[arkstorm]

I have never been a big fan of the USGA's decision to resolve ties at the US Open by playing a full 18 holes the next day. But this time around I thought it was pure irony that after all the fanfare, after another day of golf between the 72 hole leaders, and after all the buildup the champion was identified on the first sudden death hole? Couldn't the USGA have spared all that and just played a 4 hole format, as in the British Open, on the same day of the fourth round? What are your thoughts?

[HeadonaStick]

arkstorm, on Jun 17 2008, 01:59 PM, said:

I have never been a big fan of the USGA's decision to resolve ties at the US Open by playing a full 18 holes the next day. But this time around I thought it was pure irony that after all the fanfare, after another day of golf between the 72 hole leaders, and after all the buildup the champion was identified on the first sudden death hole? Couldn't the USGA have spared all that and just played a 4 hole format, as in the British Open, on the same day of the fourth round? What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are pretty much the same as already posted here.

If the 18 hole playoff had been skipped an awful lot would have been missed.

Rocco went toe to toe with Tiger and didn't flinch. That would have been lost on a single sudden death playoff hole. Even a 4 hole playoff would have missed the ebb and floe of a full round and we would have missed Rocco fighting back from a three shot deficit - and how often does that happen against Tiger in any match, let alone a major at arguably his home course. Personally, I'm glad I wasn't spared that.

[stianvm]

Totally agree.A 4 hole playoff like in the BO should be the way to go.The 18 hole playoff the next day is to me a real anticlimax.By having the 4 hole playoff the excitement of the whole final round is kept alive instead of pushing the playoff overnight. Its like waking up yawning and going "oh well, guess i have to watch a few holes.."

[xan_user]

After a playoff tie they should ad up the total time spent on each shot and give the trophy to the player who played quickest.

[labillyboy]

I really didn't like the choice of the hole they used.

IMO it was over as soon as they stepped on the tee of the dog leg right hole.

With his draw only game, Rocco never had a chance.

Memo to the USGA, next time you do sudden death, choose a hole that BOTH players have a chance on.

[finalist]

They should go to a putt off. Who can make the longest putt the fastest!

I like the current format.

[HeadonaStick]

labillyboy, on Jun 17 2008, 02:26 PM, said:

I really didn't like the choice of the hole they used.

IMO it was over as soon as they stepped on the tee of the dog leg right hole.

With his draw only game, Rocco never had a chance.

Memo to the USGA, next time you do sudden death, choose a hole that BOTH players have a chance on.

Am I allowed to agree and disagree at the same time?

The holes for sudden death are chosen ahead of time. And really, if you are going to lay claim to US Open Champion, shouldn't you have a fade shot in your bag?

That said, after 90 holes, it was a bit anti-climatic to see it go down that way.

[drpops]

I am thrilled that they only play 18 and not 36 as was the previous practice.

[BDLz]

stianvm, on Jun 17 2008, 01:11 PM, said:

Totally agree.A 4 hole playoff like in the BO should be the way to go.The 18 hole playoff the next day is to me a real anticlimax.By having the 4 hole playoff the excitement of the whole final round is kept alive instead of pushing the playoff overnight. Its like waking up yawning and going "oh well, guess i have to watch a few holes.."

If you didn't enjoy Monday's playoff, I don't think you could ever enjoy watching golf on Television. Sure, there's always the chance it could turn into a rout, but that was simply good TV.

BDLz

[JoeF]

I say 4 holes of Bingo, bango, bongo should be used.

[HeadonaStick]

JoeF, on Jun 17 2008, 03:25 PM, said:

I say 4 holes of Bingo, bango, bongo should be used.

That's only three holes.

[Wsc04forever]

I like the 18 hole playoff because we got to see rocco make 3 straight birdies to come back on tiger, which nobody had done before, but i didnt like the sudden death after that where rocco had a hole that set up crappy for his game, i think in implementing the 18 hole playoff they want the best player to prevail, if that is the case, then dont follow it up with a sudden death, that defeats the purpose, i understand these things cant go on forever, so keep the 18 hole playoff, and after that, if it is still tied than move into a new fresh 4 hole stoke play playoff, dont play 90 holes of dead even stoke play, then through them into a sudden death. I did thouroughly enjoy this years open, just not the 91st hole that much.

[DBake]

I believe that the 18 hole play off on Monday won over a lot of people and made them fans of golf.

[mcputter]

I do see the irony in having to end an 18 hole playoff with sudden-death. I like the 18 hole playoff, but to then go to a sudden-death playoff was kind of anti-climatic. I'm with Wsc04, 18 holes then a four-hole playoff if necessary sounds about right.

