Jump to content

FarawayFairways

Established Member
  • Content Count

    636
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

33 Plays from the Tips

About FarawayFairways

  • Rank
    Dedicated Member

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index
    30
  1. "up to me" You're quite right, I'll take that decision, and I see you've been interefering with posts again Any board depends on its contributions and what its membership wants to talk about. It is the contributors that define the board not its moderators. Officious moderators who seek to become the centre of attention will usually do more damage than good. If you'd looked back at the thread in question you'd realise it was full of suggestions about how America might improve it's Ryder Cup performance (plenty that don't include box quotes too as if that makes any any difference and is in your T&C;'s). Threads will drift in the direction of the flow that the members take them from time to time. You should embrace this in name of free speech as they usually get back on track without soem commissar continually ruining them. The only scope you leave I'm afraid is narrative, so might as well put up a ticker of RSS newsfeed to inform people of what the latest Fred Couples statement is rather than invite people to broaden it out and comment. Sadly you're palpably struggling to realise this, and frankly if you're going to intervene to impose your own will on the direction threads take then there really is little point continuing with this place.
  2. Even though the proceeding post was about reforming or removing the Presidents Cup from the roster and mine a resposne to that. I trust you moved that as well? No - didn't think so So someone block quotes me in the previous post, turns the issue (legitimately) into an open question about how America might like to use the Presidents Cup, by way of preparing for the Ryder Cup. I respond to it, (legitimately) and you remove it and create a new thread! Very poor moderating I'm afraid
  3. Just for context, this was posted a couple of hours ago in the Fred Couples thread where the issues of the Presidents Cup was being questioned, but for some reaosn has shown up here as a new thread
  4. I think it's a mischievous journalist trying to play to a nationalist crowd by drumming up on an old American hate figure and putting words into his mouth with a misleading headline. Where in the attributable quote(s) has Colin said "better than Woods ever was" that has been used as the headline? He hasn't What he's said is that he's got to come back at a level higher than he was at, as in he's coming back to something , from the point at which he left it (as in returning), and not at some high point from over a decade ago. Colin's probably right. If the 2014 Rory played the 2013 Tiger, Rory would probably win. I suspect Tiger knows this more than anyone though It's a non-issue
  5. I read it differently, given that even Woods hasn't been able to get back to his own levels of dominance I read it to mean that Montgomerie was commenting on where Woods was say a couple of years ago when he regained the top spot, and Montgomerie is saying that he'll need to come back at a level beyond that, because that's where Rory is today. I'm not so sure that's unreasonable? I think he's saying in effect that Rory's 2014 game is better than Tigers in 2013 The article looks as if its been subjected to a bit of mischievous spin I reckon by the author. I doubt Montgomerie seriously believes that Rory's achievements to date are better than Tigers from that period (he ain't that stupid). There's enough breaks between the quotes and 'set ups' in the narrative to lead you into thinking otherwise. It isn't one continuous quote. It doesn't chime with me. Sorry. And his comment of 100/1 carries all the caveats that a long shot should. He's clearly saying he's got a very slim chance of achieving it
  6. I'm not an advocate of doing the thing that makes the most short term money. I'm not even an advocate of doing the thing that makes the most money, even if I happen to think that's winning, so in this case would be a mutual benefit by coincidence !!! But I'm curious .... What event would have the largest commercial appeal A North versus South match featuring 24 American players and 2 captaincy teams of Americans or The US versus Australia and few Southern Africans I ask becuase Europe has the 'Seve Trophy' where the UK & Ireland play continental Europe. It's low key and doesn't command a television audience of any note. What it is being used for increasingly is a training ground. Most of the top players don't play it anymore (don't need to) and to be honest, we don't learn anything by them participating other than a handful passing on experience. In the past Rory's played it, but no longer does. I think Poulter might have been the senior pro on the last round with Lawrie Basically 24 emerging European players play it and in effect bond, train, and learn in an environment that replicates aspects fo the team match play. We've seen the deadly partnership of Dubuisson and Super Joost form!!! Beware. Mind you, I should say that we saw Stephen Gallacher flop in it, yet that wasn't enough to prevent McGinley picking him!!! It doesn't always work. McGinley got away with his mistakes (or his team bailed him out) Watson didn't
  7. McGinley has been fullsome in his praise and bold in his predictions for Super Joost. You can only conclude he would pick him today. In fact he seemed to be intimating within a week or so that he'd made a mistake and should have picked Joost. Europe made errors too, it's just that McGinley's players got him out of trouble. Incidentally, did you see McIlroy interviewed after Dubai about his seasons highlights? Two big ones are obvious he explained. The Open was a tournament he'd grown up watching so to win the claret jug at Hoylake for the first time was a dream come true ,and that topped his list. The other big one he explained was the Ryder Cup, and that there was something very special about team matchplay that he enjoys above all else and lavished it with praise as a spectacle, and that he's "hopefully looking forward to many more in the future". He didn't mention anything else. He did say a few months ago that he no longer plays for money and those choices (or the reasons he gave for them) would seem to back that up. By contrast, Phil Mickelson couldn't even identify the Ryder Cup as a future target when he'd just qualified for it, and when it was about 6 weeks away, and went blathering on about the Olympics instead. Clearly it's going to be a big year for Super Joost, but there have also been plenty of promising Europeans who've made this journey and disappeared off the radar.
  8. We've certainly seen complaints, most recently into the hacking of mobile telephone voice messages of course (God alive knows how Tiger would react to that!), but this type of article is pretty much run of the mill tabloid newspaper material and wouldn't provoke a response normally. We see examples of it almost daily, or to qualify that, comment pieces with a bitchy edge to them. It would really be a non issue lost in the swamp of articles competing for the same readership. Probably register 2 out of 10 on the tabloid Richter Scale (if that). A vast majority of respondents wouldn't get sucked into a war of words with a tabloid though (you've got nowhere to go with it other than adding to their sales). If there's a factual inaccuracy they'll occasionally challenge it and get a retraction (usually published on a middle to back page in small print at the bottom in a crossword clue!). If there's a serious allegation it can result in legal action (newspapers tend to lose these, but they don't give the impression of bothering that much - pay the fine and move onto the next target). We'd just regard it as a non issue, and not a particularly well written piece. Celebs, politicians, sports people, and members of the royal family endure much worse than this. America doesn't have a tabloid cult (you're lucky) but it's mildly bewildering looking at the reaction all round
  9. Magic wand picks Masters - Rory US Open - Fowler The Open - Watson (Tom not Bubba) USPGA - Well..... it has to be 'Super Joost'
  10. 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
  11. In fairness, I did leave that possibility open "I can understand it I suppose if he genuinely feels cheated and wants to right a wrong as a matter deeply held principle" I'm struggling to think that his game will benefit, but sometimes in life you have to set professional considerations aside and trust that things will come back to themselves
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. I'd agree with you McIlroy recently said that he no longer plays golf for money. Well after signing his sportswear contract he certainly doesn't need to, but by extension this lawsuit is really about money. It doesn't really add up. I can understand it I suppose if he genuinely feels cheated and wants to right a wrong as a matter deeply held principle, but I can't think of many sports people whose games improve when they're distracted, and especially in a field like this. Tony Lema played better once he was free of his agreement, but that was of a completely different nature. McIlroy's game only really rebounded once he was free of Wozniacki. If he gets himself stuck in litigation he could easily lose a year.
  15. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...

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...