Jump to content

Big C

Established Member
  • Content Count

    993
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Big C last won the day on May 3 2016

Big C had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

164 Hall-of-Fame Candidate

About Big C

  • Rank
    Dedicated Member

Personal Information

  • Your Location
    Long Beach

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index
    7.3
  • Handedness
    Righty
  • GAME Golf Username

Recent Profile Visitors

4,141 profile views
  1. Big C

    "Chapman" Competition Rules Question

    You won't find an answer in the rules of golf, so it really comes down to how the committee who organizes the tournament wants to handle that situation. My suggestion would be to phrase the rule such that each team gets two strokes at each ball (a "stroke" being defined as a swing/chip/putt but not a penalty) and then a decision must be made. So in the case you describe above, Player B would hit from the drop area. Then the team would get to choose whether to play that shot (lying 3) or the layup (lying 2).
  2. Big C

    Assigning Credit and Blame in the Cups

    I gave the players about 50% of the blame and the course set up somewhere close to 40%. My reasoning being that if the same 24 guys competed on a layout more favorable to the US strengths, the outcome could have easily been very different. Jim Furyk gets about 10% of the blame. I think he might have cost the US a couple of potential points with strategic errors. But in a 17.5 - 10.5 rout, there wasn't anything he could have done singlehandedly to change the result.
  3. @jamo, I agree with you but with one large caveat - Tiger Woods. At this point, it has gotten past the point where you can brush it off as the type of oddity that occurs in small sample sizes. To me, there is enough evidence to say that there is something about Tiger Woods that leads the guys he is partnered with to play worse than they should. Call it "reverse chemistry" or something, but it can't be overlooked as random chance anymore. I'm not going to speculate on the reasons why, but I will say this. As I looked back on my (limited) team match play experience, I remember getting partnered with one guy in particular in my men's club team matches. Unlike most of the guys on our team who pretty loose and fun regardless of how we were playing, this guy was serious. Not rude, not mean - just deadly serious. And if things weren't going well for us, if we went down in the match early, or if someone three putted to lose a hole, you could almost cut the tension with a knife. I didn't enjoy playing with this guy, nor did I ever play particularly well when we were partners. When the pairings came out and I saw that I was partnered with someone else, I was relieved. Not surprisingly, my scores were better in matches when we were not partners. I don't think it was a coincidence.
  4. I think you are way off with this comment. The Ryder Cup matters to these guys. A lot. Even the elite ones. To their credit, I don't think anyone on the USA is trying to downplay the significance, like you are doing with this post. But if they did, it would purely to save face/ego/whatever.
  5. I was critical of some of Furyk's decisions before they backfired. Primarily putting Phil out in foursomes vs. fourball - but also running back the Woods/Reed pairing for a second time on Saturday. I thought those were both terrible decisions before they went south. That said, captain decision making had no impact on this outcome. Europe outplayed the US in all facets and was a well deserving winner. Kudos to the European team.
  6. I didn't take issue with the original decision to pair Woods and Reed - actually I was a bit intrigued. But Furyk should have been prepared to call an audible when he saw it wasn't working. I suppose you could have said the same thing about Webb/Bubba, and look how well that turned out for the US. But I dis-liked the Reed/Woods double down more - for reasons that I have already articulated earlier in this thread. Well....sure. Obviously the Euros have played better golf than the US so far. But I think it's fair to hold the captain accountable for putting his guys in formats and partnerships that give them the best chance to succeed so far. And I think Furyk has missed the mark on a number of occasions this Ryder Cup.
  7. On a podcast prior to the final captain's pick, Brandel Chamblee was advocating hard for Kyle Stanley over Tony Finau. His rationale was that the US was woefully low on guys that could find the fairway off the tee consistently, and that it was going to cost them big time given the course setup. I'm not the biggest Brandel fan out there, but I think he was spot on with that assessment. When I heard today that the most accurate player on the US squad wasn't even top 50 in fairway accuracy, it was pretty eye opening in light of the US struggles. Other quick comments - Mickelson vs. Molinari is the best case scenario for the US. In the other 11 matches, it's possible to see a path to 8 wins, but a lot of guys are going to have to step up - Kudos to Webb and Bubba. Webb in particular was a whipping boy for a lot of people given how 2014 played out. But he was really solid today and I give him a fighter's chance tomorrow against Justin Rose - I was sorry to see my fears about the Tiger/Reed pairing confirmed again today. I don't know what Furyk was thinking with that one. In fairness, Tiger is clearly a tough guy to pair since - for reasons unknown to me - he always seems to get the worst out of his partners. But I think any number of other teammates would have been a better fit for Reed. It won't shock me one bit when we see Reed return to his old Ryder Cup form and beat Hatton tomorrow. - For any gamblers out there, it looks like you can get 10/1 odds on a USA victory. While I think it's very unlikely that the US gets 8 or more points tomorrow, I'm not sure it's far-fetched enough to be a 1 in 10 shot. We will see. Looking forward to another early wake up call tomorrow.