Either that or do it like the 1931 U.S. Open, 36 hole playoff (on one day) then another 36 the next day if they're still tied. Keep playing 36 a day till somebody wins!

[MCCA]

drpops, on Jun 17 2008, 03:20 PM, said:

I am thrilled that they only play 18 and not 36 as was the previous practice.

OMG,

Tiger would have never made the next 18.

[stianvm]

BDLz, on Jun 17 2008, 09:25 PM, said:

stianvm, on Jun 17 2008, 01:11 PM, said:

Totally agree.A 4 hole playoff like in the BO should be the way to go.The 18 hole playoff the next day is to me a real anticlimax.By having the 4 hole playoff the excitement of the whole final round is kept alive instead of pushing the playoff overnight. Its like waking up yawning and going "oh well, guess i have to watch a few holes.."

If you didn't enjoy Monday's playoff, I don't think you could ever enjoy watching golf on Television. Sure, there's always the chance it could turn into a rout, but that was simply good TV.

BDLz

Naah, i enjoy golf on tv immensely, but dont have that many 18 hole-next-day playoffs to pull experience from.

One thing that CAN be a reason is that i played a golf tournament myself on monday during the playoffs, and when finished had to sit 40 minutes in a grill waiting for results on the tourney.Agony as i had taped the show and wanted to go home without hearing any results, dodging conversations left and right. Ofourse, just when i left i heard in corner somewhere "tiger won". It _might _be a kicker

[xan_user]

I wonder what the outcome would have been if hole #1 had been the sudden death hole?

[sharon333]

I would think a good game of blackjack would settle it.

[arkstorm]

mcputter, on Jun 17 2008, 03:51 PM, said:

I do see the irony in having to end an 18 hole playoff with sudden-death. I like the 18 hole playoff, but to then go to a sudden-death playoff was kind of anti-climatic. I'm with Wsc04, 18 holes then a four-hole playoff if necessary sounds about right.

Either that or do it like the 1931 U.S. Open, 36 hole playoff (on one day) then another 36 the next day if they're still tied. Keep playing 36 a day till somebody wins!

Wasn't it match play back then ?

[Konakid67]

BDLz, on Jun 17 2008, 03:25 PM, said:

stianvm, on Jun 17 2008, 01:11 PM, said:

Totally agree.A 4 hole playoff like in the BO should be the way to go.The 18 hole playoff the next day is to me a real anticlimax.By having the 4 hole playoff the excitement of the whole final round is kept alive instead of pushing the playoff overnight. Its like waking up yawning and going "oh well, guess i have to watch a few holes.."

If you didn't enjoy Monday's playoff, I don't think you could ever enjoy watching golf on Television. Sure, there's always the chance it could turn into a rout, but that was simply good TV.

BDLz

Agreed especially on on a 63" plasma with HD, it was nice to see roco fight back and put a little pressure on tiger. I see you are in COMO, how is it? I grew up there and still have family there. what is your home course?
Kevin

[labillyboy]

HeadonaStick, on Jun 17 2008, 11:29 AM, said:

labillyboy, on Jun 17 2008, 02:26 PM, said:

I really didn't like the choice of the hole they used.

IMO it was over as soon as they stepped on the tee of the dog leg right hole.

With his draw only game, Rocco never had a chance.

Memo to the USGA, next time you do sudden death, choose a hole that BOTH players have a chance on.

Am I allowed to agree and disagree at the same time?

The holes for sudden death are chosen ahead of time. And really, if you are going to lay claim to US Open Champion, shouldn't you have a fade shot in your bag?

That said, after 90 holes, it was a bit anti-climatic to see it go down that way.

It would be pretty easy to choose a hole that is straight... that's all I am saying, then nobody has an advantage based on the syle of their game. There are plenty of straight holes at Torrey... picking years in advance you could have avoided screwing that up... If it went to a 3 or 4 hole playoff instead of SD it wouldn't matter as much.

Who needs a fade? All I am asking for is straight... Poor Rocco

[golfman1229]

xan_user, on Jun 17 2008, 02:13 PM, said:

After a playoff tie they should ad up the total time spent on each shot and give the trophy to the player who played quickest.

Tiger wouldn't have just lost.. He would have been killed.

[sync71]

I thought the 18 hole play off match was great. For starters it was just great golf/TV that I thought was fun to watch, with Tiger being up by 3 strokes and Rocco coming back like that and almost winning it. Next, It's something different..why should ever tournament be the same, why not make one of them an 18 hole play off. Congrats to Tiger on the win.

