2012 Ryder Cup Discussion Thread

[Nosevi]

Originally Posted by WWBDD

Not a chance ... that one veered into the relatively benign subject of WWII ... this one's careening into a debate on religion.

Lets's not go down that route. I'll debate religion with all comers if you like, just not on a golf thread, unless anyone feels like they need divine inspiration, or even intervention, of course.....

[Monte the Bear]

Please, not Thomas Bjorn. A baby seal dies whenever Sky has him near a microphone.

[Joakim]

As I said before hands down Europe is by far the most passionate team. And your boys really know how to celebrate. Heard criticizim for celebration behavior that is just sour grapes.

Rory- Class act he's already a star in the US. Ian- Not a star or never will be because he wins so often and with so much emotion. Justin rose I predict will win a major next year.

Luke Donald is in that discussion as well.

Congrats to Euro's... wish you well on the Tours and very much looking forward to Gleneagle. The posts alone from a US victory will be entertaining and curious to see if your blogs contain

any of the criticism directed at ours.

Got better more positive things to do and enjoy the MOMENT. You can slam me all you want.

Peace... I'm out

[Wansteadimp]

Originally Posted by phan52

He needed to break up some of his pairing on Saturday afternoon and he needed to frontload his lineup on Sunday to stem any opportunity for further momentum.

His first 4 out Watson, Simpson, Bradley & Mickelson. These were his best players so far that week. I have noticed some mild debtate about whether the latter two should have played more! It might have been wise to switch the order.

Unless you mean sending hout his most experience guys first - I can't believe you mean this, as two of these guys Furyk & Stricker were in awful form.

I could see an argument for Tiger going out early to arrest momentum, but the downside would be he had played the front 9 poorly previously and then come alight on the back 9. Hardly a receipe for stopping the momentum.

One of the issue is his treatment of Dustin, I get the feeling he didn't trust him - played well but only picked for 4balls, and then hidden away in the middle of the singles.

The mixing up of the pairings is a very valid point - he seemed to decide that some players just weren't for foursomes - on most courses a valid argument - but not around that set up of Medinah.

[Nosevi]

Originally Posted by Joakim

As I said before hands down Europe is by far the most passionate team. And your boys really know how to celebrate. Heard criticizim for celebration behavior that is just sour grapes.

Rory- Class act he's already a star in the US. Ian- Not a star or never will be because he wins so often and with so much emotion. Justin rose I predict will win a major next year.

Luke Donald is in that discussion as well.

Congrats to Euro's...wish you well on the Tours and very much looking forward to Gleneagle. The posts alone from a US victory will be entertaining and curious to see if your blogs contain

any of the criticism directed at ours.

Got better more positive things to do and enjoy the MOMENT. You can slam me all you want.

Peace... I'm out

Joakim,

Hope you're still reading, just wanted to say that hope you didn't feel I was slamming you with that last remark because I'm not, far from it. I don't really want to talk religion because I'm fairly used to doing so and because in this context it won't help. You'll mention it, Monte will take the piss, you'll get upset. Just don't see any milage in it. Was not taking the mick. I said I'd debate religion with all comers because I have an Honours Degree from Oxford University in Theology, based mainly around Christianity and ethics but including other bits and bobs. Not taking the mick at all, mate. Take care.

Nos

[Monte the Bear]

Originally Posted by Nosevi

Joakim,

Hope you're still reading, just wanted to say that hope you didn't feel I was slamming you with that last remark because I'm not, far from it. I don't really want to talk religion because I'm fairly used to doing so and because in this context it won't help. You'll mention it, Monte will take the piss, you'll get upset. Just don't see any milage in it. Was not taking the mick. I said I'd debate religion with all comers because I have an Honours Degree from Oxford University in Theology, based mainly around Christianity and ethics but including other bits and bobs. Not taking the mick at all, mate. Take care.

Nos

I'll take you up on that debate. Want to start a thread somewhere? You'll need to bring your Ryder Cup Sunday form with you.

[Nosevi]

Originally Posted by Monte the Bear

I'll take you up on that debate. Want to start a thread somewhere? You'll need to bring your Ryder Cup Sunday form with you.

Maybe some other time, mate.

[Monte the Bear]

Originally Posted by Nosevi

Maybe some other time, mate.

