Fred Couples on Tom Watson, the Ryder Cup and the PGA Task Force

[rb72]

Don't see why Europe should be penalised because America keeps losing?

If America has no appetite for the fight any longer then at least have the decency to wave the white flag and surrender and let an international team take your place permanently. The onus is on America to sort it out, and it isn't actually that difficult. The question really is do the players have the will to do so beyond serving up mealy mouthed platitudes at press conferences that they don't back up with deed

Did I miss something? Who suggested Europe be penalized by what?

[FarawayFairways]

Did I miss something? Who suggested Europe be penalized by what?

The post previous suggests:

"Modify the "Ryder Cup/Presidents Cup" and bring the internationals into the system.

Start 2016 with the Americans vs the Europeans.

The loser sits out 2018 and the winner plays the Internationals."

So if Europe should lose, they have to sit out in 2018.

No thanks.

Europe gets up to play America, it doesn't want to play a patchwork of Australians and South Africans. Now if America needs to supplement their own with the Rest of the World so be it. That's different. But the onus is on America to innovate and apply themselves. It isn't that difficult to do the former, but it will require players to commit

What's seriously being suggested is that Europe should be penalised for being successful. The competition is about two teams, not one. Periodically such formats do go through spells of dominance, that doesn't mean the vanquished run away and ask someone else to do their bidding. Hell England would have stopped playing cricket against Australia years ago, but every now and then, England do win

[Ernest Jones]

Modify the "Ryder Cup/Presidents Cup" and bring the internationals into the system.

Start 2016 with the Americans vs the Europeans.

The loser sits out 2018 and the winner plays the Internationals.

Continue onward.

This allows the American stars to get off the big deal each and every year. They do not want to do a "cup" each year.

After losing and having to sit for 4 years, the losers will be go forward with "mucho hambre", which is currently lacking.

That would be funny, the Americans would loss their collective shit if they had to sit out a RC year.

[straightshooter]

The Americans still want to play, just not annually as now with the Ryder and then Presidents.

Actually, they are sick and tired of it!!!!!!!!!!!

But it makes lots of money (so far) for the pga

[FarawayFairways]

Europe plays Seve Trophy and EurAsia Cup matches in the non-RC year, albeit they're increasingly used as glorified training sessions. It's not unique to America

If some of precious prima donnas of the PGA truly are sick and tired of being asked to represent their country, then send for the likes of Boo Weekley and Kenny Perry. Give them Pat Reed, and in fairness Keegan Bradley too. Find people who regard it as an honour and are prepared to and go that extra mile and do all those inconvenient things that separates a team from individuals.

Who would you rather watch, someone like Boo wearing is heart on his sleeve and giving it his all, or some precious moaner tellign you his workload is all too much for him. Character goes a long way in team sport. The overall package can exceed the indvidual sum of the parts

[rb72]

The post previous suggests:

"Modify the "Ryder Cup/Presidents Cup" and bring the internationals into the system.

Start 2016 with the Americans vs the Europeans.

The loser sits out 2018 and the winner plays the Internationals."

So if Europe should lose, they have to sit out in 2018.

No thanks.

Europe gets up to play America, it doesn't want to play a patchwork of Australians and South Africans. Now if America needs to supplement their own with the Rest of the World so be it. That's different. But the onus is on America to innovate and apply themselves. It isn't that difficult to do the former, but it will require players to commit

What's seriously being suggested is that Europe should be penalised for being successful. The competition is about two teams, not one. Periodically such formats do go through spells of dominance, that doesn't mean the vanquished run away and ask someone else to do their bidding. Hell England would have stopped playing cricket against Australia years ago, but every now and then, England do win

I think its funny that you suggest that they would be penalized for being successful, when the penalty would only be incurred IF THEY LOSE.

[FarawayFairways]

You're obviously not understanding it

The genesis of the idea (a team sitting out every two years) has seriously been put forward by an American, as a solution to a perceived problem. That problem being the increasingly one sided nature of these matches. By any reasonable definition, Europe are therefore being successful, and by association, America unsuccessful? Havign established this we also need to recognise that now and then America will win, in which case Europe will get penalised for a probelm that has its roots in their success. Europe shouldn't have to lower themsleves to American standards. The onus is clearly on America (who have plenty of active golfers) to raise their game. Can you not see this?

Quite apart from anything else, these games are scheduled years in advance

2016 Hazeltine

2018 Le Golf National

2020 Whistling Straits

2022 TBC

2024 Bethpage Black

How would you feel if you had the responsibility for marketing and selling tickets for a match between Europe and the Rest of the World to be played at Whistling Straits? D'you reckon the American networks would be crawling all over you for the rights to a tournament where the only Americans on show will be those selling beer to the crowd? Do you think Americans would turn up to watch. You'd likely get landed with hefty damages suit from Whistling Straits apart from anything else. Count yourself lucky that the players aren't being asked to be paid as the chances are you'd lose money on the venture

It's frankly a daft idea.