[harleypitbull1]

The statement about the US OPEN CHAMPION having a fade in their bag. The key to being a great golfer is having a repetitive swing that produces results. If it be a 15 yard draw so be it. No where on the score card to you get bonus points for being able to cut a ball or hook it. You would think a the US OPEN CHAMPION would not hit it 80 yards right 3 or 4 times in 4 days but he did. The only thing that matters is the final score. I dont see how anyone can bash the way ROCCO hit the ball. Tee to green he played 10 shots better than Tiger over the 4 days,,,,, Tiger did what he always does and that is putt GREAT. If Tigers putter does not show up,,,, he finishes behind PHIL,,,, but as I said ealier,,,, THEY DONT ASK YOU HOW<<<< THEY ASK HOW MANY?

[HeadonaStick]

labillyboy, on Jun 17 2008, 05:01 PM, said:

HeadonaStick, on Jun 17 2008, 11:29 AM, said:

labillyboy, on Jun 17 2008, 02:26 PM, said:

I really didn't like the choice of the hole they used.

IMO it was over as soon as they stepped on the tee of the dog leg right hole.

With his draw only game, Rocco never had a chance.

Memo to the USGA, next time you do sudden death, choose a hole that BOTH players have a chance on.

Am I allowed to agree and disagree at the same time?

The holes for sudden death are chosen ahead of time. And really, if you are going to lay claim to US Open Champion, shouldn't you have a fade shot in your bag?

That said, after 90 holes, it was a bit anti-climatic to see it go down that way.

It would be pretty easy to choose a hole that is straight... that's all I am saying, then nobody has an advantage based on the syle of their game. There are plenty of straight holes at Torrey... picking years in advance you could have avoided screwing that up... If it went to a 3 or 4 hole playoff instead of SD it wouldn't matter as much.

Who needs a fade? All I am asking for is straight... Poor Rocco

Because a world class golfer should have more than just straight in his bag. Obviously, Rocco needed a fade and he didn't have it in his bag. If you don't have a fade, at least have a plan to miss the bunker.

This is world class golf, you should be able to work the ball or think your way around the hole.

[Roughneck]

labillyboy, on Jun 17 2008, 12:26 PM, said:

I really didn't like the choice of the hole they used.

IMO it was over as soon as they stepped on the tee of the dog leg right hole.

With his draw only game, Rocco never had a chance.

Memo to the USGA, next time you do sudden death, choose a hole that BOTH players have a chance on.

Would it be the same if they started the playoff at #1 ? Another dogleg right, but Tiger was +5 for the week on that hole alone. Same with the par 3's, Rocco was much better in the Playoff on the 3's. Like was said before, they sould be capable of playing any hole.

[adam1234]

in this case it was a brilliant playoff and i don't think anyone would have changed it for the world. i say the 18 hole playoff perishes in this glory. it definitely has huge anticlimatic potential, and if it had been two lesser known players then the crowds would have been smaller and there might well have been a walkover for one of them. both tiger and rocco showed spirit that i'm not sure others could

[BDLz]

Konakid67, on Jun 17 2008, 03:31 PM, said:

BDLz, on Jun 17 2008, 03:25 PM, said:

stianvm, on Jun 17 2008, 01:11 PM, said:

Totally agree.A 4 hole playoff like in the BO should be the way to go.The 18 hole playoff the next day is to me a real anticlimax.By having the 4 hole playoff the excitement of the whole final round is kept alive instead of pushing the playoff overnight. Its like waking up yawning and going "oh well, guess i have to watch a few holes.."

If you didn't enjoy Monday's playoff, I don't think you could ever enjoy watching golf on Television. Sure, there's always the chance it could turn into a rout, but that was simply good TV.

BDLz

Agreed especially on on a 63" plasma with HD, it was nice to see roco fight back and put a little pressure on tiger. I see you are in COMO, how is it? I grew up there and still have family there. what is your home course?
Kevin

I actually just left Columbia recently, but haven't changed my profile yet. Used to work at CCMO. COMO is still the same. It's one of those towns that doesn't change too much. There's a great new private course that was just completed this year (Old Hawthorne). Didn't get to play it before I left, but its supposed to be one of the top 5 in the state.

BDLz

[labillyboy]

Roughneck, on Jun 17 2008, 03:02 PM, said:

labillyboy, on Jun 17 2008, 12:26 PM, said:

I really didn't like the choice of the hole they used.

IMO it was over as soon as they stepped on the tee of the dog leg right hole.

With his draw only game, Rocco never had a chance.

Memo to the USGA, next time you do sudden death, choose a hole that BOTH players have a chance on.

Would it be the same if they started the playoff at #1 ? Another dogleg right, but Tiger was +5 for the week on that hole alone. Same with the par 3's, Rocco was much better in the Playoff on the 3's. Like was said before, they sould be capable of playing any hole.

