Moxley

Indeed, Thomas is a great ballstriker. He also played the French open. Yes, he's long but he's got more than just length to his game.

You lot are acting as though he's done some really bad things - all that I can see he's really guilty of is being a bit showy, cocky, that kind of thing. He's Sometimes used bad language, which, unsavoury though it is, is also not unique to him. Character flaws yes, but hardly bad ones. A sometimes overly sensative guy, as @ScouseJohnny articulats. But otherwise, he seems like a decent man, who is dedicated to his family , does charity work etc.

Thats probably against Health & Safely, can't be letting in folk obscuring their face.

It might help, but If I wanted to focus on centered face contact, I'd just grab a 2 or 3 iron, and that'll force you to be consistent.

It's a strange one, and i can only conclude 2 things : 1) He's just good at matchplay, which is why he excels in the RC. 2) He maybe doesn't train as hard and prepare as well(for instance, not practising things he finds boring like putting, or staying up late) for events that interest him less. This would explain how in other circumstances (most notably earlier in the year in the Houston Open when he had to win to get to Augusta) he seems to be able to rise to the challenge.

@RussUK Agree on the glove thing, the signed equipment should be part of a friendly exchange , giving the fan something to remember the encounter by - it's a shame if players think all they need to do is toss a glove in the direction of any spectator they hit. Again, I don't see him being at fault, but hopefully he'll make an effort to get in touch with the lady.

It's a terrible outcome and I sympathise with the lady, but I don't think anybody is responsible here - Nobody will hear Koepka's shouts from that range, and it is indeed expected on a golf course that there will be the potential of being hit by a ball. One wonders why this sort of thing cannot be covered by Insurance - it's so rare that a serious injury like this occurs that the cost per spectator would be very small.

I agree, I think it was a mistake to say what he did, especially in the manner that he did. He's always been his own worst enemy, unfortunately. Definitely reduced his chances of getting a wildcard pick for future tournaments.

Indeed, although I think the Ryder cup task force will have more sense than to ignore it, as 17.5-10.5 is too big to ignore. The issue is, what can be done about it? If the European team is heavy on ballstrikers, and the US team on bombers, each side will pick courses and set them up to favour their own players and knowledge of the course will only go so far. One idea would be to give more captains picks for away tournaments, but it'll still only make a minimal difference. I think home advantage will continue to play a big role both sides, which is fine by me.

It really did make a sizeable difference, and more even that I'd expected it too. Watching Poulter's drive roll past DJ's on the 18th summed this up for me. A truly great and fascinating course I thought. I'll definitely tune into more of the French open next year.

Well played team Europe, and well done Bjorn who obviously knows his stuff better than most of us give him credit for. Great tournament 👍

I think it's the rare exception to the rule, but I agree that some have natural talent. I play in a society that once a month plays a short par 33 executive course. One of the guys joins us 3 or 4 times a year (and does not play at all otherwise) with about half a dozen old clubs in a tiny bag, and shoots ~41 on a good day - no practice and his touch around the green is as poor as you'd expect, but a completely natural, athletic swing. If he properly took up the game, he'd get into the single figures very quickly.

8 points without reply 👍

Interesting, I've never really focused on this because too much because I saw it as a result of good mechanics elsewhere, basically, I tend to figure that, if I keep my hips from sliding, my head will probably be OK. Maybe that's wrong , I don't know. That said, I do also focus on staying in my shot and not looking up for anything off the turf.

You are attacking a strawman of my argument - I didn't say either of those two things (the first of which I've already clarified that I wasn't implying) , and , as you almost certainly realise, the numbers in my example were purely hypothetical.

We've established that. Now, what would you prefer, a big advantage, where you maybe win 80% of the time, or a moderate one, where you win 70% of the time?

Of course it's always an advantage - but on some courses it's more of an advantage than on others.

I'm not, both yourself & @iacas have misunderstood my post (my wording may be responsible for that, I will concede). On the second part of how it could be an advantage, I'm surprised I have to answer this, but OK. Imagine that you, as a 0 index player, are playing a friend of yours who plays off 5, for best gross score. You and your friend are identical in every department , except that you hit the ball further ,and that explains all the 5 shots difference in your ability. If you play an average course, where you mostly hit your driver 20 past him, and take a 9i in where he needs 6i, you will score ~5 better per round, and, allowing for variation, you'll win probably 80-90% of the time. Now imagine you play a shorter track, where around half the holes are either par 3's, progressively narrow holes, or holes that include forced layups. You have 'full' advantage on 9 holes (lets say 2.5 shots), and still an advantage on the other 9 (since you can take less club), but the advantage is reduced since you can't go 20 yards past, so let's say your advantage on those holes is only 1 shot. On this course you only expect to shoot 3.5 better, and thus the gap between your expected scores is lower. Yes, your're still favourite , but not as strong as a favourite.

Sure it is, but when you have holes where there isn't an option for driver, and all (acceptable) shots will land in a similar area, it's less of advantage. Relatively speaking, yes.

I didn't say that they were. I said that they are excellent ball strikers, and that would be true of the American team too. The difference is that , in addition to being great ball strikers, the Americans also have some very long hitters too. I have already said earlier in the thread that I believe the US team to be a stronger one, I'm talking in relative terms here. Relatively, length is your advantage, and if you can't use that quite as much, then the course closes the gap a little.

Hmm, you don't think the American team are relatively longer, or that the course is less rewarding of length off the tee ?

How it looks isn't the same as how it plays. It looks like that because they didn't want to wait several decades for trees to grow, so they took the decision to use a lot of water instead ,and thus the golf course would be 'finished' from the outset. Other than that, it plays very hard indeed, and you have to be straight. It probably suits the Europeans more because most of the European team are excellent ball strikers but not necessarily long hitters. The American team have some really big hitters who aren't able take advantage of their length off the tee as much , especially in the foresomes and singles. Fourballs is a different story, and I think the USA would have an edge here wherever it was played.

Good going this pm. If we can tie the Americans on the fourballs I think that will be the key.

Nicklaus, Woods, Faldo & Rose

Along with a couple of billion from the other countries that play it. Remind me how many nations compete in the world series of baseball?