This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.
This is one of those assertions I read and wonder if it is true--and if it is, Why? It is being used to once again defend a course like Royal Liverpool, which is somewhat underappreciated and sometimes maligned. Is it necessary for this trite statement to be true to defend it?
The longer an event goes on the greater the likelihood that the cream will rise to the top.Kinda relates to a thread I raised recently about playing Mens Major Championships over 5 days and run of the mill mens pro tournaments over only 3 days.And the cream would likely rise to the top even more if clubs weren’t of the customised quality they are these days, course conditioning wasn’t at the manicured level it is these days and the ball didn’t perform as it has since the year 2000.Atb
But are there certain courses—or types of courses or architectural characteristics—that favor multiple winner champions? Or conversely are there things in some courses that favor flukes, “one-hit wonders”?What I’m getting at is the assertion heard many times that Royal Liverpool must be a great course because the past winners have been great, career-long major champions.I think probably as Sean and Ira said it’s all b.s.
The longer an event goes on the greater the likelihood that the cream will rise to the top.
Speaking of the new 17 at Liverpool, am I the only one who thinks it looks terribly out of place with the frilly bunkers and exposed sand? (not that i'm against that look in general)Reminds me a bit of a local course that had to re-arrange its routing and build a new 9th hole. They brought in some east coast guy so its 17 rugged looking, sage brush, mountain-esque type holes, and 1 hole that looks to be transported from Florida. Very odd to say the least.
Jeff, isn't the question not that it would produce the "worst" golfer--but the biggest "fluke"? I understand the assertion to be saying that a less-good course may give us the most chance for a fluky winner. One reason I think the trite statement is wrong, is that Ben Curtis--maybe the biggest fluke winner in recent years--won on a great course.
...and it looks like we are well on the way for another one this year.
I think we need to be careful how we frame flukes at the Open. I suspect that if the tour played more than one or two rounds per year against the Irish or North Sea, we would have a notably different pantheon of great players.