Ryder Cup

[magicmarker]

I don't think it's fair to discount the captain's picks because they're older guys either. If he picked Fowler or someone and they lost people would be bitching about him not going with experience. Look at Raymond Floyd in '93. He was 51 and played great. It can really go either way, especially in match play.

Fowler was picked two years ago and refused to lose coming down the stretch then, giving the US a chance at the end. Also the only guy to stare down Rory Mcilroy in a playoff and go right back out and win it with a birdie. He has also been seen winking at Rory after ripping a drive down the fairway right in front of him while he is waiting/watching right there on the tee box in the group behind. Some of these old dudes are just in awe of Mcilroy. Rickie Fowler is not one of them and he enjoys trying to get under his skin. I'd rather add another young weirdo that can go all five rounds if he gets hot than a veteran or two that can't get hot to start with and even if they did are too old to go all five rounds. A lot of golf in a short amount of time, young man's format.

 

[gmbtempe]

I really think it's different if you're european. If you're an american golf fan, you've probably grown up with icons whose defining moments DID come in the majors. Take anyone down to Trevino or Watson - and the Ryder Cup in their prime was a walkover. If you're european, then things are a little different. 3 out of 4 majors are played on foreign soil. Access is much better now - but hasn't always been that way. At the risk of sounding chippy, european golf has been fighting for parity and recognition for 20 or 30 years. And the Ryder Cup is a biennial opportunity to assert exactly that.

Every time some American dismisses, say, Montgomery's career as "little else in terms of PGA [sic] or Major wins" that resolve to prove yet another point in the next RC just hardens. If you can't see that when Poulter's eyes pop out of his head, then you're not really watching.

Just lettin' ya know what you're up against...

You kind of proved my point in your statements, its a way to "hang onto something" but its not a substitute for winning majors or other really big tourneys. If you have won those events the Ryder Cup is an afterthought.

Look at Rory, no one is going to remember him for the Ryder Cup when his career is over.

A good moment was in 99' when the reporter, not sure if it was a Euro but I think it was, asked Tiger "Is it a relief to not be the best player who has never won a Ryder Cup". Tiger almost fell down in laughter but I think the reporter was dead serious.

You wanna win, but its not career defining.

 

[66er]

Woah a lot of you guys here missing the point here big time, probably not the best time to discuss Ryder cups value after such a bad loss. Do you think for one second the players jumping around on both sides were thinking this will look great on my golfing resume!!?? Whilst showing more emotion than any other time in their careers!!! Even Dufner for gods sake! No it's representing your country or people in the most watched golfing event by far. Do you think right now Bradley is disappointed because people will look back at his career and see he won -1 total Ryder cups of what he should have? Nope he didn't win for something more than himself, much more.

 

[gmbtempe]

Woah a lot of you guys here missing the point here big time, probably not the best time to discuss Ryder cups value after such a bad loss. Do you think for one second the players jumping around on both sides were thinking this will look great on my golfing resume!!?? Whilst showing more emotion than any other time in their careers!!! Even Dufner for gods sake! No it's representing your country or people in the most watched golfing event by far. Do you think right now Bradley is disappointed because people will look back at his career and see he won -1 total Ryder cups of what he should have? Nope he didn't win for something more than himself, much more.

I agree with this.

two different questions though, in the moment no doubt they all want the same thing.

If Poulter could bottle what he does in the Ryder Cup he would have more than one win on the tour he plays! Its pretty amazing.

 

[Kevin Shields]

Well said.

The practice round is an exhibition. The Ryder Cup is way too emotional to just be an exhibition. This wasn't the President's Cup. Tell Stricker and Furyk that it's no big deal, this was just an exhibition...laughable. By definition, if there is a giant trophy on the line, it cannot just be an exhibition.

I never said it was no big deal. It's a huge deal......for making the team and then the week it's played.

 

[magicmarker]

Bet your @$$ he is dissapointed. Why did Mahan cry in the press conference following a poor chip? It is not about their individual career, at all. It is independent of that. It is for your flag. With both countries watching. With a ton of bragging rights on the line. And a historic trophy. If the US had won we would be celebrating and touting all of 'our' great up and coming players. After losing I refuse to act like it didn't matter. The US wanted it so bad, and that's a crucial ingredient to a 'CHOKE'.