I still don't agree, if it is sudden death, pick a hole where neither player has an advantage, at least for the first hole for heck's sake...a par 3, a par 5 or a straight par 4. The fact is there are a lot of guys on tour who can't hit a draw either, probably more than can't hit a fade... what if it was a dog left? It makes no sense either way... Every player favors one or the other why favor one player over another?

Let's say it was a dog left, Tiger would have had to hit 3 wood... he doesn't draw the driver... (unless it is a double cross when he's trying to fade it.)

Surely they had no idea it would be Rocco in a playoff when the chose the hole, so I am not saying it was intentional to favor Tiger, but now that I think about it, who might they have expected to be in a playoff, and what is his favored shot shape, for a lefty? Hmmm Nah, just kidding...

Really too bad it worked out this way though, right up until that hole it was some of the best competitive golf I have ever watched. Rocco had NO CHANCE on THAT hole.

Oh, and I really don't consider #1 to be a dogleg, if you have ever played there; it is fairly straight, just a slight turn to the right. I guess you could call it a dog leg but I wouldn't. I think that would be an excellent hole for Sudden Death... much better than 7.... Followed by 2 again fairly straight, slight turn to the right and then number 3 the short par 3... THAT would have been not only fair, but interesting...

I still don't understand what they were thinking.

[nemo]

How could you not like that 18 hole playoff? It was awesome to see the back and forth through that round. I wouldn't want it for every tournament, but I like keeping with the tradition of a full round. And it was definatly way better for Rocco that way, to put up such a battle, rather than losing in one hole. The winner was determined as soon as it went to #7 for the 19th though. But they have to pick some loop to run the extra holes on that's reasonably close to the 18th green. Just a bad break for Rocco (who I was rooting for), but I think it was the best tournament I've ever watched as it was and wouldn't want to see it changed. Especially now with DVR where anyone can watch it whenever they wanted. I kept away from the news all day and watched it when I got home, fast forwarding through as much Johnny Miller as I could.

[Roughneck]

I see what you are saying about trying to pick a neutral hole for a playoff, but i think that you can pretty much pick a person that has an advantage on every hole. Like 18, if that was the playoff hole, Tiger has a HUGE advantage because of his length, getting there in 2 is really not much of a problem, where Rocco just can't do it.

[HeadonaStick]

labillyboy, on Jun 17 2008, 09:08 PM, said:

Roughneck, on Jun 17 2008, 03:02 PM, said:

labillyboy, on Jun 17 2008, 12:26 PM, said:

I really didn't like the choice of the hole they used.

IMO it was over as soon as they stepped on the tee of the dog leg right hole.

With his draw only game, Rocco never had a chance.

Memo to the USGA, next time you do sudden death, choose a hole that BOTH players have a chance on.

Would it be the same if they started the playoff at #1 ? Another dogleg right, but Tiger was +5 for the week on that hole alone. Same with the par 3's, Rocco was much better in the Playoff on the 3's. Like was said before, they sould be capable of playing any hole.

I still don't agree, if it is sudden death, pick a hole where neither player has an advantage, at least for the first hole for heck's sake...a par 3, a par 5 or a straight par 4. The fact is there are a lot of guys on tour who can't hit a draw either, probably more than can't hit a fade... what if it was a dog left? It makes no sense either way... Every player favors one or the other why favor one player over another?

Let's say it was a dog left, Tiger would have had to hit 3 wood... he doesn't draw the driver... (unless it is a double cross when he's trying to fade it.)

Surely they had no idea it would be Rocco in a playoff when the chose the hole, so I am not saying it was intentional to favor Tiger, but now that I think about it, who might they have expected to be in a playoff, and what is his favored shot shape, for a lefty? Hmmm Nah, just kidding...

Really too bad it worked out this way though, right up until that hole it was some of the best competitive golf I have ever watched. Rocco had NO CHANCE on THAT hole.

Oh, and I really don't consider #1 to be a dogleg, if you have ever played there; it is fairly straight, just a slight turn to the right. I guess you could call it a dog leg but I wouldn't. I think that would be an excellent hole for Sudden Death... much better than 7.... Followed by 2 again fairly straight, slight turn to the right and then number 3 the short par 3... THAT would have been not only fair, but interesting...

I still don't understand what they were thinking.

And some players can't hit it straight. That's the way it goes - no hole would be fair to every golfer. All the golfers knew what the sudden death hole was going to be ahead of time.

[dlygrisse]

MCCA, on Jun 17 2008, 02:55 PM, said:

drpops, on Jun 17 2008, 03:20 PM, said:

I am thrilled that they only play 18 and not 36 as was the previous practice.

