Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[JAS]

First topic message reminder :

Well done Jas, I've done it a few times and have applied too. Not heard back yet though.

I did it in 2008 Super and was disappointed not to break 4 hours (I ran Glasgow 3 times in the mid 80s with a PB of 2.52) Huge difference in running marathons from early to mid 20's and late 40's/early 50's though. I said in 2008 that I had one more left and it WOULD be sub 4 hours!! I've applied 3 times without success since but I'm in this time.

Nice one JAS...trust all that training won't interfere with the golf schedule too much!

In reality and coupled with the Captaincy it probably will knock my game backwards a bit. C'est la vie :-/. Ideally the day I'd want to be doing my last long training run is the day of the Captains drive in.

Didn't Kirkygolfer run in it - think some of us helped him raise money?

I'm sure somebody from the boards did Kwini, cant remember the name though.

[mystiroakey]

must putt better/SR many of those players you mention are just very  good- not the best at the given time.

That's hilarious

Yes you are sounding hilarious if you think Els or lehman were the best at the specific time-

[mystiroakey]

The list I gave for Lytham are all world number 1s plus Player and Els!

you have totally missed the point mate- its about being NO.1 at the specific time!!

Who cares?

thats the point of this debate.

To try and argue that because els was a no.1 player 15 years ago the set up is relevant for the best golfers today. Its crazy, els at best was a top 70 player

[MustPuttBetter]

I haven't missed it, I just disagree

You don't think Nicklaus was the best in 66 or Faldo in 87 and 92?!

Yes you can dispute Mickleson for only being world no 2 or Els I guess. But you could say the same for Daly and Oosty. Your logic doesn't stack up

[kwinigolfer]

I think mysti is striving to go from 20% of posts on this site to 25% . . . .
Haven't seen such incontinence since last time Montgomerie saw a microphone.

[super_realist]

Nobody mentioned Els in relation to today did they, certainly not in regards to Muirfield which is EVERY bit as strong as those who have won at St.Andrews, and arguably stronger.

[mystiroakey]

I haven't missed it, I just disagree

You don't think Nicklaus was the best in 66 or Faldo in 87 and 92?!

Yes you can dispute Mickleson for only being world no 2 or Els I guess. But you could say the same for Daly and Oosty. Your logic doesn't stack up

how does the logic not stack up

75% no.1 winners (6 out of 8)

that secludes daley and oosty.

i didn't talk about nicklaus or faldo, I talked about the others that were not no.1's at the time

You do not have a grasp of this discussion.

[MustPuttBetter]

Lehman won in 96. He was world no 1 in 96.
How was he not the best player.

I'm worried you're making this up Mysti

[MontysMerkin]

I ask you again, please, for the last time, lay off the bront. It's a different game now. In his day the zzzzzzzzzzzzz.........

[mystiroakey]

Nobody mentioned Els in relation to today did they, certainly not in regards to Muirfield which is EVERY bit as strong as those who have won at St.Andrews, and arguably stronger.

Well as per usual then you haven't got a clue about what is being discussed- I set the standard (no.1s at the time) , you cant just argue against it with a different yardstick.

You could argue its irrelevant- but you cant just argue against it with irrelevant data!!

[super_realist]

What does it matter is the point. Even if it were true that more No1's win at St.Andrews, who cares?

It doesn't mean it's a good tournament, and it doesn't mean that it vilifies the no1 position.

THe champion is the champion regardless of where it's played.

The assertion is that St.Andrews is a rubbish venue, and the fact you have to bring up the winners rankings goes a long way to prove you've got nothing to back up your belief.

Who cares if a number 1 player won anything? Just means they had a better tournament than other players.

[MustPuttBetter]

Ah the old 'anyone who disagrees with me doesn't understand the discussion' trick

Ha ha

Bless you Mysti, you're trying hard but it doesn't make sense. I'll leave this one there

[mystiroakey]

Lehman won in 96. He was world no 1 in 96.
How was he not the best player.

