Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Open 2016 - Official Thread - Read OP before you go on!

11213141517

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    PARlance wrote: »
    I'm a left hander who plays right handed and I would like to rubbish your theory ;)

    .......

    I'd also happily debunk the theory.......I'm a lefty who plays right handed. It shouldn't take more that 2/3 holes with to debunk it!

    Where now for Rory? A decent finish, despite playing some ropey golf (by his standards).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,078 ✭✭✭✭vienne86


    Brilliant final round. I tend to root for Mickelson, but delighted for Stenson. Two really classy final rounds.

    I was away, but got to see the BBC highlights each evening, without hearing the results for the day's play in advance - very enjoyable.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭BigChap1759


    Yep, I recorded it then watched it once the kids were in bed - the quality of the golf from them both was mind blowing - got to feel a bit for Phil but Stenson was just that bit better.

    Stat at the end saying Phil's -17 would have won 140 of the previous 144 Opens!!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,904 ✭✭✭alxmorgan


    Yep, I recorded it then watched it once the kids were in bed - the quality of the golf from them both was mind blowing - got to feel a bit for Phil but Stenson was just that bit better.

    Stat at the end saying Phil's -17 would have won 140 of the previous 144 Opens!!!

    Recorded it as well. The fact there were only 2 of them in it made it easier to fast forward to the important bits :D

    Breath-taking golf by both. A joy to watch


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,246 ✭✭✭✭Seve OB


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Where now for Rory? A decent finish, despite playing some ropey golf (by his standards).

    But he didn't play ropey golf. He played good golf. Not his best, but good. He finished 5th!!

    His putting was poor, but (by his standards) was about the same as most weeks for him.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    McIlroy's last 10 tournament results: T3 4 T10 T4 T12 1 T4 MC 3 T5

    He's finished inside top 10 in 2 majors, been top 5 in both WCG events, just outside top 10 at the Players. Not earth shattering by his high standards, but there's not a huge amount wrong with his game. Wouldn't be surprised if he went on one of those streaky runs we know he's prone towards, PGA will be more up his street than the Open in my opinion.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,150 ✭✭✭✭LuckyGent88


    Listening to stensons press conference this morning and the best part is the fact that himself and his caddie put on a bet a year ago saying that if he won a major, his caddy had to give up smoking :D

    On the 7th tee yesterday, Henrik says to him that he better enjoy that cigarette as it would be his last :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,703 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    Seve OB wrote: »
    But he didn't play ropey golf. He played good golf. Not his best, but good. He finished 5th!!

    His putting was poor, but (by his standards) was about the same as most weeks for him.
    The rest of his game was excellent. He dropped so many approaches close enough for genuine birdie chances and just couldn't convert all of them.

    I think his reading of the pace of the greens was a bit off. A lot of his putts were just an ounce off in pace and would have dropped but for that. A lot of players had difficulty with the slow greens which makes Phil and Stenson's scores even more impressive.

    The average loss for those on the wrong side of the draw was just over two shots according to Sky. But that's the average for morning v afternoon. In the thick of it as Rory was, could have been more than double that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    Listening to stensons press conference this morning and the best part is the fact that himself and his caddie put on a bet a year ago saying that if he won a major, his caddy had to give up smoking :D

    On the 7th tee yesterday, Henrik says to him that he better enjoy that cigarette as it would be his last :D

    Rewatching the highlights I also noticed Matthew Southgate was standing with Stenson's wife as he came up the 18th and was the first player to congratulate Stenson afterwards. Wonder what the story is there.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,698 ✭✭✭✭FixdePitchmark


    Loved the full event.

    In fact one of the earliest golf memories I have, is an Open at Troon in 1989, that was a brilliant tournament too. So Troon has something about it.

    This year - between the enhanced coverage and pre-coverage by Sky - the modern technology like 3D graphics - drones - wire cameras - the actual more green colour of the course , you got a far better feel for the course sitting at home. I fell in love with the course and would love to play it, parts of it remind me of Royal County Down - say at the turn , from 8 to 13. Looked up price to play -£220 , sort of ends ideas of that - crazy money.

