U.S. Women's Open Preview, Pairings, and Much More.

Post Reply
User avatar
tonyj5
Posts: 294
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:34 pm
Contact:

U.S. Women's Open Preview, Pairings, and Much More.

Post by tonyj5 » Mon Jul 04, 2016 3:06 am

This week the LPGA travels to the state of California for the playing of the U.S. Women's Open Conducted By The USGA. This is the third Major Championship of the season.

http://www.tonyslpgareport.com/2016/07/ ... -more.html

User avatar
tonyj5
Posts: 294
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:34 pm
Contact:

Re: U.S. Women's Open Preview, Pairings, and Much More.

Post by tonyj5 » Fri Jul 08, 2016 1:19 am

Here are the leaders after round 1:

1 Mirim Lee -8
2 Minjee Lee -5
2 Cristie Kerr -5
2 Amy Yang -5

For more scores:

http://www.tonyslpgareport.com/2016/07/ ... -more.html

User avatar
bkuehn1952
Posts: 2142
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:08 pm
Location: The Perpetually Rained Upon Mitten
dogs: 0
Contact:

U.S. Women's Open

Post by bkuehn1952 » Fri Jul 08, 2016 4:06 pm

I watched a bit of the Women's Open. One of the featured groups included Hannah O'Sullivan, amateur. When I looked at that name I sort of imagined/stereotyped a freckled, red-haired college girl. What was puzzling to me was the three players were: In Gee Chun, Hannah O’Sullivan and Stacy Lewis. So where was the freckled redhead?? Turns out she is the daughter of Greg O'Sullivan and Sarah Hur, which sort of explained why Hannah looks a bit more like In Gee Chun than Stacy Lewis.
Let's Play 36
GHIN Handicap: 7.8 … 9.2 … Let’s just say I am around a 14!

User avatar
tonyj5
Posts: 294
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:34 pm
Contact:

Re: U.S. Women's Open Preview, Pairings, and Much More.

Post by tonyj5 » Sat Jul 09, 2016 12:37 am

Here are the leaders after round 2:

1 Sung Hyun Park -8
2 Amy Yang -6
2 Mirim Lee -6
4 Lydia Ko -5
4 Haru Nomura -5

For more scores:

http://www.tonyslpgareport.com/2016/07/ ... -more.html

User avatar
legitimatebeef
Posts: 5003
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:34 pm
Location: island off the coast of america
dogs: 1
Contact:

Re: U.S. Women's Open

Post by legitimatebeef » Sat Jul 09, 2016 10:23 am

bkuehn1952 wrote:I watched a bit of the Women's Open. One of the featured groups included Hannah O'Sullivan, amateur. When I looked at that name I sort of imagined/stereotyped a freckled, red-haired college girl. What was puzzling to me was the three players were: In Gee Chun, Hannah O’Sullivan and Stacy Lewis. So where was the freckled redhead?? Turns out she is the daughter of Greg O'Sullivan and Sarah Hur, which sort of explained why Hannah looks a bit more like In Gee Chun than Stacy Lewis.
Golf genes. She had better be a success or she will bring disgrace to two great golf peoples of the world.
Build a bridge and get over it.

User avatar
legitimatebeef
Posts: 5003
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:34 pm
Location: island off the coast of america
dogs: 1
Contact:

Re: U.S. Women's Open Preview, Pairings, and Much More.

Post by legitimatebeef » Sat Jul 09, 2016 10:24 am

Rooting for Sung Hyun Park. A win would send a great message to skinny girls everywhere: you can hit the ball far if you have good technique.
Build a bridge and get over it.

User avatar
tonyj5
Posts: 294
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:34 pm
Contact:

Re: U.S. Women's Open Preview, Pairings, and Much More.

Post by tonyj5 » Sat Jul 09, 2016 8:31 pm

Here are the leaders after round 3:

1 Lydia Ko -7
2 Eun-Hee Ji -6
2 Sung Hyun Park -6
4 Brittany Lang -5
4 Amy Yang -5

For more scores:

http://www.tonyslpgareport.com/2016/07/ ... -more.html

User avatar
sjduffers
Posts: 739
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2014 7:11 pm
Location: SF Bay area
Contact:

Re: U.S. Women's Open Preview, Pairings, and Much More.

Post by sjduffers » Sun Jul 10, 2016 2:42 pm

legitimatebeef wrote:Rooting for Sung Hyun Park. A win would send a great message to skinny girls everywhere: you can hit the ball far if you have good technique.
I watched yesterday for a bit, and she hit a 330 yards drive, uphill! (true, it was downwind and the fairway was firm). That's insane. But, she appears to be a slow player too, at least on the greens, the way she stalks her putts fifteen ways around the hole, readjusts her ball a couple of times, backs off and restarts. They once showed the full routine: even her caddie appeared bored with the whole thing! :fk

I'm rooting for the youngster, Lydia Ko. What a golfer she is! :yess
I'm gonna go low this time...

User avatar
jasonfish11
Posts: 2816
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:27 pm
Location: Virginia Beach
dogs: 2
Contact:

Re: U.S. Women's Open Preview, Pairings, and Much More.

Post by jasonfish11 » Sun Jul 10, 2016 8:34 pm

So the men's us open is an 18 hole playoff but the women's is a 3 hole playoff.

And the usga says they don't want to bifurcate the rules.
Keep it short stupid.

User avatar
jasonfish11
Posts: 2816
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:27 pm
Location: Virginia Beach
dogs: 2
Contact:

Re: U.S. Women's Open Preview, Pairings, and Much More.

