Quirky US Open groupings

Lawrence22

Lawrence22

Challenge Tour Pro
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
550
Location
Belfast
Visit site
We have the usual grouping of Defending US Open champion, Open champion and amateur champion. Then there is the 3 previous open champs playing together, 3 previous PGA champs (not McIlroy as he is in US Open group) and 3 previous US Open champs. Then there are other groupings done by geographical interest or by age (Speith, Matsuyama, Fowler), (Perry, Maggert, Sutherland). The one that really makes me laugh however is the grouping of De Jonge, Stadler and Lowry :rofl:
 
I heard/read somewhere that the USGA (I think) like to have the standard groups, and then will put some groups out that are fairly obvious as to why. Normally groups of people that are generally known to be a bit of a twit etc. Fair play to them for it!
 
Lawrence22 said:
We have the usual grouping of Defending US Open champion, Open champion and amateur champion. Then there is the 3 previous open champs playing together, 3 previous PGA champs (not McIlroy as he is in US Open group) and 3 previous US Open champs. Then there are other groupings done by geographical interest or by age (Speith, Matsuyama, Fowler), (Perry, Maggert, Sutherland). The one that really makes me laugh however is the grouping of De Jonge, Stadler and Lowry :rofl:
Click to expand...


that's a heavyweight of a group ........ :D
 
Lawrence22 said:
We have the usual grouping of Defending US Open champion, Open champion and amateur champion. Then there is the 3 previous open champs playing together, 3 previous PGA champs (not McIlroy as he is in US Open group) and 3 previous US Open champs. Then there are other groupings done by geographical interest or by age (Speith, Matsuyama, Fowler), (Perry, Maggert, Sutherland). The one that really makes me laugh however is the grouping of De Jonge, Stadler and Lowry :rofl:
Click to expand...

why's that then?
 
Lawrence22 said:
The fact that they appear to have grouped them by their size. I don't believe it to be coincidental. Daftest reason for a grouping.
Click to expand...

that's fattist that is :rolleyes: :whistle:

lets hope theres not a storm and they have to buggy the three of them back in:lol:
 
Imurg said:
I'm glad they call it "Groupings" rather than a Draw......
Click to expand...

wouldnt that be because its not a draw and they are Open to saying that, the Open have 'pairings' as well as 'groupings'.


I dont think anyone is saying or insinuating it's a draw or is that what they have said in the past?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top