    Anyway - incredible performances from top 2.

    At an even higher level than other top performances I can think of,
    Oosthuizen 2010
    Woods wins
    You could be partisan and say Paddy's 2nd win was very impressive.

    I'd be up for Phil - what he has done in the game , I remember saying to someone he deserves as many and maybe more majors than Seve and Faldo.

    Phil is a joy to watch. Short game like watching Ronnie O'Sullivan - it often makes me want to go to a lob wedge for a season. :D

    Very disappointing week for the Irish , that week is the way Open's were until our recent upgrade.

    Hard to know what to say about Rory (as everything is said every day by everyone in every place) - it is just his putting isn't it. I also think he tries to force things too much - but his putting is very poor - many times the ball is not even toward hole at all , it is maybe 1 foot left etc on mid range stuff - likes of Day is short or at edge or in.

    But we all know he can turn things around faster than most he is very unpredictable - emotional etc.

    Class stuff from Stension - didn't think he had it in him - but with age and experience and damage , you get more and more use to the situation - likes of Clarke did it - we are waiting for Westwood and Garcia.

    To hole on last - when was needed for record was unreal - normally opens end with a horrible weak putt - incredible finish.
    The 3 wood at last was sort of the wrong club - but it is his most reliable club so makes sense too. Hit the club you are most comfortable with and do what you have done 10,000s of times. The way he was playing he would have most likely won from bunker anyway.

    The open was always a favourite event of mine - but the more majors I watch, the more you can understand the criticism. I love links golf , but the weather in Scotland is terrible - I'm not sure I will complain about Ireland again - the place is bloody freezing, more windy and unpredictable.

    But - you'd have to admire the yanks - they put the English and Irish players to shame at times. This absolute fallacy that they are not up to it - is a thing I heard as a young lad - it is bollix. In fact some of them embrace it. Who on earth would have picked out JB Holmes, Bill Hass, Stricker.

    So - off again to our almost 50 week year of non Links.

    I can't wait to play a few Open courses, I've played them in my head at this stage.

    But at that price - I'll wait till the next Open - British Open ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,378 ✭✭✭HighLine


    As golf selfies go, this wouldn't be a bad one. Bunch of hacks about to go out for Sergio's charity event after flying straight from Troon.

    https://twitter.com/EuropeanTour/status/754980892314050560


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,036 ✭✭✭Loire


    A super Open it has to be said.
    Hard to know what to say about Rory (as everything is said every day by everyone in every place) - it is just his putting isn't it.

    I noticed that Rory spent the last hour before teeing off yest & Sat at the range hitting irons and driver. Far be it for me to offer opinion, but if it was me I think I would have spent at least half that time on 3-6 footers.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,246 ✭✭✭✭Seve OB


    HighLine wrote: »
    As golf selfies go, this wouldn't be a bad one. Bunch of hacks about to go out for Sergio's charity event after flying straight from Troon.

    https://twitter.com/EuropeanTour/status/754980892314050560

    Only looking on the phone so can't really see..... Cause I can't bloody zoom!

    But is that feherty in there at the back?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    Seve OB wrote: »
    Only looking on the phone so can't really see..... Cause I can't bloody zoom!

    But is that feherty in there at the back?

    Does look a bit like him alright. And he's the only guy in the pic not dressed to play golf.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,697 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    Yep, I recorded it then watched it once the kids were in bed - the quality of the golf from them both was mind blowing - got to feel a bit for Phil but Stenson was just that bit better.

    Stat at the end saying Phil's -17 would have won 140 of the previous 144 Opens!!!

    Pointless stat. Each year the courses are different, the weather is different. So many variables. I don't think Phil would have been shooting -17 on the 1999 Carnoustie course!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,300 ✭✭✭✭razorblunt


    Seve OB wrote: »
    Only looking on the phone so can't really see..... Cause I can't bloody zoom!