[rb72]

You're obviously not understanding it

The genesis of the idea (a team sitting out every two years) has seriously been put forward by an American, as a solution to a perceived problem. That problem being the increasingly one sided nature of these matches. By any reasonable definition, Europe are therefore being successful, and by association, America unsuccessful? Havign established this we also need to recognise that now and then America will win, in which case Europe will get penalised for a probelm that has its roots in their success. Europe shouldn't have to lower themsleves to American standards. The onus is clearly on America (who have plenty of active golfers) to raise their game. Can you not see this?

Quite apart from anything else, these games are scheduled years in advance

2016 Hazeltine

2018 Le Golf National

2020 Whistling Straits

2022 TBC

2024 Bethpage Black

How would you feel if you had the responsibility for marketing and selling tickets for a match between Europe and the Rest of the World to be played at Whistling Straits? D'you reckon the American networks would be crawling all over you for the rights to a tournament where the only Americans on show will be those selling beer to the crowd? Do you think Americans would turn up to watch. You'd likely get landed with hefty damages suit from Whistling Straits apart from anything else. Count yourself lucky that the players aren't being asked to be paid as the chances are you'd lose money on the venture

It's frankly a daft idea.

I didn't say I liked the idea. I don't. I still think it's a stretch to consider it a penalty for success. it's a new format under which all three entities play under the same rules and the only penalty incurred is is incurred for losing. Your "its roots" statement is ridiculous. The rest of your reasoning as to why its a bad idea is perfectly sound.

[FarawayFairways]

So you understand money and legal, but not a matter of principle ........ urm

Let me have one last attempt then

Why should Europe accept this new format? What have they done to justify having it imposed upon them, other than win? Why does't anyone suggest that America plays the Rest of the World for the right the challenge Europe every two years?

This new proposed format is purely a reflection on the way that recent results have gone is it not? thats' a simple yes or no answer. Well the answer has to be yes. If matches were being traded equally with wins and losses, something tells me America wouldn't be making this suggestion (not that she is in any seriousness of course).

So we've establsihed that the new format is a reflection on European success and American failure therefore?. That is the genesis, or root, of where it's come from isn't it?

So when Europe loses its one match in the last eight, it has to sit out. No thanks. 7 wins in 8 matches is a success rate that most teams will go to the top of their respective divisions on the back of. It's not something that should be penalised

If America can't compete any longer, then by all means bring in the rest of the world and forfeit the naming right to call yourself team USA and also accept that you'll now stage the event once every eight years. GB & Ireland had to do the same when faced with the realisation they couldn't compete (at American instigation in fairness to them, as they wanted the cup to mean something). But do you really want that because a dozen indviduals can't bring themselves to work together as a team without being put in pods and told who they have to buddy up with (are they not doing this anyway?). The plight of America is along way removed from that faced by GB and Ireland though. Europe first played in 1979, by the time Hazeltine rolls around, it will have been 37 years since. During this period, just 29 continental have represented Europe, of which 18 have come from just two countries (Spain & Sweden). Tipping points can be on quite fine margins. The rump of the European team is still GB and Ireland. America faces no where near the level of structural issues faced by GB and Ireland. America's challenge is rooted in preparation and attitude

The solution is in your own hands, but I'm not sure asking the schoolkids to mark their own assignments is a massive step in the right direction, but at least it's a step

[rb72]

So you understand money and legal, but not a matter of principle ........ urm

Let me have one last attempt then

Why should Europe accept this new format? What have they done to justify having it imposed upon them, other than win? Why does't anyone suggest that America plays the Rest of the World for the right the challenge Europe every two years?

This new proposed format is purely a reflection on the way that recent results have gone is it not? thats' a simple yes or no answer. Well the answer has to be yes. If matches were being traded equally with wins and losses, something tells me America wouldn't be making this suggestion (not that she is in any seriousness of course).

So we've establsihed that the new format is a reflection on European success and American failure therefore?. That is the genesis, or root, of where it's come from isn't it?

