View Full Version : Ryder Cup

23rd Sep 2006, 22:07
Brilliant finish by Casey to win their match with a hole-in-one on the 14th. :D
Europe go into the last day leading 10-6, needing 4 points to retain the trophy, 4.5 to win....

Last day single pairings:

Colin Montgomerie vs David Toms, 10:15

Sergio Garcia vs. Stewart Cink,10:27

Paul Casey vs Jim Furyk, 10:39

Robert Karlsson vs Tiger Woods, 10:51

Luke Donald vs Chad Campbell, 11:03

Paul McGinley vs J.J. Henry, 11:15

Darren Clarke vs Zach Johnson, 11:27

Henrik Stenson vs Vaughn Taylor, 11:39

David Howell, vs Brett Wetterich, 11:51

Jose Maria Olazabal vs Phil Mickelson, 12:03

Lee Westwood vs Chris DiMarco, 12:18

Padraig Harringtonvs Scott Verplank, 12:27

24th Sep 2006, 01:11
MY GOD! Look at those starting times.:eek:

How will the players ever sober up in time to play?:p

Come to think about it the way some of the US players have been playing it may help if they just stayed drunk.;)

henry crun
24th Sep 2006, 05:16
I have heard the two sets of competitors described as the US team, and the European team.

To me it appears that the players in each of two groups are each trying to win an individual game.
At the end of the match, the group that was won the most games is awarded the trophy.

If they are not allowed to help each other on the course how can they be described as a team ?

24th Sep 2006, 05:39
In the foursomes matches early-on it is a team concept, playing the same ball. However after the four ball matches it devolves to singles play.


24th Sep 2006, 05:51
MY GOD! Look at those starting times.:eek:
Will they playing under FLOODLIGHTS?
'Tis ten-to-six (am) here and it's still WELL dark. OK, I know the 'here' isn't Ireland, but they share the clock with us (AFAIK) and they're further West than here (2degW).

24th Sep 2006, 05:54
Will they playing under FLOODLIGHTS?
'Tis ten-to-six (am) here and it's still WELL dark. OK, I know the 'here' isn't Ireland, but they share the clock with us (AFAIK) and they're further West than here (2degW).

I really wish I knew what you just posted there.:O

However, I glad that someone is as confused as I am!:D

24th Sep 2006, 06:21
Is it ME?
The timings p*sted alongside the pairings. Are they tee-off times? (I don't 'do' golf).
If so, then it will still be dark at some of those times.

Sailor Vee
24th Sep 2006, 07:34
You may find that the tee-off times posted are definitely NOT in alpha time, (BST), so add some hours to those posted.

24th Sep 2006, 16:27
Well done Europe!


Cue 'Ode to Joy'......

24th Sep 2006, 16:58
Bunch o' grown men hitting a ball with a bit stick:mad:

Still, it was quite enjoyable viewing:D

24th Sep 2006, 17:00
Is it ME?
The timings p*sted alongside the pairings. Are they tee-off times? (I don't 'do' golf).
If so, then it will still be dark at some of those times.

G-Cap..how the **** could it've been dark at those times?:confused: :p

24th Sep 2006, 17:05
The ORIGINAL times on MY screen started at 06.15. Even allowing for GMT/BST variation that didn't explain it.
NOW you've got me completely bamfuzelled . . . :ugh:

Last edited by ORAC : Today at 07:37. Reason: Timings adjusted to UTC
From WHAT?

24th Sep 2006, 23:30


24th Sep 2006, 23:35
Now that Europe has won (again) the Golf War, can we expect that the Americans will show respect for the victors and

25th Sep 2006, 00:06
Saw highlights on BEEB - some amazing chips and puts! David Howell - 4 consecutive birdies - I'll have a pt of what he's been drinking thank you! :D

25th Sep 2006, 00:15
But surely the 'parity' of the course is determined by experienced (but not necessarily championship-winning) golfers I presume?
Golfers of the calibre of those participating in the competition should be expected to better the 'par' set for the course. Or are they missing something?
Can you be 'better than scratch' (and is there an appropriate scale, similar to that applied to those with a 'handicap'?)?

25th Sep 2006, 00:38
I'm not sure what your question is directed at, CPTN, but in a nutshell, the normal stroke play version of golf is a totally individual game; it's you against everybody else; the lowest score at the end of four rounds wins. If you have a twelve on one hole you're basically out of the competition. Match play, as exemplified by the Ryder Cup, is one on one, whether that be an individual or a team of two (foursomes).

