 |
| |
|
 |
 |
Ryder Cup redux Any way you look at it, the U.S. was outplayedPosted: Monday October 28, 2002 1:31 PM
We don't need a book about the 2002 Ryder Cup Matches. Besides, the best title is already taken -- by former baseball pitcher Jim Bouton, who titled his least memorable novelI Managed Good But, Boy, Did They Play Bad. Sounds to me like Curtis Strange's story at The Belfry. While Strange's final-day lineup was, indeed, a miscalculation on the order of what Euro captain Mark James did in '99, when James allowed Ben Crenshaw's front-loaded lineup to stage a dramatic comeback, the entire U.S. team's performance in singles made Strange's strange lineup a moot point. Playing as they did, the Americans would've lost in any order their captain made up. Even though it was an exercise in futility, I finally got around to matching all 12 Americans scorecards with the 12 Europeans cards from the singles matches -- for example, Phil Mickelson lost to Phillip Price 3 and 2, but how would he have done had he played some other European? I know, I know, matching scorecards doesn't mean anything. Still, it gives the impression that Strange was beaten no matter which way he sliced it. Here's how I tallied the matches, since many of them didn't go all 18 holes. I awarded wins and losses based on the score of the match after the last hole on which both players posted scores. For instance, David Toms would have been 1 down with two holes to play against Price -- so I counted that as a victory for Price. A flawed system? Totally. And no doubt I made a few mistakes while tediously matching hole-by-hole scores for 132 matches. Anyway, here are some of the more interesting tidbits I came across in my dubious calculations:
MailbagInstead of saying that high-handicap golfers cannot play at a reasonable pace, why don't you offer some tips? My wife and I play two to four times per year, and she is a better player than I am (she can shoot between 100 and 112 on a good day). On vacation recently, we went off twice by ourselves as the first group out, and we played 18 holes in less than three hours both times.
Here are some suggestions to speed up play for poorer players: Take more than one club with you to your next shot; I typically play with a 3-wood, a 6-iron and a pitching wedge almost exclusively. If you are clear to hit, don't wait for the other person, even if you are ahead of him or her. If you get into real trouble (can't clear a water hazard, stuck in the woods), drop a ball in the clear and play from there (I know it's not in the Rules of Golf, but whom are we kidding?). Finally, think about playing from shorter tees.
Actually, I said it was more difficult for high-handicap golfers to keep up, not that they can't do it. You're proof of that and your tips are excellent. Unfortunately, the clueless hacks who would benefit from your suggestions apparently don't read golf outlets like this. The up tees, by the way, are a lot of fun. Even low-handicappers should try them out once in a while.
I hear so many complaints about pace of play that I feel compelled to plead a case for the slow player. I bet most of the complainers are scratch or low-handicap golfers with somewhere else to be. Personally, I don't think 4 1/2 to five hours on a golf course is so bad. My typical foursome is made up of recreational golfers with handicaps above 20. It simply takes longer to hit more shots! If the course is willing to take our money, the proprietors should be willing to let us play. We don't waste time lining up shots, switching clubs and walking all around the green like the pros do (this wouldn't help us anyway). At Riverside Golf Club recently we were asked to speed up because we were two holes behind the group ahead of us. We were on a four-hour pace! Give me a break. Apparently the threesome behind us was complaining. What's the hurry? Slow down, smell the outdoors and enjoy the day. What are the high-handicap golfers supposed to do? Skip a hole or two? Pick up after 2 over? Is there a solution we can all live with? We want to get better, but we have to play to get better.
We've got a problem, Tex, if you don't think five hours on a golf course is so bad. I disagree. It is wayyyy bad. There's no excuse for taking that long to play, no matter what your skill level. And I've gotta say, your attitude is just plain rude. Just because you paid your money doesn't mean you can ruin a day of golf for every player behind you. They paid their money, too. (Although I agree that if you were on a four-hour pace, the ranger had no business chiding your group.) Trouble is, most groups aren't slow just because they're high-handicappers. It's because they're not ready to play and because they look for lost balls far too long, as if they're made of solid gold. I can't tell you how many times my group has hit shots into the green, walked to the green, putted out and looked over to the next tee, only to see that they're just finishing hitting their tee shots. Save the storytelling for later. Somebody get up and hit. Or, typically in the fairway, both carts drive over to one player's ball, watch him hit, drive to the next ball, watch him hit, and so on. You want a solution, Tex? It's easy. Pull over and get out of the way. Let that anxious threesome play through. They're happy and you're no longer bothered. If you have to pull over and let three or four groups play through during the course of 18 holes, just do it. It's common courtesy and, besides, you said a five-hour round isn't so bad. So you're welcome to it. Just don't force it on everyone else. If you want to speed up, try match play with your buddies. Concede putts or even holes when you're out of it and go to the next tee. Play for the match, not for an 18-hole score to post on a computer. Five hours isn't so bad? Wrong. If I want to stand around doing nothing that long, I'll go visit the Department of Motor Vehicles.
I just read that Hal Sutton will be the Ryder Cup captain for 2004. Am I the only person who thinks players don't make the best coaches? How many more times are we going to lose the Cup before we understand that just putting the best players on a team doesn't guarantee success? Look at how well NBA players did in the World Championships. Team golf is different from tournament golf. Strategy is just as important as low scores. Europe continually humiliates us with lesser-known players because its captain matches strengths and weaknesses to the different playing formats. Some of the best sports coaches were mediocre players (e.g., Ty Willingham, Notre Dame football; Rick Majerus, Utah basketball).
The best baseball managers, Surprise Boy, usually turn out to be third-string catchers and utility infielders, not former superstars. So I'm thinking a good Ryder Cup captain in the future might be Buddy Biancalana. And by the way, Europe's players may be lesser known but they're not lesser players. Guys like Phillip Price and Paul McGinley keep proving it. I read where Sutton said the Americans are more talented and should be doing better in the Ryder Cup. I think that conceit is unwarranted. You could argue that the Americans could have (maybe even should have) lost or tied in '91, '93 and '99. The U.S. is maybe three putts away from not having won a Ryder Cup since 1983. I'm not sure the captains have been a big factor behind that. The Ryder Cup is a major to the Euros. The difference, I think, is in the attitude. The Americans would like to win it; the Euros have to win it. Sports Illustrated senior writer Gary Van Sickle writes for the magazine's Golf Plus section and is a regular contributor to CNNSI.com. Click here to send him a question or comment.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
