The 2022 Open
- Thread starter TruBluCatFan
- Start date
Hard to root against my 25-1 in Cam but also had Cam Young at 100-1. Hopefully he signs an incorrect scorecard!
OK, I am going to be an ugly American, and be "that guy" that says The Old Course is pretty close to obsolete for modern pros. Without wind, it is a driver and a putter on about half the holes, Rory putted for his second shot on a 406 yard hole. Yes, I understand it is usually a lot more windy there, and it was also unusually dry, but even so, they shoot a really low score there nearly every time the Open comes back. And what course isn't more difficult in a 30 MPH wind? Great Britain has a lot of great courses that can hold an Open, and hold its own even against modern equipment, I just don't think that the Old Course is one of them any more.
Not taking anything away from Cameron Smith, he is a deserving champion, not a fluke at all that he won.
Not taking anything away from Cameron Smith, he is a deserving champion, not a fluke at all that he won.
This one is really going to sting for Rory. Didn’t play badly today just didn’t hole enough putts. He!! of a round by Smith.
You play what you play. There are plenty of US courses that surrender -20 or more that are "modern". I love the Old Course. It's a nice change of pace and aesthetics. I love the history of the tournament and can't think of too many towns across the world that embrace a spectacle any better.
Could not disagree more.
During a week when it played as easy as possible (no rain, no real wind to speak of, rock hard fairways running forever making it play super short, softened greens, etc) we still got an amazing tournament and leaderboard that produced an insane amount of drama and identified a worthy champion. Yes, St Andrews relies on the weather to toughen it but (1) it normally gets that weather and (2) even when it doesn't we still get a fantastic tournament.
Plus, the next time they return (2030?) it is very likely (fingers crossed) that there will finally be ball restrictions in play that potentially limit distance and add spin back to the ball.
Last edited:
Is Cam Smith LIV-bound on Monday or are they negotiating a new price after the Open win?
If they get Cam Smith, Finau and Cantlay....whew.
If they get Cam Smith, Finau and Cantlay....whew.
Hope you are right about that last part, lots of great old courses are going to be obsolete soon, if they aren't already. They dropped Cypress Point from the PGA years ago due to the membership policies, but I think it is also only 6500 yards or so, would be very tough to set it up to challenge the big hitters of the modern era.
The R&A (unlike the USGA) lets Mother Nature predominantly dictate the course/conditions. Outside of bunker and green conditions, it is pretty much a hands free course from a maintenance position. They all play the same course....no tricks. Some are better at it than others.
The current 2 time PGA Champion is probably trying to figure out how to play this course and others on the British Open slate....outside of a decent showing in 2019, he's been a non-factor in his career.
Right. And Cameron Young's eagle on the last hole earned him $1.45 million. Poor McIlroy settled for third place and a measly $933K.
Of course, this is chump change compared to the LIV. Branden Grace recently won $4 million at LIV Portland. The top 4 all earned over a million. Showing up at the first tee makes you $120K. So just playing in 10 LIV events and finishing last would make you over a million.
This is all just friendly discussion, but FWIW, the talking heads on Golf Channel were also talking about whether the Old Course was up to challenging modern pros the week leading up to the Open, so I am not the only one.
OTOH, it did once again produce a stellar leader board though, three top 10 players fighting for the Jug, so can't deny it identified a worthy champion, Smith was no fluke winner, unlike Ben Curtis or Todd Hamilton or Paul Lawrie.
OTOH, it did once again produce a stellar leader board though, three top 10 players fighting for the Jug, so can't deny it identified a worthy champion, Smith was no fluke winner, unlike Ben Curtis or Todd Hamilton or Paul Lawrie.
I thought your criticism of St. Andrews was reasonable. Personally, I've never liked the placement of the pot bunkers. Why penalize a golfer for a perfect drive down the middle? You had guys aiming at the sides of the fairways, or even the rough, to avoid the crap shoot.
Still, I love the history and tradition. St. Andrews every 7 years is fine. The leaderboard and tournament were great this year.
Last edited:
I've totally lost faith in Rory's ability to win the Big One again. He's got all the talent in the world and will still win tour events, I feel certain. But, the past few years it's just seemed like he's been close several times and hasn't closed the deal. Yesterday, he had a pedestrian 70 (only 3 players who finished in the top 20 had worse rounds while most of the top 20 were shooting 66 or 67). He had the tournament by the throat but just couldn't make any putts and didn't 'blow' it but left enough room for 2 players to pass him by. Don't know if the stacks of cash he's made has lessened the killer instinct or what. But, just doesn't have that aura of 'I'm winning this thing, so get out of my way' like he had a few years ago.
Just my $0.02.
Just my $0.02.
That's called golf. It has zero to do with "killer instinct" or whatever....he was grinding his ass off and couldn't get a putt to drop....which happens more often than not with every single player. Jack had 19 runner-ups in majors...did he not have the right karma those events to get over the hump?
You could just feel it coming when his putts weren't dropping.
For the record, McIlroy has 17 top ten finishes in the majors in the 8 years since he last won one.
All kidding aside, why do you say that? I would like to see the same shot values today that faced Arnold Palmer in the 60s, Jack Nicklaus in the 70s and 80s, and even Tiger 20 years ago on the same courses. Why do you see a problem with that?
That doesn't prove anything. Technological advances have been a part of the sport "forever". Driving distances have always increased w/ advancements in club and ball tech, swing analyzers (let's do away with those too and just use the human eye for the coaches) physical fitness, etc. For the most part, courses have changed as well to adapt.
If you are a proponent of rolling the ball back, then you have the following...
Rory...320 now and maxes at 300 w/ a new ball
Kisner....290 now and maxes at 270 w/ a new ball.
The advantage doesn't go away for the longer hitter, and actually gives them even more of an advantage on the longer courses.
For the sake of being a stat geek...
2012, tour scoring avg was 71.065 and tour driving distance avg was 289.10
2022. tour scoring avg is 71.137 and tour driving distance avg. is 298.70
Rory is avg. 319 now vs. 310 10 yrs ago.
The distance topic is way overstated. Courses can make changes with hazrds and rough to offset it if they are that worried about it.....but then you have more of a shot makers target golf course, which are about as boring as they come. If anything, you want to force players to use driver more....take away the 230 iron tee shot into 400 yd holes with better placed problem areas, and put the trouble in the 300 range as well.
Rolling back the ball is nothing more than extending the fences in MLB parks, for example. Part of the charm of Yankee Stadium is the short RF fence.
^
Thanks, and I understand your view, but the technology is not making Yankee Stadium or Wimbledon obsolete, which is what is happening to golf courses at the pro level anyway. Nicklaus has been saying this for 30 years now.
I do think it makes little to no difference at the amateur level, most of us struggle to break 90, so no reason to change equipment, IMO.
Thanks, and I understand your view, but the technology is not making Yankee Stadium or Wimbledon obsolete, which is what is happening to golf courses at the pro level anyway. Nicklaus has been saying this for 30 years now.
I do think it makes little to no difference at the amateur level, most of us struggle to break 90, so no reason to change equipment, IMO.
Well as they said numerous times over the weekend, the course was designed by goats.
Agree, I don't see why it's good to obsolete course distances because of non-human technology advances. Somehow shorten distances that shots can achieve. I'll suggest a 1mm larger diameter ball. Or a 1/10 ounce heavier ball. Longer games just increase the amount of water needed to keep them green & creates more cutting. Also makes it harder for fans to watch & follow. What does that accomplish?
Similar threads
