Other Sports

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

Federer is 33 and hasn't won a major since Wimbledon 2012. I don't think he'll win another one.

and I'll add that Eldrick Woods had yet another miserable tournament at the Memorial, finishing absolute dead last and had to face the indignity of playing solo as first player out. He shot 85 on Saturday. He hasn't won a major since the 2008 US Open and he doesn't look like there is another in his near future, if at all. He is only 39, and since Nicklaus had a return to winning a few majors with three wins post-40, so it certainly isn't impossible, but for him to win another major will require some serious work

[Flea]

Arm wrestling, anyone?*




*Edited to say: ye of delicate constitutions, beware!

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

only 6 days to the start of one of my very favorite sporting events, the U.S. Open . Wanted to go to Seattle for it but with my wife having a significant birthday in August summertime travel will not be to a golf major Went to 3rd and 4th rounds of the 2012 Open At Olympic and it was amazing, other than Webb Simpson winning. First time major for this course, it is extremely new (8 years old) to be jumping into the Open rotation. Can't wait. And then another of my faves, the British Open, returns to St Andrews in July

[beantownbubba]

only 6 days to the start of one of my very favorite sporting events, the U.S. Open . Wanted to go to Seattle for it but with my wife having a significant birthday in August summertime travel will not be to a golf major Went to 3rd and 4th rounds of the 2012 Open At Olympic and it was amazing, other than Webb Simpson winning. First time major for this course, it is extremely new (8 years old) to be jumping into the Open rotation. Can't wait. And then another of my faves, the British Open, returns to St Andrews in July

Serious questions: What can one see while attending a golf tournament and what sense does one have of the competitive situation? I'm sure the answer varies depending on whether one stays in one place watching the same patch of the course or follows a particular pairing around the course, but either way I have a hard time visualizing the spectator experience.

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

only 6 days to the start of one of my very favorite sporting events, the U.S. Open . Wanted to go to Seattle for it but with my wife having a significant birthday in August summertime travel will not be to a golf major Went to 3rd and 4th rounds of the 2012 Open At Olympic and it was amazing, other than Webb Simpson winning. First time major for this course, it is extremely new (8 years old) to be jumping into the Open rotation. Can't wait. And then another of my faves, the British Open, returns to St Andrews in July

Serious questions: What can one see while attending a golf tournament and what sense does one have of the competitive situation? I'm sure the answer varies depending on whether one stays in one place watching the same patch of the course or follows a particular pairing around the course, but either way I have a hard time visualizing the spectator experience.

good questions! Gotta run to the vet and some other errands so it will be later before I can get back to you on this. If anyone else has perspective on BTB's questions by all means have at it

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

Serious questions: What can one see while attending a golf tournament and what sense does one have of the competitive situation? I'm sure the answer varies depending on whether one stays in one place watching the same patch of the course or follows a particular pairing around the course, but either way I have a hard time visualizing the spectator experience.

first off, sorry for dragging my feet so long in answering.

OK, the first part, "what can one see while attending a golf tournament?" I have attended 1 US Open, been to the Pebble Beach Pro-Am, several good tournaments like the Colonial and Houston Open, and lower level PGA events like, I think it was called, the New England Classic, which was held a week after a British Open and thusly had a diminished field. I'll go in reverse. At a tournament like the New England Classic the galleries were pretty sparse and one could get a great spot at any green or tee as well as getting right against the ropes, sometimes with a player literally 2 feet away. When the crowds are small you can basically go where you want (without getting inside the ropes, of course). The Colonial and Houston Open are definitely a tier above, with both being held for ages and attracting high-quality fields (in the case of the year I attended both events the field was pretty much everyone but Tiger). Galleries are bigger but still in most cases one get great spots anywhere on the course. Without a Tiger or Rory or Ricky Fowler galleries tend to be fairly evenly spread over the course so it's still fairly doable to get where you want to be. Need to add that of course all tournaments have grandstands and bleachers throughout the course so a spectator can get vantages in which he/she is able to look down at the action. A tournament like Pebble is above one like Colonial but still not as big as a major when it comes to packs of spectators. The big draw at Pebble beyond the amazing course is the Pro-Am and easy access to celebrities as well as drawing a high-quality field of pros. For the first three rounds of the Pro-am the tournament is played on three courses so galleries are very much spread out making it easier to get close to the action. The year I went was a Saturday and many of the players I wanted to see were playing Poppy Hills, so I was able to get as close as possible to the players. Most fans want to be at Pebble in general, and that day Tiger was playing Pebble, so an overwhelming majority of fans were there. The galleries at Poppy were small enough that many players would converse with us, and most of the celebrities engaged us without any prompting. In fact, I was standing at one tee just sort of staring blankly into space when I heard someone say, "hey buddy, how's it going?" I look ahead of me and Dennis Franz (Sipowics on NYPD Blue) is a foot or two from me and extending his hand. Things like that happened all day. Later we headed to Pebble and crowd there was enormous, though most people were camped out at the 18th hole. We walked around most of the back 9 and got close up before heading to 18 and the throngs. The crowd there was as big as one would see at a major if not bigger. The US Open is a different beast. Big crowds pretty much everywhere so getting close is often a chore