OMG,

Tiger would have never made the next 18.

Stevie would have had to of given him a piggy back ride around the course

[labillyboy]

HeadonaStick, on Jun 17 2008, 06:30 PM, said:

labillyboy, on Jun 17 2008, 09:08 PM, said:

Roughneck, on Jun 17 2008, 03:02 PM, said:

labillyboy, on Jun 17 2008, 12:26 PM, said:

I really didn't like the choice of the hole they used.

IMO it was over as soon as they stepped on the tee of the dog leg right hole.

With his draw only game, Rocco never had a chance.

Memo to the USGA, next time you do sudden death, choose a hole that BOTH players have a chance on.

Would it be the same if they started the playoff at #1 ? Another dogleg right, but Tiger was +5 for the week on that hole alone. Same with the par 3's, Rocco was much better in the Playoff on the 3's. Like was said before, they sould be capable of playing any hole.

I still don't agree, if it is sudden death, pick a hole where neither player has an advantage, at least for the first hole for heck's sake...a par 3, a par 5 or a straight par 4. The fact is there are a lot of guys on tour who can't hit a draw either, probably more than can't hit a fade... what if it was a dog left? It makes no sense either way... Every player favors one or the other why favor one player over another?

Let's say it was a dog left, Tiger would have had to hit 3 wood... he doesn't draw the driver... (unless it is a double cross when he's trying to fade it.)

Surely they had no idea it would be Rocco in a playoff when the chose the hole, so I am not saying it was intentional to favor Tiger, but now that I think about it, who might they have expected to be in a playoff, and what is his favored shot shape, for a lefty? Hmmm Nah, just kidding...

Really too bad it worked out this way though, right up until that hole it was some of the best competitive golf I have ever watched. Rocco had NO CHANCE on THAT hole.

Oh, and I really don't consider #1 to be a dogleg, if you have ever played there; it is fairly straight, just a slight turn to the right. I guess you could call it a dog leg but I wouldn't. I think that would be an excellent hole for Sudden Death... much better than 7.... Followed by 2 again fairly straight, slight turn to the right and then number 3 the short par 3... THAT would have been not only fair, but interesting...

I still don't understand what they were thinking.

And some players can't hit it straight. That's the way it goes - no hole would be fair to every golfer. All the golfers knew what the sudden death hole was going to be ahead of time.

Are you serious...? Just so I am clear, you are saying that because they knew what hole it was, that Rocco was not at a serious disadvantage? And that 1,2,3 would not have provided a situation with no advantage for any player....?

And to whoever made the point about 18 giving Tiger an advantage..... BINGO! They should not have started there either....

Why... (now pay attention and read carefully)... would they choose a hole that clearly... (are you still with me?).. is gong to give one type of player a huge advantage over another? (I'm not finished yet).... WHEN... there are alternatives that do not (i.e. 1,2,3)? How can you argue with that?

[Nitsua]

labillyboy, on Jun 17 2008, 08:02 PM, said:

HeadonaStick, on Jun 17 2008, 06:30 PM, said:

labillyboy, on Jun 17 2008, 09:08 PM, said:

Roughneck, on Jun 17 2008, 03:02 PM, said:

labillyboy, on Jun 17 2008, 12:26 PM, said:

I really didn't like the choice of the hole they used.

IMO it was over as soon as they stepped on the tee of the dog leg right hole.

With his draw only game, Rocco never had a chance.

Memo to the USGA, next time you do sudden death, choose a hole that BOTH players have a chance on.

Would it be the same if they started the playoff at #1 ? Another dogleg right, but Tiger was +5 for the week on that hole alone. Same with the par 3's, Rocco was much better in the Playoff on the 3's. Like was said before, they sould be capable of playing any hole.

I still don't agree, if it is sudden death, pick a hole where neither player has an advantage, at least for the first hole for heck's sake...a par 3, a par 5 or a straight par 4. The fact is there are a lot of guys on tour who can't hit a draw either, probably more than can't hit a fade... what if it was a dog left? It makes no sense either way... Every player favors one or the other why favor one player over another?

Let's say it was a dog left, Tiger would have had to hit 3 wood... he doesn't draw the driver... (unless it is a double cross when he's trying to fade it.)

Surely they had no idea it would be Rocco in a playoff when the chose the hole, so I am not saying it was intentional to favor Tiger, but now that I think about it, who might they have expected to be in a playoff, and what is his favored shot shape, for a lefty? Hmmm Nah, just kidding...

Really too bad it worked out this way though, right up until that hole it was some of the best competitive golf I have ever watched. Rocco had NO CHANCE on THAT hole.

