An Angelic performance: U.S. Open recap
Back in April, I predicted that Angel Cabrera could win the Masters. That was just about the kiss of death, because Angel finished 37th, his worst finish ever at Augusta (besides three missed cuts). So this time around, for the U.S. Open, I made no predictions at all.
It was fun just watching things unfold. Angel Cabrera, an Argentinian from a very poor childhood, is good for golf. Anyone who can can drive the ball 397 yards into tight fairways deserves to win (OK, technically, the ball rolled off the fairway into the primary cut, but close enough). He played courageously, attacking the fairways and pins. And he played better than Tiger Woods on Sunday. What a win for Angel!
Labels: tourneys
13 Comments:
Great for Angel, but BAD for golf. I am sick to death of watching unplayable courses decide major championships. This crap is just awful. Even the Masters pulled this nonsense this year.
If I want to watch bad golf, guys shooting 80, making bogeys right and left, hacking the ball 5 feet out of a thicket, I'll go down to my club and watch the the afternoon scramble.
I don't watch golf on TV to see bad golf. The ONLY thing that makes golf a compelling sport to watch is to watch guys making great shots, making birdies, and shooting low scores - not stagger in at freakin +5 to win a golf tournament. That's awful.
Why has the USGA decided that the US Open should be played on unplayable courses with greens faster than interstate highways and rough that's butt-deep?
It's the third year in a row some nobody who has no business winning the US Open has won the US Open.
11:06 needs someone to show him what a good shot is. And, it looks like , to him/her, unless it is driver/wedge, it is bad golf.
How long has he/she been a golf fan? Probably since Tiger came along...
I am looking forward to Carnoustie, and more cry-baby whining.
If people want nice, easy shots with no stress, lots of applause and polite cooing, go to the CVS Charity Classic.
Big league golf does not belong on a pitch and putt park. These guys are supposed to be good...what is wrong with asking them to prove it once or twice a year. They certainly get paid enough to play a game.
Yes, it totally depends on what you find entertaining to watch. Perhaps the first commenter would be better off watching long drive competitions.
Some of us like like to watch a competition on difficult course where there's more spontaneous decision making and less predictability.
I don't mind watching 1 major that is really, really brutal.
I'd agree with 11:06's comment, though, if all 4 majors were set up so the winning score was +5 or higher. That would get pretty boring to see the pros bogey all the time.
2:48 - I can tell you what a good shot isn't. About 90% of the shots I saw this weekend.
Not since "Tiger came along." I pulled for Furyk yesterday. I could care less whether Tiger wins or not.
Only in the last couple of years has it gotten this way at the majors. US Open's decided at -3, -4 or -5 have been the norm in the past. AT LEAST you had some decent shots, and a few timely birdies decided it. Not a bunch of guys seeing who could make the fewest bogies coming in.
I can't wait for Carnage (er Carnoustie) either. Nothing like +10 winning a golf tournament. Where is Paul Lawrie when you need him?
- "Only in the last couple of years has it gotten this way at the majors."
I knew you were a Tiger fan...little appreciation for history or the game...only wants hype, applause and lots of Tiger love and congratulation.
A celebration of mediocrity does nothing to improve the overall level of play.
Research U.S. Open 1974 for some idea of how long golf has been difficult for pros. This generation of crybabies has taken it to another level...crybaby players and crybaby Tiger fans.
i'd like to watch a really tough test of golf with the lovely patricia - she is one hot tamale!!!
I bet she doesn't go for dainty golf or golfers.
Golf with me is rough, traps and hazards...think I have a chance?
I agree with most here once or twice a year make it crazy tough is Good...maybe make Basketball rims 12 feet high for a few games too-lol and thinner Bats for baseball players and ummm No helmets in Football..ok maybe not that one:-)
Seriously one or two tough courses is OK, but don't too many crazy events it will get boring to watch.
I thought the course was very difficult, but fair. The pros made bogies when they made mistakes. Furyk's error on 17 for example- He said "I never hit it that far in the 3 previous rounds" however the tees were up on Sunday and many other long-hitters were taking 3-woods or irons into that green, so he made a mistake and paid for it.
I agree it would get tiresome though if they always struggled, however a few tournies a year where they need to step up their game isn't asking too much. 2000 U.S. Open anyone? Everyone was over par there, but yet Tiger managed to shoot -12. There were good rounds out there, but it wasn't easy.
to 5:58 - she has a golf blog, knucklehead. she just doesn't relate to high handicappers like you - i think she gets hot when a golf stud on tour shoots 69
"I knew you were a Tiger fan...little appreciation for history or the game...only wants hype, applause and lots of Tiger love and congratulation"
Arguing with ignorance rarely gets anywhere but here goes:
You cherry pick the 1974 Open (won at +7) but then totally ignore the 27 years from 1979 through 2005 where nothing less than Even par won the tournament. Scores weren't that low (relatively speaking) but along the way there were memorable performances under pressure and some great shots made to win tournaments.
The last two Opens have been awful golf plain and simple. Oakmont's winning score in 94 was -5, Winged Foot in 84 was -4. Now it's +5.
Tricked up courses, more bogies, bad golf.
Post a Comment
<< Home