So when Europe loses its one match in the last eight, it has to sit out. No thanks. 7 wins in 8 matches is a success rate that most teams will go to the top of their respective divisions on the back of. It's not something that should be penalised

If America can't compete any longer, then by all means bring in the rest of the world and forfeit the naming right to call yourself team USA and also accept that you'll now stage the event once every eight years. GB & Ireland had to do the same when faced with the realisation they couldn't compete (at American instigation in fairness to them, as they wanted the cup to mean something). But do you really want that because a dozen indviduals can't bring themselves to work together as a team without being put in pods and told who they have to buddy up with (are they not doing this anyway?). The plight of America is along way removed from that faced by GB and Ireland though. Europe first played in 1979, by the time Hazeltine rolls around, it will have been 37 years since. During this period, just 29 continental have represented Europe, of which 18 have come from just two countries (Spain & Sweden). Tipping points can be on quite fine margins. The rump of the European team is still GB and Ireland. America faces no where near the level of structural issues faced by GB and Ireland. America's challenge is rooted in preparation and attitude

The solution is in your own hands, but I'm not sure asking the schoolkids to mark their own assignments is a massive step in the right direction, but at least it's a step

I guess I just can't explain how whiny and entitled you sound by suggesting this was meant as a "penalty for winning". I don't particularly care if there is any change in format. I think recent success by Europe is just a normal cyclical trend seen in sports all of the time and i would rather it stay the same. In the US we've seen AL baseball dominate NL baseball over a period of years and vice versa. the same with the AFC and NFC in football. Eventually they all turn around. And BTW while I don't see this as penalizing either side since both would be given equal opportunity to play or sit there is are several examples of success being penalized in American sports, most notably one called "the draft".

[FarawayFairways]

I'm sorry, but if anyone sounds "entitled" it's the original suggestion which sadly reinforces the idea that the world has to revovle around America. If you don't believe me, just lets go over what was posted, but more revealingly perhaps, the rationale behind it.

"Modify the "Ryder Cup/Presidents Cup" and bring the internationals into the system.

Start 2016 with the Americans vs the Europeans.

The loser sits out 2018 and the winner plays the Internationals.

Continue onward.

This allows the American stars to get off the big deal each and every year. They do not want to do a "cup" each year.

After losing and having to sit for 4 years, the losers will be go forward with "mucho hambre", which is currently lacking".

If you honestly think this suggestion is about the Ryder Cup, or about team Europe, then you're not reading it. It's clearly about America first, second and third. It's a suggestion made in response to a run of poor American results. How much more blatant could the poster have made it? Why should the opposition get sucked into this though? I asked the question and you didn't answer it. Look it's an American problem that demands an American solution. It is not beholden on the opposition to dilute their own effort and try less hard, or not to take part until both parties agree that the current format has run its course (aka 1977). Why should Europe risk having to stand down every now and then because America can't compete? As I said, why should Europe lower their own ambitions to American levels? If America want's reinforcing however, now that's totally different. As I said, we have a precedent for that and it should be discussed and considered very carefully, but if the decision is taken that America has lost her will to fight on, then lets bring in the Australians, Canadians, and South Africans

As regards the outcomes being cyclical I tend to think there is a lot of truth in this. Indeed, I made this observation before you did!

"The competition is about two teams, not one. Periodically such formats do go through spells of dominance , that doesn't mean the vanquished run away and ask someone else to do their bidding. Hell England would have stopped playing cricket against Australia years ago, but every now and then, England do win" (I should have pointed out that England didn't ask New Zealand to take over though the moment they've had enough of losing - they kept trying, my god they were trying!)

There is a widly held suspicion that if America can't win, then America disengages. This poses a greater threat to golf, especially with a 4 year hiatus to fill.

Look at the number of international sports that America used to dominate, has since been overtaken in, and consequently stopped watching

Tennis, Track & Field, and the Heavyweight division of boxing are three glaring examples. The American sporting landscape largely insulates its competitiors against international pressures because it confines itself to domestic competition. Golf actually has a really precious place that it should be working really hard to cultivate. It's one of the few substantive sports that America plays internationally where its competitive. It's a fantastic shop window and I'm sure the idea of surrendering this frontage to an invitational dozen cobbled together to form the rest of the world hasn't entered the PGA's list of things to consider (nor should it). I should point out that if you look at ticket sales by country of destination for Gleneagles, the two of the top-10 were held be countries who don't even take part! (Canada and Australia)

America is a golfing superpower being caught up. So what. It still has it within itself to respond more positively and competitively than meekly saying lets call in the rest of the world because we can't be bothered anymore. It's frankly an appalling reaction, and to expect everyone else to march to the same disenchanted tune just smacks of arrogance I'm afraid. If however you want reinforcing, than say so. That's very different

[Phil McGleno]

Im with @rb72 on this one-DO you play golf @FarawayFairways or do you just like to spend your time being haughty about European golf? THere is no penalty for winning.-If you keep winning you keep playing every two years which is what they have now. Plus if you beat the U.S. you also get to demonstrate your dominance over the International squad which you dont get to do now. Its like the Ryder Cup re-imagined in a way that lets everyone participate. Have it every 18 months if you dont want to have to wait four years if you lose. Im sure the PGA Tour can schedule piddly events the years it is sometime in the spring. Solved.