My strategy at most tournaments I have attended is to go two days, usually Saturday and Sunday. This gives me a chance to get the lay of the course and figure out where the action is most likely to go down. It also enables me to combine being mobile and following certain players for multiple holes with camping out at certain spots for a length of time. At the Colonial we followed Ernie Els for the first five holes and by the third he was talking to us constantly and even shared gum with us. Another good thing about going on the weekend is that the cut has been made and there are fewer players on the course. At the Open at Olympic in SF we went Saturday and Sunday. Saturday was unusually warm for there, high 80s and intense sun. For the majority of the day we were mobile, making sure we caught action at every hole, while occasionally resting at certain spots, usually one where one could see multiple holes from one spot

Bottom line, there is no way to ever have all the action in front of you like you would at a baseball, basketball, or football game. It just can't happen so you just have to accept it and roll or just not go. I would imagine it is like seeing an F1 race or an Indy/NASCAR road course race where you can only see the section of track where you are.

As for the question about getting a sense of the competition: it's like BTB said, there are leaderboards all around and most tournaments offer headsets that you can get and listen to the broadcast. When we went to the Open you could get a headset and listen to the NBC broadcast. I chose to not do this but my wife did for a while before putting it away. There is plenty of info available that one can always know what is going on around the course, one way or another. But it is not the typical sporting event where you can experience the totality of the competition. To me it's just very different, not better or worse. I can see how for many it may a dealbreaker to not be able to see and experience everything in one vantage point. Back to the Open, we spent a big chunk of the final round sitting in the grandstand at the 16th green. Partly due to Sunday being foggy as hell and 30 degrees cooler than the day before, partly because the hole was a nearly 700-yard par 5, and party because we wanted to wait for the final pairing and then follow them on 17 and 18. We see a huge chunk of the field and then eventually we get to the final pairing. Jim Furyk came to the 16th tee with the lead (people with headsets are keeping everyone updated) and he snaphooked his drive into serious trouble. Forget what he made for the hole but he lost the lead there and ultimately lost the tournament. We followed him and McDowell up the last two holes and got to 18 with McDowell still having a chance to win his 2nd Open. Alas he drove into trouble and lost, with a player from a few groups earlier, Webb Simpson, having the Open fall into his hands while he watched from the clubhouse. A little frustrating to see a player already finished win but it happens in golf

Wow, wrote a novel yet still feel like a fell short of the answer BTB was looking for. If nothing else maybe what I have said will lead to more questions that I may be able to answer in a better fashion

[Beebs]

that must have been one hell of a vet appointment

[bovine knievel]

that must have been one hell of a vet appointment

He underestimated his recovery time from the neutering.

[tinnitus photography]

that must have been one hell of a vet appointment

He underestimated his recovery time from the neutering.

[beantownbubba]

Germany's women's soccer team looked awesome yesterday in dominating Sweden. If they should get that far, the US will have their hands (feet?) full and will need to play better than they have for all but a few minutes of the tournament to date. While they're fully capable of playing through it, Germany's draw to the finals is absurdly difficult and unfair. I hate FIFA almost as much as I hate the NCAA.

Jason Day's performance in the 3rd round of the US Open yesterday while suffering from vertigo was absolutely amazing and should become the stuff of legend, even if he doesn't go on to win today. If he does win, it will be among the greatest sports stories ever. And while I'd hate to have to play it, I love that course out in WA - it's beautiful and a great challenge and it's making for great theater. It would be a wonderful match for Tiger at the top of the game, but alas, that was not to be.

[Bill in CT]

While they're fully capable of playing through it, Germany's draw to the finals is absurdly difficult and unfair. I hate FIFA almost as much as I hate the NCAA.

