Note: This thread is 2295 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!
What happened at the last Ryder cup when USA lost, you said your team didn't play to their potential. I call that double standards, but no problem for me I can wait for the next Ryder cup and see if Europe play well or not, and what will USA do. Either way it's game of fun and friendship with a little competition mixed in, I enjoyed it....
Under the definition that I am familiar with, yes. Links courses to me, and I believe this is a fairly strict definition, are as follows:
2.) Sandy turf
3.) Rolling dunes
4.) Land is unfarmable. This is one of the most important pieces, as it is how golf really picked up steam. Because the turf is sandy, dune covered, and close to the ocean, it makes it unsuitable for agriculture. Rather than the land just sit there unused, let's make a game that can be played on said land.
5.) Trees are minimal. This is a course feature, as well as a natural one, because the variety of trees that can withstand sea-spray (salt) is low.
6.) Deep bunkering which is often smaller in area than what is seen on parklands courses.
7.) Plenty of acreage of the course is left "natural". Long uncut fescue and gorse are common, though not required.
The challenges on these courses lie in the land itself more than "manufactured" hazards. The wind, unpredictable bounces, severe bunkers, and natural areas are the course's defense, as opposed to on course water and trees. Many courses in North America have this idea going for them, but may not be seaside, or may not be in that unfarmable strip of land.
Two years is a long freaking time, 12 of the top 21 being on ONE team is a LONG shot to happen again.
That's just the odds, man.
So how much do you want to bet?
For all you know it might be some South African kid in college right now, or three Korn Ferry Tour players.
Two years ago did you think Patrick Cantlay would be OWGR 4? Heck no.
What were the OWGR rankings of the previous six U.S. Ryder Cup team members? 12 inside the top 21 is really rare.
18 holes of match play, in a match that wasn't remotely close to interesting for the American player, doesn't prove that Brandel Chamblee was wrong about how poor of a ball striker Ian Poulter is right now.
This speaks to that:
SG: Approach the Green | PGA TOUR Stats
Strokes Gained | Greens in Regulation | Accuracy from Fairway | Accuracy from Rough | Scoring | Going for it | Holeouts, Other
Oh, gee, 141st.
Oh, maybe he's a good driver?
SG: Off-the-Tee | PGA TOUR Stats
Strokes Gained | Distance (All Drives) | Distance (Measured Drives) | Accuracy | Scoring | Other | Radar
Poulter is a poor ball striker. His record in this Ryder Cup was (backward):
He won his singles match against Tony Finau, who withdrew from the Dunhill Links due to an ongoing health issue, 3&2.
He was waxed with Rory McIlroy by DJ/Collin, 4&3.
He was waxed by Cantlay and Schauffele, while playing with Rory again, 5&3.
Thus, he was 1-2-0 for the week.
1-2-0 is the "best result of the European players and most of the USA players"?
On what f***ing planet? Because if you are — as you clearly are — only talking about singles matches, then that's just really dumb. Like I said, a "terrible take."
BTW, Poulter won 3&2. He played the 16th hole.
JT won 4&3. Bryson won 3&2. Scottie beat Rahm (who is a significantly better ball striker than Ian Poulter) 4&3. Cantlay won his match 4&2. And Rory won 3&2, too. So that's five other people, three of which are Americans, who either matched or beat Poulter's singles match play scoring…
Like I said, a terrible take.