    But is that feherty in there at the back?

    it's him alright, he tweeted a pic of Stenson landing with the claret locked up in a case this morning.

    Loving ZJ wearing shorts too, between that and his confused face when he couldn't find the peak of his cap to acknowledge the crowd on the 1st (he was wearing a beanie) I'll overlook the God bothering stuff.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,246 ✭✭✭✭Seve OB


    Really can't understand why the pro's are not allowed to wear shorts. really stupid in this day and age.... actually in any day and age!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Chivito550 wrote: »
    Pointless stat. Each year the courses are different, the weather is different. So many variables. I don't think Phil would have been shooting -17 on the 1999 Carnoustie course!

    No, the point is to give some historical context to the win.

    The immediate comparison being made is not with Carnoustie in 1999 but with Turnberry in 1977 and the Duel in the Sun between Nicklaus and Watson.

    It's already being called the Duel in the Sun II (despite the lack of sunshine) and no doubt the debate will rage long and hard about which was the better match......and it's a debate without conclusion, but this is what Nicklaus had to say......
    I was fortunate to watch every second of today’s final round of the Open Championship, and I thought it was fantastic. Phil Mickelson played one of the best rounds I have ever seen played in the Open and Henrik Stenson just played better—he played one of the greatest rounds I have ever seen.

    Phil certainly has nothing to be ashamed of because he played wonderfully. Henrik played well from beginning to end. He drove the ball well; his iron game was great; his short game was wonderful; and his putting was great. Henrik was simply terrific. To win your first major championship is something special in and of itself, but to do it in the fashion Henrik did it in, makes for something very special and incredibly memorable. I'm proud of and happy for Henrik.

    Some in the media have already tried to compare today’s final round to 1977 at Turnberry, with Tom Watson and me in what they called the “duel in the sun.” I thought we played great and had a wonderful match. On that day, Tom got me, 65-66. Our final round was really good, but theirs was even better. What a great match today.

    .....Mickleson's 65 would never have been shot around Carnoustie, but it would have been good enough to beat one of the greatest ever to shake a stick in arguably one of the greatest games ever played.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    razorblunt wrote: »
    I'll overlook the God bothering stuff.
    That's big of you, doubt if Zach reads your posts though.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    That's big of you, doubt if Zach reads your posts though.

    .....but God does :D


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,300 ✭✭✭✭razorblunt


    That's big of you, doubt if Zach reads your posts though.

    Doesn't matter he'd have to forgive me anyway.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Open viewing figures dip 75 per cent in first year on Sky Sports
    The peak television audience for the final round of the Open Championship suffered a drop of around 75% on last year in the first broadcasting by Sky Sports of the oldest major.

    The top viewing figure for the epic Royal Troon shootout between Henrik Stenson and Phil Mickelson, combined between Sky Sports 1 and Sky Sports 4, was 1.1m.

    I don't doubt the deal with Sky Sports makes a lot of financial sense, and I thought their coverage was excellent, but you'd wonder if it makes sporting sense?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭BigChap1759


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Open viewing figures dip 75 per cent in first year on Sky Sports



    I don't doubt the deal with Sky Sports makes a lot of financial sense, and I thought their coverage was excellent, but you'd wonder if it makes sporting sense?

    The BBC forced the R&A's hand in giving the coverage to Sky - the BBC had no interest in keeping The Open(in line with their gradual reduction in covering a lot of other sports) so they made a derisory offer to the R&A.

    The R&A want golf to prosper but what are they supposed to do when the noises from the national broadcaster are that they are no longer interested in spending the required sums to invest in decent, modern coverage.

    Personally I'd rather the much larger audience was given access to this treasure but it was the BBC's call


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    The BBC forced the R&A's hand in giving the coverage to Sky - the BBC had no interest in keeping The Open(in line with their gradual reduction in covering a lot of other sports) so they made a derisory offer to the R&A.

    The R&A want golf to prosper but what are they supposed to do when the noises from the national broadcaster are that they are no longer interested in spending the required sums to invest in decent, modern coverage.