[FarawayFairways]

You're right, I've got more pressing things to push on with rather than indulging a conversation about how America wants to duck out of playing the Ryder Cup as soon as it starts to lose, which I personally doubt very much a majority of American golf fans want to do incidentally. The Australians would have ripped the piss out of us mercilessly for being "cowardly/ chicken poms/ limeys" if we'd ever dared suggest inviting South Africa in to play for the Ashes. It would have been too humiliating to be honest, they'd have crucified us, and thank God we never did

As for "being with @rb72" I can onl y assume you've overlooked his own assessment of the merit of this format

"I didn't say I liked the idea. I don't."

you aren't with him at all. Until someone else joins you, you're on your own

Even the OP seems to have floated the idea only as an act of desparation to spark some kind of reaction in the American team

[rb72]

You're right, I've got more pressing things to push on with rather than indulging a conversation about how America wants to duck out of playing the Ryder Cup as soon as it starts to lose, which I personally doubt very much a majority of American golf fans want to do incidentally. The Australians would have ripped the piss out of us mercilessly for being "cowardly/ chicken poms/ limeys" if we'd ever dared suggest inviting South Africa in to play for the Ashes. It would have been too humiliating to be honest, they'd have crucified us, and thank God we never did

As for "being with @rb72" I can only assume you've overlooked his own assessment of the merit of this format

"I didn't say I liked the idea. I don't."

you aren't with him at all. Until someone else joins you, you're on your own

Even the OP seems to have floated the idea only as an act of desparation to spark some kind of reaction in the American team

Let me try to understand. If, in a two team event, team A dominates team B on a regular basis and team B invites team C into a rotation that's an act of cowardice how? How is that going to change the relationship between team A and B? How is A "ducking" B? Do you buy the premise that the US team needs this to provide more incentive to win? I think that's nonsense but if you buy it then your position is effectively that "yeah, we win all the time because we want to and you don't and I like it that way" Pretty weak position. Not very sporting. If you don't buy it then the US gains absolutely no advantage with this system. Both sides run the same risk of having to sit out and that risk is not to "penalize" anyone but to allow one third of the worlds best golfers to participate in a great event that they have previously been excluded from. Inclusion is a good thing, isn't it? My point has nothing to do with whether I like the suggested change or not, it's simply that it does not penalize anyone and while you should enjoy your past success, that success does not afford you the privilege of unilaterally deciding that the format should stay the same forever because that's how you like it. As long as it's fair to all parties going forward, past results are irrelevant.

[Gunther]

The Americans still want to play, just not annually as now with the Ryder and then Presidents. Actually, they are sick and tired of it!!!!!!!!!!! But it makes lots of money (so far) for the pga

I think it's a great idea. There's a lot to the great US players' obligation to do this every year. Motivation is just not there yet they would be branded anti-American if they didn't participate. Adding the Olympics would provide an additional patriotic exhibition for all. Having said that, I agree there is absolutely no chance of this happening for the reason cited earlier, money. But, it sure would be terrific theater every 2 years. Would suck to have to sit out a cycle but the motivation that would provide would carry into the season perhaps making it more popular worldwide. Let's face it, no one gives a rip about the President's Cup.

[ScouseJohnny]

It's a huge pity Payne Stewart isn't around to captain the US team in a Ryder Cup......

[billchao]

Fred Couples had more to say recently about Tom Watson and the Ryder Cup. It's looking like he wants to be the captain now.

Quote:

Fred Couples questioned Tom Watson’s controversial decision to bench Phil Mickelson at the Ryder Cup on Thursday, while confirming the task force established after the American loss has contacted him about becoming captain.

Couples made the comments in a casual question and answer session while conducting a clinic for young golfers at the opening of a 6-hole golf course in Maricopa, Arizona.

Asked about the Ryder Cup, Couples said, “I'm not bashing Tom Watson, but sitting Mickelson, your best team player? Are you kidding me?" Couples, the 1992 Masters champion, has long been a close friend of Watson, whose captaincy of the US team was widely criticized after the September loss in Scotland.

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/fred-couples-questions-tom-watsons-decision-sit-phil-mickelson-ryder-cup

[9iron]

I think Watson was crazy for benching Mickelson. And not making any comment about Watson's "style" which seemed to perturb some players, but at the end of the day its the players that have to execute the shots and win the matches. And I know this is a team event with a head coach, and we all know the diff between foursomes and four ball. The strategies may be different, but hitting a golf ball and getting it to the hole in the fewest strokes hasn't changed. If you lose your match, you lost. Your coach didn't lose, you lost. Lose enough of them individually, or as two man pairings, and the whole team loses without the coach having hit a single shot. Man up.