 

[gmbtempe]

Bet your @$$ he is dissapointed. Why did Mahan cry in the press conference following a poor chip? It is not about their individual career, at all. It is independent of that. It is for your flag. With both countries watching. With a ton of bragging rights on the line. And a historic trophy. If the US had won we would be celebrating and touting all of 'our' great up and coming players. After losing I refuse to act like it didn't matter. The US wanted it so bad, and that's a crucial ingredient to a 'CHOKE'.

The US has got to be pretty used to losing this thing, maybe they need to open it up to Canada and Mexico like they did 30 years ago with the entire euro continent.

 

[Kevin Shields]

Bet your @$$ he is dissapointed. Why did Mahan cry in the press conference following a poor chip? It is not about their individual career, at all. It is independent of that. It is for your flag. With both countries watching. With a ton of bragging rights on the line. And a historic trophy. If the US had won we would be celebrating and touting all of 'our' great up and coming players. After losing I refuse to act like it didn't matter. The US wanted it so bad, and that's a crucial ingredient to a 'CHOKE'.

MM, you are right. Of course it's for the flag, and of course the US wanted it a ton. But all I'm saying is history never defines anybody by their Ryder Cup record. Geez, more than half of the worlds best aren't even there. But I love it, never miss it. Great theater, great TV.

 

[magicmarker]

I never said it was no big deal. It's a huge deal......for making the team and then the week it's played.

I don't compare it to the Majors in any way whatsoever. It is still an individual sport and that can never be forgotten.

It is easily the next best thing to them.

There is a LARGE gap between the Ryder Cup and the Majors. And an equally LARGE gap between the Ryder Cup and the next best non-major golf event. IMO

I totally understand what you are saying Kev, really do. I guess all I am getting at is that the way we remember guys ryder cup records right now looking back may be totally different that the way we look back on them in another 20 years. This event seems to just keep getting bigger...this past weekend will only add to that...

 

[ms1170]

The true competition in this event is in making the team. It is not set up at all like a serious competition. They pick a Captain 18 months in advance and he spends that time picking out "Cute" uniforms with his wife. He then selects some vice captains that are "funny" in the team room. ( Hulbert, Sluman, Goydos) The team isn't assembled fully until a couple weeks before the event and then there is no preparation before the matches. The Captain has no motivation to win other than pride, because he is "one and done" and makes pairings based on which guys are buddies. If they wanted to prepare better for the matches, they would pick 10 guys at least 3 moths before the event and have some practice competitions like the do in Soccer. (Friendlies) They could play on Mon-Tue against the next 10-15 guys on the points list and get used to being together. It would also get the captain a better look at his potential picks who would be in that group of 10-15. This could be done at the site of that weeks Tour Event, or another course in the same town. I also think they should pick some older Captains that may do the job more than once. I feel like the Captains now are to close with some of the older players and tend to favor them in their picks. Example: Love picking Stricker and Furyk and Wadkins picking Strange.

 

[ParHunter]

The big guns on the Euro team still cant win a major and that's really the only thing that matters. They can win an exhibition but Donald, Poulter and Garcia can't get it done in the real big ones.

I really don't understand why some people put so much emphasis on winning a (one) major. Westwood, Monty, Garcia, Donald, they all got close to not only winning one but multiple majors. They didn't win, does that mean they couldn't 'close it' or does it mean someone else who was equally playing well had more luck?

Would you rather have a career like Lucas Glover or Todd Hamilton with one major win or a career like Donald, Garcia, Monty, Westwood?

There is a study http://www.dartmouth.edu/~stats/rendleman.pdf on how much luck influences a tournament. They have found that it took on average 9.6 strokes of cumulative "good luck" to win a tournament.

If someone comes close to winning a major several time, this counts to me a lot more then someone who gets lucky one week. If someone has multiple majors, that IMHO really shows how good they are but someone who got close (and I mean close as in Garcia against Paddy) several times without winning it only shows how unlucky they have been.

 

[birly-shirly]

You kind of proved my point in your statements, its a way to "hang onto something" but its not a substitute for winning majors or other really big tourneys. If you have won those events the Ryder Cup is an afterthought.

Look at Rory, no one is going to remember him for the Ryder Cup when his career is over.

A good moment was in 99' when the reporter, not sure if it was a Euro but I think it was, asked Tiger "Is it a relief to not be the best player who has never won a Ryder Cup". Tiger almost fell down in laughter but I think the reporter was dead serious.

You wanna win, but its not career defining.

Well, I'm open to the possibility that the Ryder Cup means more to the europeans than it does to americans. I think that's all you're really saying.

Strictly, you're not even saying that. You're saying that Tiger doesn't care for the Ryder Cup....