    Personally I'd rather the much larger audience was given access to this treasure but it was the BBC's call

    Well I think the interest was there, but the money wasn't - with their (the BBC's) funding model the pot is fairly finite and when it gets cut the bigger ticket items like rights driven sports coverage probably bear a disproportionate burden.

    Interestingly, the Open is a List B event ("may be shown on a subscription channel if highlights are made available to a free-to-air channel") so when bidding for it the terrestrial channels are in a much 'weaker' position as the awarding body isn't compelled to award live primary coverage on a shared or exclusive basis to them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    Personally, I felt a bit of a twinge that the most thrilling Open finish for years, a modern day re-run of the famous duel in the sun, could have been the most fitting epitaph for Peter Alliss' live Open coverage, but it didn't happen because the Beeb was so eager to get rid of it, it waivered the last year of its contract. And kinda poetic too in a way that the most thrilling Open for many years should have had its smallest audience. Whatever the finances involved, that can't be a good scenario for anyone who loves and cares about the sport.

    The R&A should be looking at the proliferation of stories about the alarming decline in the numbers taking up and playing cricket in recent years and wondering if its strategy is the right one. Of course, there could be other factors at play rather than than the moving of test matches to pay channels, but its negative effect simply cannot be denied. Maybe they think the Olympics will take up the slack as far as spreading golf's appeal to the masses goes, good luck with that one anyway!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭BigChap1759


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Well I think the interest was there, but the money wasn't - with their (the BBC's) funding model the pot is fairly finite and when it gets cut the bigger ticket items like rights driven sports coverage probably bear a disproportionate burden.

    Interestingly, the Open is a List B event ("may be shown on a subscription channel if highlights are made available to a free-to-air channel") so when bidding for it the terrestrial channels are in a much 'weaker' position as the awarding body isn't compelled to award live primary coverage on a shared or exclusive basis to them.

    If the interest really was there why did they classify it a List B event?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    If the interest really was there why did they classify it a List B event?

    I suppose who knows? The public may be interested but the cynic in me would suggest that it was classified as List B because the R&A wanted it List B as a means to leveraging in more money than might otherwise have been the case if it was List A with primary coverage being sought only by the terrestrial channels.

    Just looking at some of the historic documents on the compiling of the Lists and the last (?) revision in 2009 recommended it be moved to List A, from List B, but that recommendation seems not to have been taken up at the time or since.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,904 ✭✭✭alxmorgan


    Jawgap wrote: »
    Open viewing figures dip 75 per cent in first year on Sky Sports



    I don't doubt the deal with Sky Sports makes a lot of financial sense, and I thought their coverage was excellent, but you'd wonder if it makes sporting sense?

    Was always going to happen. I thought Skys coverage was superb but I think the lack of it on free to air is always going to affect audiences and that is a pity. Especially the younger generation, like Westwood or Poulter, who could get into golf in this way


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭BigChap1759


    Jawgap wrote: »
    I suppose who knows? The public may be interested but the cynic in me would suggest that it was classified as List B because the R&A wanted it List B as a means to leveraging in more money than might otherwise have been the case if it was List A with primary coverage being sought only by the terrestrial channels.

    Just looking at some of the historic documents on the compiling of the Lists and the last (?) revision in 2009 recommended it be moved to List A, from List B, but that recommendation seems not to have been taken up at the time or since.

    Surely it would have been the government or the BBC who classified it - so they can get out of covering it as it's not a mandated(ie Class A) event?

    This would let them bid low but still try and save face by claiming to be out bid when in fact they didn't want to be covering it from a budgetary point of view


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,023 ✭✭✭✭Joe_ Public


    Satellite channels were traditionally banned from bidding for live tv rights on listed events, but the sports bodies themselves lobbied to have that ban removed, not necessarily because they wanted to do business with the pay channels, but because it would enhance their bargaining power with the terrestrials. Same with the GAA here. They probably didn't envisage the scenario where the terrestrials would just cut their losses and step away, but that's what's happened anyway.


Advertisement