Oh, and I really don't consider #1 to be a dogleg, if you have ever played there; it is fairly straight, just a slight turn to the right. I guess you could call it a dog leg but I wouldn't. I think that would be an excellent hole for Sudden Death... much better than 7.... Followed by 2 again fairly straight, slight turn to the right and then number 3 the short par 3... THAT would have been not only fair, but interesting...

I still don't understand what they were thinking.

And some players can't hit it straight. That's the way it goes - no hole would be fair to every golfer. All the golfers knew what the sudden death hole was going to be ahead of time.

Are you serious...? Just so I am clear, you are saying that because they knew what hole it was, that Rocco was not at a serious disadvantage? And that 1,2,3 would not have provided a situation with no advantage for any player....?

And to whoever made the point about 18 giving Tiger an advantage..... BINGO! They should not have started there either....

Why... (now pay attention and read carefully)... would they choose a hole that clearly... (are you still with me?).. is gong to give one type of player a huge advantage over another? (I'm not finished yet).... WHEN... there are alternatives that do not (i.e. 1,2,3)? How can you argue with that?

1,2 and 3 all favor a player that can put it in the fairway. Seems unfair to the guys that are a bit wild off the tee, but scramble well.

[HeadonaStick]

labillyboy, on Jun 17 2008, 10:02 PM, said:

HeadonaStick, on Jun 17 2008, 06:30 PM, said:

labillyboy, on Jun 17 2008, 09:08 PM, said:

Roughneck, on Jun 17 2008, 03:02 PM, said:

labillyboy, on Jun 17 2008, 12:26 PM, said:

I really didn't like the choice of the hole they used.

IMO it was over as soon as they stepped on the tee of the dog leg right hole.

With his draw only game, Rocco never had a chance.

Memo to the USGA, next time you do sudden death, choose a hole that BOTH players have a chance on.

Would it be the same if they started the playoff at #1 ? Another dogleg right, but Tiger was +5 for the week on that hole alone. Same with the par 3's, Rocco was much better in the Playoff on the 3's. Like was said before, they sould be capable of playing any hole.

I still don't agree, if it is sudden death, pick a hole where neither player has an advantage, at least for the first hole for heck's sake...a par 3, a par 5 or a straight par 4. The fact is there are a lot of guys on tour who can't hit a draw either, probably more than can't hit a fade... what if it was a dog left? It makes no sense either way... Every player favors one or the other why favor one player over another?

Let's say it was a dog left, Tiger would have had to hit 3 wood... he doesn't draw the driver... (unless it is a double cross when he's trying to fade it.)

Surely they had no idea it would be Rocco in a playoff when the chose the hole, so I am not saying it was intentional to favor Tiger, but now that I think about it, who might they have expected to be in a playoff, and what is his favored shot shape, for a lefty? Hmmm Nah, just kidding...

Really too bad it worked out this way though, right up until that hole it was some of the best competitive golf I have ever watched. Rocco had NO CHANCE on THAT hole.

Oh, and I really don't consider #1 to be a dogleg, if you have ever played there; it is fairly straight, just a slight turn to the right. I guess you could call it a dog leg but I wouldn't. I think that would be an excellent hole for Sudden Death... much better than 7.... Followed by 2 again fairly straight, slight turn to the right and then number 3 the short par 3... THAT would have been not only fair, but interesting...

I still don't understand what they were thinking.

And some players can't hit it straight. That's the way it goes - no hole would be fair to every golfer. All the golfers knew what the sudden death hole was going to be ahead of time.

Are you serious...? Just so I am clear, you are saying that because they knew what hole it was, that Rocco was not at a serious disadvantage? And that 1,2,3 would not have provided a situation with no advantage for any player....?

And to whoever made the point about 18 giving Tiger an advantage..... BINGO! They should not have started there either....

Why... (now pay attention and read carefully)... would they choose a hole that clearly... (are you still with me?).. is gong to give one type of player a huge advantage over another? (I'm not finished yet).... WHEN... there are alternatives that do not (i.e. 1,2,3)? How can you argue with that?

I'm not sure why you are having a tough time with this, but I'll say it a different way:

EVERY hole on a golf course can provide a huge advantage for one player and a huge disadvantage to another if you get the right two players in a playoff. The problem is, nobody kows which players will be playing the play-off.

When you get that crystal ball working you can loan it to the USGA so they can know ahead of time who is playing the playoff.