Is it FIFA's fault that Sweden finished 3rd in their group? It didn't turn out to be a bad matchup for Germany in the round of 16 anyway since Sweden failed utterly to live up to their advance billing in this tournament. They had 3 draws in the group stage and lost 4-1 to Germany.

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

Jason Day's performance in the 3rd round of the US Open yesterday while suffering from vertigo was absolutely amazing and should become the stuff of legend, even if he doesn't go on to win today. If he does win, it will be among the greatest sports stories ever.

the only thing comparable to this would be golf's Willis Reed moment, Ken Venturi's gutty win in the 1964 US Open. It was at Congressional in Bethesda, MD and there was triple-digit heat. Back then they played the last 36 holes on Saturday to end the championship. Before the final round began on Saturday afternoon, Venturi was advised by doctors to withdraw from the tournament. He was suffering dehydration due to an oppressive heat wave and had to take treatments with tea and salt tablets in between rounds. To play the final round, doctors warned, was to risk heat stroke. Venturi, however, ignored the advice and played on, then shot a 70 to claim a four-stroke victory.

speaking of this US Open, the Fox coverage has been absolutely heinous. About the only thing I can give them credit for is not breaking out that fuckin' robot from their NFL coverage

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

when I assume control, the asshats who yell shit like "get in the hole!" at tournaments will be turned into Soylent Green

[beantownbubba]

the Fox coverage has been absolutely heinous.

YES!!!

when I assume control, the asshats who yell shit like "get in the hole!" at tournaments will be turned into Soylent Green

YES!

Is it FIFA's fault that Sweden finished 3rd in their group? It didn't turn out to be a bad matchup for Germany in the round of 16 anyway since Sweden failed utterly to live up to their advance billing in this tournament. They had 3 draws in the group stage and lost 4-1 to Germany.

No, but it is FIFA's fault that there had to be a group of death because FIFA refuses to seed enough teams and it is FIFA's fault that the brackets are not done by seeding so if things hold to form the #1 seed (Germany) will have the most difficult path to the final. And saying "if things hold to form" is saying "if things follow the most likely path" which means that "FIFA looked at the most likely outcome and decided for its own reasons to say "fuck it, we don't care." Now the harder Germany's path is the better it is for the USA (if the USA takes care of business of course) so for selfish reasons I'm happy w/ that, but it's not fair sport.

As long as you're asking I think FIFA should seed 16 teams in both the men's & women's cups.

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

anyone watching the Open likely has seen the Tacoma Narrows Bridge when they show a wide panoramic shot. Of course the bridge is known for this

[Zip City]

Wow, what a choke

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

Wow, what a choke

yep. They talked all tournament about the difficulties Johnson has on putts shorter than 6 feet and it sure played out that way on 18

just read that 18 was the first time all season Johnson has 3-putted from 10-15 feet. I know he hasn't played a full schedule due to his "not a suspension" suspension but still, that's a really, really had time to have it happen for the first time all year

[Bill in CT]

No, but it is FIFA's fault that there had to be a group of death because FIFA refuses to seed enough teams and it is FIFA's fault that the brackets are not done by seeding so if things hold to form the #1 seed (Germany) will have the most difficult path to the final. And saying "if things hold to form" is saying "if things follow the most likely path" which means that "FIFA looked at the most likely outcome and decided for its own reasons to say "fuck it, we don't care." Now the harder Germany's path is the better it is for the USA (if the USA takes care of business of course) so for selfish reasons I'm happy w/ that, but it's not fair sport.

As long as you're asking I think FIFA should seed 16 teams in both the men's & women's cups.

There always seems to be a "group of death" in the men's World Cup and I don't recall much complaining about it. That said, I wouldn't mind if FIFA seeded the World Cup similarly to how tennis seeds a major tournament. In that case, 32 seeds out of 128 players (in singles) and the number 1 and 2 seeds can't play each other until the final.

[Bill in CT]

"Unreasonable course conditions overshadow play at Chambers Bay"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/go ... /29084253/

[dogstar]

No, but it is FIFA's fault that there had to be a group of death because FIFA refuses to seed enough teams and it is FIFA's fault that the brackets are not done by seeding so if things hold to form the #1 seed (Germany) will have the most difficult path to the final. And saying "if things hold to form" is saying "if things follow the most likely path" which means that "FIFA looked at the most likely outcome and decided for its own reasons to say "fuck it, we don't care." Now the harder Germany's path is the better it is for the USA (if the USA takes care of business of course) so for selfish reasons I'm happy w/ that, but it's not fair sport.

