upsidedown
Tour Winner
Oh and an aside how many of us here haven't shot 3 to 10 over our handicaps in such crap conditions....... or indeed in benign ones !!
Boring
- Thread starter Mick47
- Start date
Smiffy
Grand Slam Winner
Why don't you organise a forum day there Bob?
bobmac
Major Champion
Why don't you organise a forum day there Bob?
You're havin a giraffe geezer
£150 a round
I'd rather spend a few days around Leftie's gaff
Smiffy
Grand Slam Winner
You're havin a giraffe geezer
£150 a round
I'd rather spend a few days around Leftie's gaff
Yeah but it's only £190.00 for 36 mate, so that works out at under £100.00 a round.
Bargain
MashieNiblick
Tour Winner
Quite surprised that people found yesterday's play boring. I thought it was fascinating seeing them cope with the conditions with an old master (Watson) and a young Turk (Fowler) showing them how to do it. Later we had some of golf's great characters, Clarke, Jiminez, Mickelson, battling away, with Bjorn seemingly determined to get his revenge for 2003. All brilliant.
As for the course, I'm lucky enough to have played it and also went there for the 1993 Open so I have an idea what it's like. A lot of links courses could be described as flat and featrureless. RSG is not flat in links terms. It's very undulating and very difficult. Out of position and the next shot becomes very tricky. It's a tactical course as most links are, not one you can overpower. What's not to like seeing the pros use their heads to make a score not just their drivers and wedges.
On a links you have to read the contours, especially round the greens, and seeing the different shots played to make use of these is always a feature of the play as at any Open venue. That is why it is so much more interesting to watch than the target golf on the PGA tour.
Memorable holes? - the 6th surrounded by huge dunes, 10th up hill with the flag just over the horizon, 14th with the out of bounds just off the fairway and of course 18th with Duncan's/Lyle's hollow.
I agree the coverage hasn't been great, too many self indulgent presenters and producers doing arty featurettes and wonky camera angles (OK that could've been the wind ) but that's how the Beeb does sport these days. But when play started in earnest they did OK.
Can't wait for today's play to start. Chance for Clarke or Jiminez, surely 2 of the world's most popular and well liked players, to win the oldest and biggest Championship in golf.
By the way I agree Arlott was a great painter of pictures in words but then didn't he do most of his commentary on the Radio?
As for the course, I'm lucky enough to have played it and also went there for the 1993 Open so I have an idea what it's like. A lot of links courses could be described as flat and featrureless. RSG is not flat in links terms. It's very undulating and very difficult. Out of position and the next shot becomes very tricky. It's a tactical course as most links are, not one you can overpower. What's not to like seeing the pros use their heads to make a score not just their drivers and wedges.
On a links you have to read the contours, especially round the greens, and seeing the different shots played to make use of these is always a feature of the play as at any Open venue. That is why it is so much more interesting to watch than the target golf on the PGA tour.
Memorable holes? - the 6th surrounded by huge dunes, 10th up hill with the flag just over the horizon, 14th with the out of bounds just off the fairway and of course 18th with Duncan's/Lyle's hollow.
I agree the coverage hasn't been great, too many self indulgent presenters and producers doing arty featurettes and wonky camera angles (OK that could've been the wind
) but that's how the Beeb does sport these days. But when play started in earnest they did OK.Can't wait for today's play to start. Chance for Clarke or Jiminez, surely 2 of the world's most popular and well liked players, to win the oldest and biggest Championship in golf.
By the way I agree Arlott was a great painter of pictures in words but then didn't he do most of his commentary on the Radio?
S
Snelly
Guest
Quite surprised that people found yesterday's play boring. I thought it was fascinating seeing them cope with the conditions with an old master (Watson) and a young Turk (Fowler) showing them how to do it. Later we had some of golf's great characters, Clarke, Jiminez, Mickelson, battling away, with Bjorn seemingly determined to get his revenge for 2003. All brilliant.
As for the course, I'm lucky enough to have played it and also went there for the 1993 Open so I have an idea what it's like. A lot of links courses could be described as flat and featrureless. RSG is not flat in links terms. It's very undulating and very difficult. Out of position and the next shot becomes very tricky. It's a tactical course as most links are, not one you can overpower. What's not to like seeing the pros use their heads to make a score not just their drivers and wedges.
On a links you have to read the contours, especially round the greens, and seeing the different shots played to make use of these is always a feature of the play as at any Open venue. That is why it is so much more interesting to watch than the target golf on the PGA tour.
Memorable holes? - the 6th surrounded by huge dunes, 10th up hill with the flag just over the horizon, 14th with the out of bounds just off the fairway and of course 18th with Duncan's/Lyle's hollow.
I agree the coverage hasn't been great, too many self indulgent presenters and producers doing arty featurettes and wonky camera angles (OK that could've been the wind
Can't wait for today's play to start. Chance for Clarke or Jiminez, surely 2 of the world's most popular and well liked players, to win the oldest and biggest Championship in golf.
By the way I agree Arlott was a great painter of pictures in words but then didn't he do most of his commentary on the Radio?
What a good post. Well said.
gripitripit
Tour Rookie
Certainly not pleasing on the eye.
viscount17
Money List Winner
You're right about Arlott, Maskell and others who learned their trade on radio, they had to be able to 'paint the picture'. By the same token, there is a breed of 'reporter' that has never had that grounding, and who sitting at the course, assume that it's the same view that we are getting.
Bad camera angles have succeeded in flattening the course, so for the majority of us who have never walked the course, and despite the strokesaver that we got, which is of course two-dimensional, we still need commentators with the skill to put back what has been taken out.
Bad camera angles have succeeded in flattening the course, so for the majority of us who have never walked the course, and despite the strokesaver that we got, which is of course two-dimensional, we still need commentators with the skill to put back what has been taken out.
pendodave
Tour Rookie
Maybe the guy who suggested 3d has the best idea. I'd seen the first couple of days on the telly on and off and then visited yesterday (still drying things off!). I couldn't believe how much more interesting the course was in the flesh c/f the telly coverage. The greens and their surroundings which look flat on the box are full of features. There's almost no flat putts/chips anywhere. the fairways are full of interest rising and falling with lots of lumps and bumps.
Perhaps the lighting has something to do with it, as the contours need shadows to give definition on the tv, but I think the high camera angles and lack of imaginative shot design are most to blame.
I came away thinking it was a fantastic course. Incredibly difficult to score well on. There has to be a way of making the pictures look better.