 

[birly-shirly]

@Parhunter - exactly. If someone wins multiple majors - then that's maybe a sensible way to sum up their career. For anyone else, ignoring how they play week in week out, and looking only at 1 week of their entire career, seems wilfully ignorant.

Now I don't disagree that that's exactly how some fans, pundits and even "the history books" might look at it - but that hardly makes it any less daft.

But if the justification for looking at majors is "let's see how he holds up under the pressure of a Sunday afternoon back nine" - isn't the Ryder Cup a GREAT measuring stick...?

 

[ParHunter]

If Poulter could bottle what he does in the Ryder Cup he would have more than one win on the tour he plays! Its pretty amazing.

Maybe someone needs to tell him that winning a PGA event means he is beating the US (well at least some US players). That might get him going

 

[mgranato]

How 'bout some new restrictions or qualifications on captain's picks for the US team going forward...

Either by hook or crook, if you can't get it to stop at least 300 yards from the tee you are no longer under consideration. Why would a captain setup a course to favor distance above all else, and then pick a couple shuffle board players as picks? I'm done hearing about stable club faces, I want blurry club faces from our free picks. We have the world's biggest collection of nukes, why are picking sling shots?

 

[Kevin Shields]

I really don't understand why some people put so much emphasis on winning a (one) major. Westwood, Monty, Garcia, Donald, they all got close to not only winning one but multiple majors. They didn't win, does that mean they couldn't 'close it' or does it mean someone else who was equally playing well had more luck?

Would you rather have a career like Lucas Glover or Todd Hamilton with one major win or a career like Donald, Garcia, Monty, Westwood?

There is a study http://www.dartmouth.edu/~stats/rendleman.pdf on how much luck influences a tournament. They have found that it took on average 9.6 strokes of cumulative "good luck" to win a tournament.

If someone comes close to winning a major several time, this counts to me a lot more then someone who gets lucky one week. If someone has multiple majors, that IMHO really shows how good they are but someone who got close (and I mean close as in Garcia against Paddy) several times without winning it only shows how unlucky they have been.

Don't give me Ben Curtis or Todd Hamilton. This is a discussion about greats of the game, Ryder Cup caliber players. Monty, Poulter, Donald, Garcia, Westwood should all have closed the deal by now. Tiger and Westwood had the same wedge shot at Torrey Pines and one closed. Garcia had his destiny in his own hands at Carnoustie and didn't close. Donald can't get on the first page of a leader board until he back doors it Sunday. Monty took a piss on 18 at Winged Foot. None of this has anything to do with luck. I love watching these guys perform (especially Poulter) under that extreme heat last week. But match play allows for a different style of play, where there is often no consequence for a missed shot, do or die. Top level golf is about closing out 72 hole stroke play tournaments.

But I absolutely respect your opinion. That's just the way I see it.

 

[ParHunter]

None of this has anything to do with luck.

If luck hasn't got anything to do in winning golf tournaments then we would see the same players on top every week, like we have in tennis! There the majors are either won by Federer, Nadal, Djocko or now Murray. In tennis you don't get odd bounces, your ball doesn't get stuck on a tree, hits the pin and bounces off twenty feet.

 

[Kevin Shields]

If luck hasn't got anything to do in winning golf tournaments then we would see the same players on top every week, like we have in tennis! There the majors are either won by Federer, Nadal, Djocko or now Murray. In tennis you don't get odd bounces, your ball doesn't get stuck on a tree, hits the pin and bounces off twenty feet.

You took that one sentence out of context and you know it. I cited specific examples that had nothing to do with luck.

 

[conkanen]

Golf, whether we like it or not, is an individual sport. And the players are graded by their individual records. That's how history judges them in the record book. Like tennis. Sampras' or Federer's Davis Cup record? So, IMO, Ryder Cup is a neat biennial event as good sport, but in no way compares to major championship golf.

I had this same convo with a buddy...he says he rates Poulter up there with DOnald and Westwood becasue HE rates the Ryder Cup very high on his list. WHOA! What??? Poulter has 6 Top Tens in 12 years in the Majors and NO Stroke play wins on the PGA Tour in a bizillion starts (don't get me started on the Match Play WGC event).

 

[Matt 4-L]

The only thing missing at the Ryder Cup is the long drive contest and closest to the pin contest...It's fun to watch but to me is not serious golf, the players don't practice Ryder Cup games for two years leading up to the event why should I take it any more serious. Nobody wants to lose at anything especially top notch golfers and I think thats why you see the emotion just like in their ping pong matches back in the club house.