As long as you're asking I think FIFA should seed 16 teams in both the men's & women's cups.

There always seems to be a "group of death" in the men's World Cup and I don't recall much complaining about it. That said, I wouldn't mind if FIFA seeded the World Cup similarly to how tennis seeds a major tournament. In that case, 32 seeds out of 128 players (in singles) and the number 1 and 2 seeds can't play each other until the final.

"FIFA looked at the most likely outcome and decided for its own reasons to say "fuck it, we don't care."

Maybe they don't want to be accused of fixing the draw.

But on a more serious note

In the men's world cup all the teams are seeded when the draw for the groups is made and I assume they do the same for the women's world cup; it's not like the draw for a tennis tournament though it's a lot more random. I know more about the men's tournament so the way that works is that they have four pots when they draw the group stages, the teams are seeded at this point so the hosts plus the top 7 seeds go into one pot, then the next eight seeds in the next pot and so on. When the draw is done they draw all the teams from pot one first, as they draw them out they also draw from another pot to decide which group they go in. They do the same for all the pots. The reason you usually get a group of death is because one of the better African or South American teams usually ends up in pot 3.

I actually think it's a reasonable way of conducting the draw and history shows that the better teams manage to get through to at least the quarter final stages and once you get to that stage most of the teams can beat each other - just look at how many of the games end up as penalty shoot outs.

I suspect the draw for the FA Cup would drive you bonkers as there's a new draw after every round. And just wait until the Rugby League world cup that will really have you scratching your head (they put the best four teams in one group for the group stage last time !)

[beantownbubba]

OK. I see that I wrote in too much shorthand before so let me try again. NB: Having now written the whole thing I see that it was way more trouble than it’s worth, so I apologize for the length. But having made the effort, I might as well post it for whatever it is worth.

Let’s start w/ the proposition that the way tennis tournaments are seeded is the right way to do it. It accomplishes 2 things: It rewards players (or teams) for their performance over time and it insures that if players/teams play to form, the best players won’t face each other until later in the tournament. If one doesn’t think those are the right goals, then none of this matters.

It follows that the more teams that are seeded, the more control over the evolution of the tournament the seeding authority has.

The tennis majors used to seed 16 out of 128 players. That meant that 16 players were put in the best position to have the benefit of the structure described above. The rest of the players were placed randomly, which meant that #1 could play anyone from #17 to #128 in the first round. As the quality/depth of the draw improved and as the rankings got more quirky due to injury, time off and other factors, this began to yield results that too often did not meet the goals described above. So now they seed 32 players so the best possible player #1 can face in the first round is #33.

Whether you do it w/ pencil and paper, pots, computers, dice or anything else, the procedure dogstar describes means that only the top 8 teams are seeded: they’re the only ones that are guaranteed not to face each other in the first round. Because the groups are also random, the process also means that #1 can play #2 as early as the 2nd round (i.e. the knockout round). This is somewhat controlled by the “modified seeding” that takes place in the 2nd round where group winners are matched against the 2nd qualifier from another group so if teams play to form the top 8 won’t play each other in the 2nd round, but #1 and #2 can still play as early as the quarterfinals which is more or less what’s happening to Germany in the WWC now.

Right now, a group could consist of numbers 1, 9 and 10, thus a group of death. If 16 teams were seeded, the third best team in a group could only be as good as #17. This seems more fair to both teams 1 and 9 in my example. Proper bracket structure would also mean that “group 1” would consist of numbers 1, 16 and two other teams from 17 to 32. The closest to a group of death would be the group w/ teams 8, 9 and 17 and conceivably 8,9, 17 and 18 although that’s not very likely.

No system is perfect. There will always be anomalies from teams not playing to form to teams being improperly ranked in the first place, to weather conditions and on and on. But seeding 16 teams and properly bracketing the groups would in general insure the best competition in the later rounds and reward the best teams for their play over time, which seems like the right result to me.

[beantownbubba]

Wow, what a choke

True. But let's not lose sight of the other half of the equation: The 21 year old makes a horrible double bogey on 17 and then has both the physical skill and even more the mental toughness to come back and make birdie on 18. That was just incredible and makes him a very worthy champion (to say nothing of the preceding 70 holes).