Sure. I'm in the Dawkins camp FYI.

[Nosevi]

Sure. I'm in the Dawkins camp FYI.

That's fine. Many deluded people are..... No, will not get into that, will not!

[Monte the Bear]

Originally Posted by Nosevi

That's fine. Many deluded people are.....

No, will not get into that, will not!

Haha, nicely done. Tip of the hat.

[Chas]

Nos, Mansfield College by any chance? Superb library there for a quiet bit of snooker. Did you ever play Southfield? Seven guineas for yearly membership! But those first few holes really did a number on me in the early 70's. Just miserable. Chas.

[Nosevi]

Haha, nicely done. Tip of the hat.

Just mucking about. :-) My disertation for my honours was actually a scientific proof of the existance of a deity, kinda anti Dawkin, so I do know a bit about what you mean. Tbh, I always found him to be a bit of a wishy, washy atheist - all noise and no substance. As you'll be aware, I'm guessing, his 'definitive work' (or at least the one that annoys most people) concludes that the existance of a deity is highly unlikely, scientifically speaking. He's mistaken in most of his thinking by equating religion and it's effects (a man made concept or delusion as he terms it hence the dig) as being in some way linked with an existance of a higher being. At the same time he tries to use his knowledge of genetics to outline why man was not created but evolved and use that as support of an argument for the universe not being created. Frankly he takes a huge leap between the two and utterly fails to prove the link. And at the end of it all he comes up with a probability! He shouts a lot about it though and says that only clever people understand him and stupid people believe in God. I maintain that clever people know they're not clever enough to know. He's spot on with creationism mind but that hardly proves or disproves any of his sweeping statements about a higher beings existance. All in all just find him difficult to take seriously, as did most of my faculty at Oxford where he obviously was a fellow. Think he's taken more seriously by people who haven't researched him at length. Yep that's an 'in' if you want to take it. Feel free to PM a responce though. Mods may just decide we're straying off topic again :-)

[Nosevi]

Nos, Mansfield College by any chance? Superb library there for a quiet bit of snooker. Did you ever play Southfield? Seven guineas for yearly membership! But those first few holes really did a number on me in the early 70's. Just miserable. Chas.

Chas, no didn't play golf at Uni, played Rugby. And wasn't alive in the early 70s, sorry mate :) I was at Westminster College, had a small Theology dept attached to the Faculty of theology but mostly was the primary Teacher Training College for Oxford Uni. 100 blokes 3/4 of who were going to be priests, 1200 lasses. Was a really rough 3 years!

[Chas]

WHAT .... In my college, before the age of enlightenment, it was about 350:0. sigh Excellent. My contribution to inter-college sport was croquet IIRC. sigh Saw interview with Lawrie just now, he clearly wants to lead the team. I don't know much about him. Would he be good? Later: How's about the logical " proof" (symbolic logic) by that Balliol fellow wassisname (pony tail, slim). Elegant but flawed.

[Nosevi]

WHAT .... In my college, before the age of enlightenment, it was about 350:0. sigh Saw interview with Lawrie just now, he clearly wants to lead the team. I don't know much about him. Would he be good?

Re Lawrie, I think so, but my prefered option is still Paul McGinley. And it was definitely post the age of enlightenment. Those primary school teacher trainees enlightened me a great deal!

[Chas]

Tell us all a bit about McGinley, I'm thinking I'm not the only one here who doesn't know him from Adam as it were ..... But don't give too much away - enemy intelligence is being gathered on the Internet as it is elsewhere :-)

[Nosevi]

Tell us all a bit about McGinley, I'm thinking I'm not the only one here who doesn't know him from Adam as it were ..... But don't give too much away - enemy intelligence is being gathered on the Internet as it is elsewhere :-)

Small, quick witted Irishman. Played in Ryder cup at the K club think it was and conceded a monster maybe 60 odd ft putt so USA didn't suffer a record defeat. Nice bloke, well respected.

[Nosevi]

Just checked, it was a 25 foot putt that he conceded to JJ Henry in the final match to finish. He looked at the board, saw missing it would mean the US team would go down by a record amount so conceded it to save thrm the embarasment. Hopefully that shows you the sort of chap he is.