on VDV's first mistake was hitting driver. This hole could easily have been played iron, iron, wedge, 2 putt for bogey. He was in the cat bird seat and make bad decisions and bad swings. Scott's only bad decision was the 3 wood on 18 and even that is not a terrible error.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by MSchott

This is easy to say in retrospect but with the trouble available of the tee on VDV's first mistake was hitting driver. This hole could easily have been played iron, iron, wedge, 2 putt for bogey. He was in the cat bird seat and make bad decisions and bad swings. Scott's only bad decision was the 3 wood on 18 and even that is not a terrible error.

That may be true.  But he did not end up in a bad place at all.  He might have been in the wrong fairway and hitting over a grandstand, but he had a perfect lie on fairway grass.  All the more reason for him to cut his losses and say to himself "wow, that was a horrible swing I just made and I got a really good break ending up with this perfect lie ... maybe I should be smart and just wedge it on in the rest of the way so I don't risk losing it way right again."  Which is exactly whad he did ... he lost the next shot way right.

[Golfingdad]

I have never heard of anything like this ...

http://espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/8197387/report-sportsbettingonline-returning-money-bet-adam-scott-win-open-championship

I thought bookies and casino owners were all just heartless a-holes.  What gives???

I guess they think Scott's collapse was worse, eh?

[RPMPIRE]

This is the same betting company that gave people's money back for the questionable decision in the Pacquiao v. Bradley fight. Clearly Pacquaio should have won and so did Sportsbook.

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

I have never heard of anything like this ...

http://espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/8197387/report-sportsbettingonline-returning-money-bet-adam-scott-win-open-championship

I thought bookies and casino owners were all just heartless a-holes.  What gives???

I guess they think Scott's collapse was worse, eh?

Tirico then went to say that Els AND Scott had one of their hands on the trophy after Scott bogeyed 17 and also referring to a playoff.

Originally Posted by The Recreational Golfer

Scott's collapse was like watching a car wreck in super-slow motion. I remember Mike Turico saying after the birdie on 14 that Scott had "one hand on the trophy." I also remember commenting to my wife, "This tournament is a long way from being over."

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by ClayHbg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

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.

Game, set, match.

What if you told us that we had to bet on Adam Scott or some French guy who we've never heard of and the 1 hole is the 18th at Carnoustie.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

What if you told us that we had to bet on Adam Scott or some French guy who we've never heard of and the 1 hole is the 18th at Carnoustie.

Aha, good point.  And if the circumstances were the same, (lead and holes remaining), then of course, any sane person not from France would choose Scott.

But the unknown French guy only needed one double bogey.  The way he played all week, he should've been able to do that blindfolded.

[luu5]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

That may be true.  But he did not end up in a bad place at all.  He might have been in the wrong fairway and hitting over a grandstand, but he had a perfect lie on fairway grass.  All the more reason for him to cut his losses and say to himself "wow, that was a horrible swing I just made and I got a really good break ending up with this perfect lie ... maybe I should be smart and just wedge it on in the rest of the way so I don't risk losing it way right again."  Which is exactly whad he did ... he lost the next shot way right.

And to my understanding the grandstand was marked as "safe" in VdV playbook, i.e. if ball ends there you get a free drop. But this time it bounced badly.

[onesome]

I just can't understand how anyone calls VDV's 2nd shot off the handrail bad luck instead of staying in the grandstand?All meltdowns are hinged on what a player does with his second shot (decision making) that tells us how bad of a collapse they had. Both Scott and VDV made questionable decisions with their teed ball on the final hole but it was what they decided to do with the second shot is what defines a mental letdown, Mickelson obviously should not have hit driver on the 72nd hole at the us open but he sure as hell should have never attempted the heroic 2nd shot he tried cause that instantly put him behind the 8 ball.Scott made the right decision to just get back in the fairway cause he still almost made a putt that would have put him in a playoff.It's all about what you do after making an error already that defines choking.

[k-troop]

The thing that gets me about Scott's final four is that he hit the tough shots perfectly, but blew the easy ones.  If I recall, he had a perfect drive on 15, but missed the green with a short iron into the bunker.  Had another perfect drive on 16, hit a mediocre wedge to 30 feet, and 3-putted (the 3-footer miss was clearly a brain fart).  I remember thinking on 17, why is he hitting driver again??  But he stripes yet another perfect drive on 17, middle of the fairway, then pulls another short iron left into the thick grass (I guess that was a pretty bad shot).  Then on 18, he hit another solid drive on a great line--just too far, and into the bunker.  He hit a great pitch out, then a laser third to 8 feet.

The tee shots and long-iron approaches (like Adam had on 18) are supposed to be the tough ones at the Open, and Scott was nearly perfect down the stretch with those shots.  But he hit 3 straight short irons in the 30-50 foot range, which is pretty unspectacular for a top-ranked pro, and took 9 putts for the final 4 holes.

[Elvisliveson]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

But the unknown French guy only needed one double bogey.  The way he played all week, he should've been able to do that blindfolded.

But I will remind you that in the next open at Carnoustie, eventual winner Padraig Harrington needed to one put for double bogey to get into a playoff. And Sergio Garcia bogied the hole to fall into that playoff. The 18th at Carnoustie is one of, if no the most difficult finishing hole in major championship history.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Elvisliveson

But I will remind you that in the next open at Carnoustie, eventual winner Padraig Harrington needed to one put for double bogey to get into a playoff. And Sergio Garcia bogied the hole to fall into that playoff. The 18th at Carnoustie is one of, if no the most difficult finishing hole in major championship history.

Thanks, I definitely don't remember stuff like that anymore.  I also went back and looked and saw that the winning score in '99 was +6 (looks like the highest since 1938), so it wasn't a birdie-fest like they always have at St. Andrews.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by Elvisliveson

But I will remind you that in the next open at Carnoustie, eventual winner Padraig Harrington needed to one put for double bogey to get into a playoff. And Sergio Garcia bogied the hole to fall into that playoff. The 18th at Carnoustie is one of, if no the most difficult finishing hole in major championship history.

Which just further showed VdV's stupidity with his strategy. He could have gone 7i short of the burn, 7i between the burns, Wedge onto green. Play it as a par 5, especially what all you need is 6 to win.

[GaijinGolfer]

Id have to go with VDV because it was a much more sudden and catastrophic collapse.  IMO, Scott didnt collapse as badly because he didnt totally fall apart, he simply missed some key shots down the stretch and wasnt making any putts but honestly, he wasnt making many putts all weekend.

[mchepp]

I feel that Scott's choke was more the conventional method of losing a golf tournament where there was not a single mistake that we could point too, but more or less a comedy of errors over the course of many holes. Scott's type of loss is one we have seen often and will certainly see again.

VDV on the other hand did something we will only see every 10 years or so. it was unbelievably dramatic. Why did he hit driver off that tee? He could hit 3 iron, then something easily over the water and then pitched on. The driver on that tee was were it all started bad for him. I agree with the decision he made to try and hit 3 iron into the stands. Thing is the stands could give all sorts of bad bounces, just ask Phil Mickelson at the Masters this year. So it was unlucky, but it wasn't without its risks.

So if asked to rate them, I still give VDV the edge simply because it was such a rare slipup. Something we are not so accustomed to seeing.