[frozen_rope]

Sudden death playoff for a regular tour stop is fine.
All of the majors should use 18 hole Monday rounds.

arkstorm, on Jun 17 2008, 12:59 PM, said:

I have never been a big fan of the USGA's decision to resolve ties at the US Open by playing a full 18 holes the next day. But this time around I thought it was pure irony that after all the fanfare, after another day of golf between the 72 hole leaders, and after all the buildup the champion was identified on the first sudden death hole? Couldn't the USGA have spared all that and just played a 4 hole format, as in the British Open, on the same day of the fourth round? What are your thoughts?

[03SVTCobra]

I enjoyed watching the 18 hole playoff. I got to see Roc and Tiger going at it without interruptions to show guys 2 and 3 off the pace that have no chance make a decent shot to the green.

[labillyboy]

HeadonaStick, on Jun 17 2008, 07:53 PM, said:

labillyboy, on Jun 17 2008, 10:02 PM, said:

HeadonaStick, on Jun 17 2008, 06:30 PM, said:

labillyboy, on Jun 17 2008, 09:08 PM, said:

Roughneck, on Jun 17 2008, 03:02 PM, said:

labillyboy, on Jun 17 2008, 12:26 PM, said:

I really didn't like the choice of the hole they used.

IMO it was over as soon as they stepped on the tee of the dog leg right hole.

With his draw only game, Rocco never had a chance.

Memo to the USGA, next time you do sudden death, choose a hole that BOTH players have a chance on.

Would it be the same if they started the playoff at #1 ? Another dogleg right, but Tiger was +5 for the week on that hole alone. Same with the par 3's, Rocco was much better in the Playoff on the 3's. Like was said before, they sould be capable of playing any hole.

I still don't agree, if it is sudden death, pick a hole where neither player has an advantage, at least for the first hole for heck's sake...a par 3, a par 5 or a straight par 4. The fact is there are a lot of guys on tour who can't hit a draw either, probably more than can't hit a fade... what if it was a dog left? It makes no sense either way... Every player favors one or the other why favor one player over another?

Let's say it was a dog left, Tiger would have had to hit 3 wood... he doesn't draw the driver... (unless it is a double cross when he's trying to fade it.)

Surely they had no idea it would be Rocco in a playoff when the chose the hole, so I am not saying it was intentional to favor Tiger, but now that I think about it, who might they have expected to be in a playoff, and what is his favored shot shape, for a lefty? Hmmm Nah, just kidding...

Really too bad it worked out this way though, right up until that hole it was some of the best competitive golf I have ever watched. Rocco had NO CHANCE on THAT hole.

Oh, and I really don't consider #1 to be a dogleg, if you have ever played there; it is fairly straight, just a slight turn to the right. I guess you could call it a dog leg but I wouldn't. I think that would be an excellent hole for Sudden Death... much better than 7.... Followed by 2 again fairly straight, slight turn to the right and then number 3 the short par 3... THAT would have been not only fair, but interesting...

I still don't understand what they were thinking.

And some players can't hit it straight. That's the way it goes - no hole would be fair to every golfer. All the golfers knew what the sudden death hole was going to be ahead of time.

Are you serious...? Just so I am clear, you are saying that because they knew what hole it was, that Rocco was not at a serious disadvantage? And that 1,2,3 would not have provided a situation with no advantage for any player....?

And to whoever made the point about 18 giving Tiger an advantage..... BINGO! They should not have started there either....

Why... (now pay attention and read carefully)... would they choose a hole that clearly... (are you still with me?).. is gong to give one type of player a huge advantage over another? (I'm not finished yet).... WHEN... there are alternatives that do not (i.e. 1,2,3)? How can you argue with that?

I'm not sure why you are having a tough time with this, but I'll say it a different way:

EVERY hole on a golf course can provide a huge advantage for one player and a huge disadvantage to another if you get the right two players in a playoff. The problem is, nobody kows which players will be playing the play-off.

When you get that crystal ball working you can loan it to the USGA so they can know ahead of time who is playing the playoff.

OK one last try... I think we are almost there....

The key phrase in your sentance is that "EVERY hole on a golf course" cam provide a "HUGE" advantage...

I say that is not true, Please explain how a straight away par 4 or par 3 favors a slicer, fader or straight hitter... for example at Torrey... where is there ANY advantage for anyone on 1,2 or 3?

As to your crystal ball crack... I don't have any idea where you got the idea that I thought they did it on purpose to benefit a certain player... I clearly said I was kidding in my reference to Lefty.... OBVIOUSLY they don't know, and in fact, probably don't even anticipate it will actually happen given the rarity of the playoff... Even MORE reason to choose holes that are straight away and not severe dog legs or reachable par 5's...

There might be a championship golf course out there with all severe dog legs and reachable par 5's... but I can't think of which one it is? Enlighten me please... that would be the ONLY way your statement could be correct... and since this discussion is specific to Torrey Pines....