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

"Unreasonable course conditions overshadow play at Chambers Bay"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/go ... /29084253/

I don't really have much sympathy here. The US Open has always been a war of attrition on courses set up infinitely more difficult than the courses they play every other week throughout the year. It's always been that way: the particulars may change from year to year and course to course, but the Open is always a unique, brutally hard tournaments (as seen in the typically high winning scores at the US Open- not unusual fora winner to be over par, as opposed to the typical minus 15-20 seen week in week out on tour). They all play the same course so if it is unfair or overly difficult it is the same for everyone. While now and then we get a "fluke" US Open champion, more often we get the better players hoisting the trophy, and to me that says a lot

[beantownbubba]

"Unreasonable course conditions overshadow play at Chambers Bay"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/go ... /29084253/

I don't really have much sympathy here. The US Open has always been a war of attrition on courses set up infinitely more difficult than the courses they play every other week throughout the year. It's always been that way: the particulars may change from year to year and course to course, but the Open is always a unique, brutally hard tournaments (as seen in the typically high winning scores at the US Open- not unusual fora winner to be over par, as opposed to the typical minus 15-20 seen week in week out on tour). They all play the same course so if it is unfair or overly difficult it is the same for everyone. While now and then we get a "fluke" US Open champion, more often we get the better players hoisting the trophy, and to me that says a lot

Agreed, both historically and this year, though i did find the distance between the spectators and the golfers and various parts of the course to be strange. But that's different than the playing condition of the course anyway.

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

"Unreasonable course conditions overshadow play at Chambers Bay"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/go ... /29084253/

I don't really have much sympathy here. The US Open has always been a war of attrition on courses set up infinitely more difficult than the courses they play every other week throughout the year. It's always been that way: the particulars may change from year to year and course to course, but the Open is always a unique, brutally hard tournaments (as seen in the typically high winning scores at the US Open- not unusual fora winner to be over par, as opposed to the typical minus 15-20 seen week in week out on tour). They all play the same course so if it is unfair or overly difficult it is the same for everyone. While now and then we get a "fluke" US Open champion, more often we get the better players hoisting the trophy, and to me that says a lot

Agreed, both historically and this year, though i did find the distance between the spectators and the golfers and various parts of the course to be strange. But that's different than the playing condition of the course anyway.

Yeah, that is something I noticed when i first turned on the TV on Thursday. Apparently it was a real clusterfuck for fans. PJ Carlesimo was on ESPN this morning and he talked about attending this weekend and also when they held the US Amateur at Chambers Bay 5 years ago. At the Amateur fans were pretty much allowed to go wherever and due to the terrain there was a multitude of falls and lots of injuries (broken bones, torn MCLs, etc) so this led to the restrictions seen this year. Ultimately the USGA wants a footprint in the PNW so desperately they were willing to go forward with this in spite of the course being less than ideal for spectators. But next year they go back to the old-school traditional Open at Oakmont and all returns normal. In fact, they have the Opens scheduled out through 2023 and most are at what would be considered traditional Open tracks where Opens have been previously held : Oakmont, Pebble Beach, Winged Foot, Brookline, Shinneock, Torrey Pines, plus two new courses, Erin Hills (Wisconsin) in 2017 and the Los Angeles Country Club in 2023.

[Zip City]

Golf would be really boring if every course was perfect and the winner was 20 below par. Golfers need to suck it up and play some challenging courses in adverse conditions. Hard to call yourself "elite" when you cry over a putting green that's -/16th of an inch too long

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

Golf would be really boring if every course was perfect and the winner was 20 below par.

take away the US Open and The Open and that describes pretty much the entire tour schedule. I like the fact that they are playing more US Opens now at courses that are open to the public (Pebble, Bethpage, Torrey Pines, Chambers Bay, et al), even though these are expensive courses and not what the average joe plays

[Bill in CT]

Gary Player won 9 majors and he also thought Chambers Bay was a terrible golf course.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ear ... -as-a-pro/

I don't think Dustin Johnson "choked" btw. He missed a fairly short putt for birdie on 18 but a lot of good golfers missed similar putts at Chambers Bay.

It looked like a strange attempt at a British Open course…not like a U.S. Open course at all.

[beantownbubba]

An unimpressive performance by the US women's soccer team last nite. I haven't seen all the top teams play, but that team on the field last nite could not beat Germany and probably couldn't beat England. There's still time, but there's been so little improvement so far that there's no real reason to believe that they will suddenly get it together. Yet the talent is there, presumably the desire is there and we can still hope (yes, I'm anticipating the next post to be a pic of ms. solo).

[whatwouldcooleydo?]

http://screamer.deadspin.com/banner-urg ... 1713712446#