I'm worried you're making this up Mysti

You are not even reading what is being said , and you are arguing nonsense in reply

and no Lehman was no.1 in 1997 not before he won the open in 96,

[mystiroakey]

Ah the old 'anyone who disagrees with me doesn't understand the discussion' trick

Ha ha

Bless you Mysti, you're trying hard but it doesn't make sense. I'll leave this one there

you should do because all you are doing is fabricating nonsense

[super_realist]

If a 70th ranked player wins and the number 1 player misses the cut, what does that mean, and how does it make it a bad venue or a bad tournament?

[mystiroakey]

What does it matter is the point. Even if it were true that more No1's win at St.Andrews, who cares?

It doesn't mean it's a good tournament, and it doesn't mean that it vilifies the no1 position.

THe champion is the champion regardless of where it's played.

The assertion is that St.Andrews is a rubbish venue, and the fact you have to bring up the winners rankings goes a long way to prove you've got nothing to back up your belief.

Who cares if a number 1 player won anything? Just means they had a better tournament than other players.

yes you can argue that- but you cant argue the nonsense that Mustputt is with fabricated lies and nonsense.

I dont agree with you but at least its a logical argument against

[MustPuttBetter]

Ah the old 'anyone who disagrees with me doesn't understand the discussion' trick

Ha ha

Bless you Mysti, you're trying hard but it doesn't make sense. I'll leave this one there

you should do because all you are doing is fabricating nonsense

  

[mystiroakey]

75% of open winners were no.1 players at the time of winning the open at st Andrews since 1970.

this goes a long way to tell me that its an event worthy of a major and that the best rise to this stage, you can argue that's irrelevant but that is the fact of it , there is no other venue that has that high percentage

[mystiroakey]

Ah the old 'anyone who disagrees with me doesn't understand the discussion' trick

Ha ha

Bless you Mysti, you're trying hard but it doesn't make sense. I'll leave this one there

you should do because all you are doing is fabricating nonsense

  

what Lehman no.1 in 96

Els valid even though he wasn't no.1 and no way near in 2012

trying to make out i didn't take oosty and daley out of my St Andrews stats!!


stating i am making this up!! when everything i have said is factual, and half of what you said has been MADE UP!

you have just argued trash mate- the least you could do is just admit it and move on.

[MustPuttBetter]

Is that it??
I had Lehmans world no 1 date out by a few months? Ergo everything I've said is fabricated.

Ha ha ha!
You're a desperate man Mysti
As I said I'll let you gather your composure and leave it there

[mystiroakey]

Well you cast the stones MPB, and yet its you making stuff up not me,..

I will leave you to think about that shall I

[MustPuttBetter]

Oh bless you
I've probably misunderstood the discussion.....

As you said let's move on

[mystiroakey]

ok no problem.

[mystiroakey]

Anyway MPB,

the records you brought up are pretty decent at those two venues , so fair play to both of them.

What about the other venues?

Why is St Andrews being shafted even though as mentioned it does produce good winners?

[super_realist]

THe whole point is irrelevant Oakey, no one cares who wins if it's been a good tournament, but 4 out of the last 5 tournaments at St.Andrews have had a runaway winner and that's boring regardless of who wins. TOC opens are frequently a procession.

Sports fans like a close contest, drama and excitement, St.Andrews isn't set up to provide that, regardless of whether Nine Chins or Shane Lowry wins.

No one has said it (or any other course) hasn't provided good winners, but it hasn't numerically provided good tournaments.

[mystiroakey]

ARe you trying to say I am not a sports fan but you are?

[mystiroakey]

Your argument also misses a key factor. Majors sometimes produce run away winners, but that is due to there being a run away good golfer at the time, the fact that st Andrews has mirrored that shows what a good event it is.. The only reason we have close opens at other venues is because the course becomes so hard for so many, and then we have a few also rans fighting it out and bottling the tourney. We may as well be watching the challenge tour in all fairness!

However 2015 if the weather is fair for all and we have 10 top players playing well we will have a top event!

[super_realist]

No Oakey, I'm trying to say your arguing about something that no one is disputing.

THe Open at St.Andrews might well have produced many top players as winner, but it doesn't make it a good tournament, venue, or spectacle, far less memorable, exciting or on a drama knife edge.

Most people seem to be of the view St.Andrews isn't a good place to hold the open every five years because of that, no one has asserted that anyone wasn't a worthy winner, simply that it has been (you aside) a fairly forgettable tournament when held there.