  8. @iacas, my take on Phil has been pretty consistent from the beginning of this discussion where I said this. I agree with the bolded part of what you posted below, which is why I would have had no objection with playing Phil in Friday or Saturday fourball, even if his form has been horrible of late. If you're gonna make Phil a captain's pick, you've got to be willing to at least give him a shot in the team events to see what he is capable of. I'm not convinced of the logic in your second bullet point. It may apply to some guys, but I don't think it applies to Phil, who is more erratic then most even when he plays well. In his current form, he is a disaster in foursomes. I think everything I posted above holds true for Bubba, to a lesser extent.
  9. Honestly, in thinking about it more, I think Furyk has botched this thing all the way around. It was clear he wanted to get everyone involved on day one, but to put Bubba and Phil out there in foursomes as opposed to fourball is borderline indefensible. Now with the Saturday fourball pairings announced, it seems like a certainty that both of those guys will be sitting out the entire day tomorrow, and will limp into Sunday singles with one poor showing under their belts. The other 10 guys are certainly talented enough to engineer a comeback, but I don't think you can say that Furyk put his team in the best possible position to win. Fine. My objection is primarily with the Reed/Woods pairing. Hopefully I'm proven wrong tomorrow.
  10. Ugh. Is Furyk like one of those NFL coaches that scripts the first 15 plays and then refuses to deviate? 3 lineups in and there is not a single player on the US team that has played with more than one partner. That has to be a first in Ryder Cup history.
  11. I don't think "fire" in Ryder Cup captain matters all that much. Personality wise, Furyk is not that much different than Davis Love. I think Furyk is liked and respected by the players. He is perfectly capable of captaining the U.S. team to a victory. Then again, I'm not sold on some of his pairing decisions so far. I commented my skepticism of the Reed/Woods pairing above. And I agree that putting Mickelson's shaky game out there in foursomes was a real head scratcher.
  12. It's a good question, and one I don't have an answer to. If we don't see Spieth/Reed paired up tomorrow, I think it's safe to assume that one of the guys specifically asked not to be paired with the other. Hindsight is 20/20, but I didn't like the idea of a Woods/Reed pairing from the start. Chemistry is a tricky thing and I feel like Patrick Reed is the type of guy that needs to be the alpha-dog in his pairing in order to play his best. If so, pairing him with Tiger is probably the worst move Furyk could have made.
  13. Two quick comments before I hit the sack and try to wake up early to catch the start of Friday foursomes 1. I agree that this is where we diverge. You say it's where I "go wrong," but honestly the people you are describing are not among those that I've encountered. They don't exist in my golfing world. In competing with (and against) the guys who play in our club championships, our partner tournaments, our team play matches, I haven't met a single person that doesn't care or is actively trying not to care about whether they play well. I haven't ever talked to an instructor who espouses what you are describing either. Your say that you have, and I suppose I have to believe you. The number of people you touch in the golf world is exponentially greater than mine, so fair enough. 2. To some extent, I think it's a moot point anyway. If you care enough to seek out golf instruction of any sort, you care about the prospect of playing good golf and shooting lower scores. And that is not something that you can just turn off, no matter how hard you try. So I guess what I'm getting at is that even if someone preaching "care less about the result" is giving bad advice, it's not really going to be particularly damaging advice. Because a guy who is competitive and wants to play well can't just flip off that "caring" switch. He may be able to manifest it in a way that is more positive, calm, serene, whatever. But deep down, he is still going to care. The guys who truly don't care about the results when they play golf ain't reading Bob Rotella - I'm pretty certain about that.
  14. Erik, you're stretching here. The entire underpinning of Rotella's philosophy is to overcome the mental roadblocks that keep people from playing their best golf. Granted, he goes about it from the perspective of the mental game, but his whole career is built on helping people improve the result. And I think you are being dis-ingenuous with the question of "too much." I'm sure you know people who are wound way too tight on the course. Who care so much about hitting the perfect shot or going low in a tournament, that any mis-fire or bad break sends them into a mental funk. I certainly do, and I don't come into contact with nearly as many golfers as you do. Rotella isn't saying don't care - or anything close to that. But he does seem to be saying that - on the continuum of the "emotional investment" spectrum - guys who care too much about the result probably perform more poorly than guys who care too little. And frankly, I think he's absolutely correct.
  15. Big C

    Who is on Golf's Mount Rushmore?

    I don't have enough historical knowledge of golf to comment, but I have to say that the way Tiger delivers that answer is awesome. I love having bad-ass Tiger Woods back.
×

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...