I give up...

[HeadonaStick]

labillyboy, on Jun 17 2008, 11:20 PM, said:

HeadonaStick, on Jun 17 2008, 07:53 PM, said:

labillyboy, on Jun 17 2008, 10:02 PM, said:

HeadonaStick, on Jun 17 2008, 06:30 PM, said:

labillyboy, on Jun 17 2008, 09:08 PM, said:

Roughneck, on Jun 17 2008, 03:02 PM, said:

labillyboy, on Jun 17 2008, 12:26 PM, said:

I really didn't like the choice of the hole they used.

IMO it was over as soon as they stepped on the tee of the dog leg right hole.

With his draw only game, Rocco never had a chance.

Memo to the USGA, next time you do sudden death, choose a hole that BOTH players have a chance on.

Would it be the same if they started the playoff at #1 ? Another dogleg right, but Tiger was +5 for the week on that hole alone. Same with the par 3's, Rocco was much better in the Playoff on the 3's. Like was said before, they sould be capable of playing any hole.

I still don't agree, if it is sudden death, pick a hole where neither player has an advantage, at least for the first hole for heck's sake...a par 3, a par 5 or a straight par 4. The fact is there are a lot of guys on tour who can't hit a draw either, probably more than can't hit a fade... what if it was a dog left? It makes no sense either way... Every player favors one or the other why favor one player over another?

Let's say it was a dog left, Tiger would have had to hit 3 wood... he doesn't draw the driver... (unless it is a double cross when he's trying to fade it.)

Surely they had no idea it would be Rocco in a playoff when the chose the hole, so I am not saying it was intentional to favor Tiger, but now that I think about it, who might they have expected to be in a playoff, and what is his favored shot shape, for a lefty? Hmmm Nah, just kidding...

Really too bad it worked out this way though, right up until that hole it was some of the best competitive golf I have ever watched. Rocco had NO CHANCE on THAT hole.

Oh, and I really don't consider #1 to be a dogleg, if you have ever played there; it is fairly straight, just a slight turn to the right. I guess you could call it a dog leg but I wouldn't. I think that would be an excellent hole for Sudden Death... much better than 7.... Followed by 2 again fairly straight, slight turn to the right and then number 3 the short par 3... THAT would have been not only fair, but interesting...

I still don't understand what they were thinking.

And some players can't hit it straight. That's the way it goes - no hole would be fair to every golfer. All the golfers knew what the sudden death hole was going to be ahead of time.

Are you serious...? Just so I am clear, you are saying that because they knew what hole it was, that Rocco was not at a serious disadvantage? And that 1,2,3 would not have provided a situation with no advantage for any player....?

And to whoever made the point about 18 giving Tiger an advantage..... BINGO! They should not have started there either....

Why... (now pay attention and read carefully)... would they choose a hole that clearly... (are you still with me?).. is gong to give one type of player a huge advantage over another? (I'm not finished yet).... WHEN... there are alternatives that do not (i.e. 1,2,3)? How can you argue with that?

I'm not sure why you are having a tough time with this, but I'll say it a different way:

EVERY hole on a golf course can provide a huge advantage for one player and a huge disadvantage to another if you get the right two players in a playoff. The problem is, nobody kows which players will be playing the play-off.

When you get that crystal ball working you can loan it to the USGA so they can know ahead of time who is playing the playoff.

OK one last try... I think we are almost there....

The key phrase in your sentance is that "EVERY hole on a golf course" cam provide a "HUGE" advantage...

I say that is not true, Please explain how a straight away par 4 or par 3 favors a slicer, fader or straight hitter... for example at Torrey... where is there ANY advantage for anyone on 1,2 or 3?

If you have a natural fade and you are playing a straight hitter, who has the advantage on a straight hole?

Quote

As to your crystal ball crack... I don't have any idea where you got the idea that I thought they did it on purpose to benefit a certain player... I clearly said I was kidding in my reference to Lefty.... OBVIOUSLY they don't know, and in fact, probably don't even anticipate it will actually happen given the rarity of the playoff... Even MORE reason to choose holes that are straight away and not severe dog legs or reachable par 5's...

Of course you don't have any idea, nobody does. That's the point. So the tournament simply picks the most expedient hole(s) for any sudden death.

Quote

There might be a championship golf course out there with all severe dog legs and reachable par 5's... but I can't think of which one it is? Enlighten me please... that would be the ONLY way your statement could be correct... and since this discussion is specific to Torrey Pines....

I give up...

The problem is that you are assuming that a straight hole is somehow neutral. It isn't.