The main difference is that it doesn't matter how badly you play, as long as you play better than your opposition. Scores, whether a number or a comparison with par, are irrelevant in the final washup. If I have ten on the first hole and my opponent Tiger Woods has eleven, I win the hole. If I have three and he has eleven I still win the hole; we go on to the next and I am still just one up.

Handicaps are irrelevant in professional golf; all players play off scratch. But yes, in amateur golf there are positive handicaps, that is the player has to add strokes on to his final score to get his nett score. That is a game with which I will never have to concern myself. :hmm:

25th Sep 2006, 01:49
My comments were based on the 'adulation' that one of the competitors had achieved four 'birdies' (which I understand means taking one less stroke (per hole) than the course 'par'. For 'par' to have any meaning it has to be attainable by a cross-section of players, albeit scratch golfers (otherwise the handicap system applies to those who 'qualify'). My point is that it should be no surprise that professional (International) championship players might be capable of playing BELOW par (by which I mean less strokes than 'average'). If championship players could 'only' achieve par, then the course would be difficult for non-championship players to a standard that SHOULD be achievable. Of course the difference between 'par for the hole' and minimum achievable MIGHT be small (and in fact less than one stroke - on average).
I'm not, nor never have been a golfer, but I do have an understanding of statistics. If you have an average, then SOME have to be above if others are below . . .

HOW is par determined (historically or according to the performance of the club professional?)?

25th Sep 2006, 02:51
Par is not an 'average' score. If I consistently scored par I'd be good enough a professional, since my handicap would be zero or 'scratch'. As it is I hardly ever play but when I do ever get the clubs out again a bogey (par +1) would be a very good score for me.

Par is determined by the length of the hole.

Generally speaking this equates to

150-280 yards - Par 3
280-480 yards - Par 4
480 yards + - Par 5

Sometimes if a hole is particularly difficult it will fall outside these ballpark figures but that's the general rule.

While all average players will scrape the occasional birdie, consistent birdie scoring is only possible by the very best players and it represents a very high standard of play at any level. Don't forget to take into account the course/weather conditions as well! When conditions are good professionals will score much better and average scores will be lower.

But it does not follow that a professional ought to be able to score birdie every hole. The game just isn't like that!

Hope this helps.

25th Sep 2006, 10:42
CPTN, your point is not unreasonable, but despite the efforts of the Americans to make golf into a game of statistics, the game heroically resists it with a massive number of variables. Compared to say a game of darts or ten pin bowls where conditions are always the same, the laws of statistics are anything but reliable in the grand old game of golf. Courses can be short or long, set up to be easy or hard by varying the length of the rough and shaving the greens to lightning fast pace, they can be designed for public hackers or they can be Augusta.

I will mention one interesting statistic though, and before anybody Googles and shoots me down I'm quoting very general figures because I originally read it about 20 years ago. It concerns your observation about the difference between par and the minimum being so small, and the general gist of it was that a US PGA professional who averaged 70 strokes per round over the course of the season made X dollars and placed about 70th in the order of merit. Somebody who averaged 69 strokes per round made 5X dollars and was firmly ensconced in the top ten.

Nobody watching those two golfers over one round would guess which was which; they could both play freakish shots unimaginable to us mugs, hit the ball tremendous distances and have phenomenal touch around the greens. Such is the fine line between the also rans and the best. (excluding T. Woods)

25th Sep 2006, 10:56
You a non-golfer, G-CPTN? So am I

However, as I see it:
Par 3 - drive to the green and 2 putts
Par 4 - drive, approach shot and 2 putts
Par 5 - drive, 2 approach shots and 2 putts.

You can birdie any of them by single-putting. You eagle a par 3 with a hole-in-one. You eagle a par 4 by holing your approach shot. You eagle a par 5 either by holing your second approach shot or by getting your first approach shot onto the green, for which you have to be a super-big hitter.


25th Sep 2006, 11:18
Excellent result - nice to see that even with the top 3 world players the usa still cannot generate the same level of team spirit - they looked a miserable lot as they walked round - no smiles at all (unless you count TW when his caddy dropped his 9 iron into the lake) Even when beating Garcia, Furyk looked like he had lost a $100 and only found a quarter.

The crowd were excellent and sporting - only heard "get in the hole" a few times. Darren Clarke was magnificent and the support given to him by all players and the crowd will hopefully help with his recent loss. It was a brave decision by Wosnam to select him and a very courageous one for him to say 'yes i will play'.