I can probably name the last 15 or so open winners off the top of my head, not because of the tournament excitement, but because I'm interested in golf, but I'm more likely to remember some of the actual golf in some of the more dramatic events, such as Carnoustie with Romero, Harrington, Garcia etc fighting it out down to the last putt.

[mystiroakey]

TBH mate I am only on here backing up st andrews and knocking the open as an event- because I am a golf fan and I want our championship to be better.

Talking about taking opens away from TOC from my POV is short-sighted

WE need to be restricting other venues not the good ones!! You seem to just hate on TOC.

[mystiroakey]

SR seriously mate if you just want to watch bad golf and players bottling it dont watch the top championships, just watch the lower tours!!

[super_realist]

Why would it be short sighted? I think people wouldn't object if it was treated the same as other courses on the rota, i.e every 9 years, but every five years is too much when it routinely provides dreadful tournaments.

There's a lot of courses on the rota, TOC is no more deserving of it's frequency than any other, yet it gets favouritism due to some crazy unrelated history issue.

THat's not a reason to hold a tournament, especially one which is so often a rubbish spectacle.

[mystiroakey]

You are just picking on TOC to be honest,

Many other opens are rubbish as well, The Oosty one is the only one I can remember being rubbish at TOC tbh.

I am not a woods fan so the two before him arnt really what I would call great- but along with Woods other 14 majors everyone was rubbish from a spectator point of view..But it shows that the opens were fair and right!

[mystiroakey]

TBH almost all majors are rubbish these days..

bring back the days of faldo, seve , watson and Norman!

[super_realist]

Not at all Oakey, every venue has had bad tournaments except perhaps the last two at Carnoustie, but St.Andrews repeatedly and consistently does.

[mystiroakey]

like when?

sorry I do not and will not buy it. Well truth is I have seen them and no I do not agree!

The weather killed oosteys win(which rarely happens at TOC)

The two before that woods won as woods can and does- no one else has a chance.

the ones before then was daley, faldo and seve- all great opens!

the two before then Nicklaus did a woods in his era!

[mystiroakey]

I think this all boils back to woods with you again mate if I am going tbh..

[super_realist]

like when?

sorry I do not and will not buy it. Well truth is I have seen them and no I do not agree!

The weather killed oosteys win(which rarely happens at TOC)

The two before that woods won as woods can and does- no one else has a chance.

the ones before then was daley, faldo and seve- all great opens!

the two before then Nicklaus did a woods in his era!

When someone wins by an absolute landslide it's boring in most peoples books. Oosty, Nine Chins and Faldo were all like that.

Yes, there has been the odd leader by several lengths at other venues, but it happens a lot more often at St.Andrews.

Do you prefer a game of football where your team wins 9-0 or one where someone scores the winner in the last minute in a 4-3 boobie for tat roller coaster?

[super_realist]

I think this all boils back to woods with you again mate if I am going tbh..

How so, I've not even mentioned Hoylake.

I've always been 100% consistent in my reasons for TOC being an unworthy venue for an Open every 5 years, and Nine CHins has never ever come into it.

[mystiroakey]

That would happen anywhere on a fair set up SR!!

Majors should not be unfair!!

and its not ST Andrews fault that it coincided with some of the best players at peak form ever!



Major committees are not there to try and make it hard for the better players !!

[mystiroakey]

I think this all boils back to woods with you again mate if I am going tbh..

How so, I've not even mentioned Hoylake.

I've always been 100% consistent in my reasons for TOC being an unworthy venue for an Open every 5 years, and Nine CHins has never ever come into it.

And yet none of it makes any sense whatsoever!

however woods did win it twice in the last 3(you rarely ever talk about seve or norman or faldo etc- so i have a feeling you didnt watch golf long before woods came about)

[super_realist]

No venue has ever been unfair. It's about adapting your game to the conditions and course set up. Same for everyone.
Do you think the winner at such a venue has ever claimed it unfair, or is it just the bitter ones who don't win?

Again re TOC, I don't care if a 1000 in the world or a #1 wins, if it's a boring event it's a boring event.

[super_realist]

I think this all boils back to woods with you again mate if I am going tbh..

How so, I've not even mentioned Hoylake.

I've always been 100% consistent in my reasons for TOC being an unworthy venue for an Open every 5 years, and Nine CHins has never ever come into it.

And yet none of it makes any sense whatsoever!

however woods did win it twice in the last 3(you rarely ever talk about seve or norman or faldo etc- so i have a feeling you didnt watch golf long before  woods came about)

Oakey, I've been watching golf for about 30 years.

[mystiroakey]

You think its a boring event however many dont- and you are very wrong if you think that is false..

St Andrews has had some classic opens, and some amazing victories by the best in the world..

The open championships mission has always been to try and get the champion golfer. And this has worked at st andrews more than at others.

You have an issue with TOC and an issue with woods if you fail to see this.

On the other hand I have no affiliation with the TOC, i would personally rather its played every other year at St georges so I could go and see it more!!

But I am not bothered about what i selfishly want.

St Andrews has produced great opens and that is the fact of it

[mystiroakey]

I think this all boils back to woods with you again mate if I am going tbh..

How so, I've not even mentioned Hoylake.

I've always been 100% consistent in my reasons for TOC being an unworthy venue for an Open every 5 years, and Nine CHins has never ever come into it.

And yet none of it makes any sense whatsoever!

however woods did win it twice in the last 3(you rarely ever talk about seve or norman or faldo etc- so i have a feeling you didnt watch golf long before  woods came about)

Oakey, I've been watching golf for about 30 years.

Same as me then. And yet we see it so differently . BUt then I dont have any hates or preferences - I just watch golf for golf
#

EDIT


sorry i do prefer English golfers- but that isnt relevant to this bar maybe Faldos win

[super_realist]

Really? How many people have you seen here that have thought it interesting as a venue?

People flock to it the same way they flock to any historical venue.

The Champion golfer is the champion golfer, i.e the player who wins the tournament, it is not meant as a way of showcasing or highlighting or adding credence to the number 1 player in the world by producing a tournament in which they win.
That isn't the aim at all.

[super_realist]

Classic Opens at TOC?

Duel in the sun, St.Andrews was it?

Carnoustie Harrington or Van De Velde, St.Andrews was it?

[mystiroakey]

Oh it is trust me- The committee will not like low ranked winners winning the event. If that continues the best wont turn up and then it may be seriously hard to keep its major status

It would be very naive to think otherwise

[Bob_the_Job]

For me a good Open venue should be a tough test of golf, create an exciting finish, be a good venue to attend and look good on TV. The four finishing holes should ideally provide the opportunity to pick up a few shots, but force you to court disaster in doing so.

For me, TOC is strong on a couple of these criteria and weak on others. Comparatively I don't think it's the best venue around, which makes giving it a disproportionately large share of the rota by holding the Open there every 5 years look like a political, sentimental or commercial decision rather than a pure golfing one. That said, all the players play the same course so holding it there might diminish the spectacle a little but not the validity of the eventual victor to be a true Open Champion.

However, feel free to carry on arguing at cross purposes.

[super_realist]

The best always turn up to majors. Players always believe they can win, why would lower ranked players winning stop them playing.

That's really stupid and I really think you are on the wind up now.

[mystiroakey]

Classic Opens at TOC?

Duel in the sun, St.Andrews was it?

Carnoustie Harrington or Van De Velde, St.Andrews was it?

that is car crash stuff mate, you might as well add scotts in to that as well.

Its funny , but it isnt what I watch majors for..

I would rather players win rather than lose events!!

[super_realist]

For me a good Open venue should be a tough test of golf, create an exciting finish, be a good venue to attend and look good on TV. The four finishing holes should ideally provide the opportunity to pick up a few shots, but force you to court disaster in doing so.

For me, TOC is strong on a couple of these criteria and weak on others.  Comparatively I don't think it's the best venue around, which makes giving it a disproportionately large share of the rota by holding the Open there every 5 years look like a political, sentimental or commercial decision rather than a pure golfing one.  That said, all the players play the same course so holding it there might diminish the spectacle a little but not the validity of the eventual victor to be a true Open Champion.

However, feel free to carry on arguing at cross purposes.

What is it strong on BOb,

It's a poor spectator venue,
It's not a tough test
Doesn't produce drama
and doesn't court disaster.

[Sponsored content]