Post by jasonfish11 » Mon Jul 11, 2016 7:02 am

Also the usga and r&a really need to do a complete overhaul of the rules.

Like courts they need to differentiate between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

Barely knocking over a clump of sand does nothing to benefit the player. If you can brush the top of the grass with your club in a hazard why is it different if you brush the top of loose sand?

These rulings are really out of hand. Black and white rules don't work in a grey world.
Keep it short stupid.

User avatar
GBOGEY
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 8:22 pm
Contact:

Re: U.S. Women's Open Preview, Pairings, and Much More.

Post by GBOGEY » Mon Jul 11, 2016 7:34 am

In this case, I don't agree about intent. This rule is clear and she broke it. The real question is the high def cameras - they don't follow every shot - is that fair? If you can't see movement with the naked eye, is that a penalty? That's something that needs to be re-thought.

User avatar
bkuehn1952
Posts: 2142
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:08 pm
Location: The Perpetually Rained Upon Mitten
dogs: 0
Contact:

Re: U.S. Women's Open Preview, Pairings, and Much More.

Post by bkuehn1952 » Mon Jul 11, 2016 7:45 am

GBOGEY wrote:In this case, I don't agree about intent. This rule is clear and she broke it. The real question is the high def cameras - they don't follow every shot - is that fair? If you can't see movement with the naked eye, is that a penalty? That's something that needs to be re-thought.
Totally agree. There already is a Decision about a ball moving that is not discerned by the player but captured by HD Video. The R&A/USGA need to expand that idea to similar situations.
Let's Play 36
GHIN Handicap: 7.8 … 9.2 … Let’s just say I am around a 14!

User avatar
jasonfish11
Posts: 2816
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:27 pm
Location: Virginia Beach
dogs: 2
Contact:

Re: U.S. Women's Open Preview, Pairings, and Much More.

Post by jasonfish11 » Mon Jul 11, 2016 9:22 am

Dont get me wrong. I'm not saying that the penalty was wrong. I'm saying the rule itself is wrong.

The goal of most rules in sports fall under one of 2 categories.
1) To make sure that one player/team does not gain an unfair advantage over the opponent.
2) To make sure that no player attempts to gain an unfair advantage (successful or not).

The rule that penalized her doesn't fall under either of these categories. It falls under a 3rd category.
3) Outdated or arbitrary rule, that penalizes someone when there was no intent to gain an unfair advantage and no unfair advantage was gained.

It would be equivalent to the following.
I'm not a baseball person, but lets assume there is a rule that states "during a play you can not alter the grounds surface." This rule was created when thinking of a 1st baseman digging a ditch in front of a rolling bunt in order for it to roll foul.

If the USGA were to apply that above baseball rule, then the 1st baseman would be penalized if he ran up the baseline when the batter dropped his bat to bunt. Because his cleats would have altered the ground during the play. So obviously he should be penalized and the batter should take 1st base unopposed.

The rule is just wrong. If you want to say you can't ground your club in a hazard great. I see that being a good rule as grounding your club can create an unfair advantage. But you must define grounding the club as allowing the ground to bear some or all of the weight of the club. Which she did not do in this case. That way you remove these instances of accidentally brushing the sand.
Keep it short stupid.

User avatar
legitimatebeef
Posts: 5003
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:34 pm
Location: island off the coast of america
dogs: 1
Contact:

Re: U.S. Women's Open Preview, Pairings, and Much More.

Post by legitimatebeef » Mon Jul 11, 2016 11:31 am

I don't think those few grains of sand really altered the outcome but I would put the blame on Anna Nordqvist for playing it way too close and I can see why the rule must be absolute. There can't be any room for interpretation, otherwise nothing will get done. Kind of like arguing balls and strikes in a baseball game--can you imagine how long games would take if that were permitted? In this case should we say that three grains of sand is permissible, but not four? For practicality's sake an absolute line has to be drawn and in this case it's drawn at zero--zero grains of sand may be touched prior to hitting a bunker shot.

What happened to Anna N. was unfortunate but there is a simple solution to avoid this scenario and it is to not play it so freaking close to the surface when hitting off bunker sand. They are meant to be hazardous and part of that hazard is the inability to touch (i.e. get a feel for) the surface. Some players (i.e. Nicklaus) make it a point to even avoid grounding the club in the rough, so as to take all such potential problems out of the equation.
Build a bridge and get over it.

User avatar
jasonfish11
Posts: 2816
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:27 pm
Location: Virginia Beach
dogs: 2
Contact:

Re: U.S. Women's Open Preview, Pairings, and Much More.

Post by jasonfish11 » Mon Jul 11, 2016 1:45 pm

Just to stoke the fire. I think there is reasonable doubt based on the "letter of the law" with how their rules are written. I now question if brushing the top grain of sand in a bunker is even illegal.

Rule 13-4.
13-4. Ball in Hazard; Prohibited Actions

Except as provided in the Rules, before making a stroke at a ball that is in a hazard (whether a bunker or a water hazard) or that, having been lifted from a hazard, may be dropped or placed in the hazard, the player must not:
a. Test the condition of the hazard or any similar hazard;
b. Touch the ground in the hazard or water in the water hazard with his hand or a club; or
c. Touch or move a loose impediment lying in or touching the hazard.

So obviously she did not do a. as testing implies intent. Since sand is not considered a loose impediment (see below), given she wasn't on the green she didn't violate c.

So the real question is did she break section b.? I would find it very easy to argue that she did not touch the ground. It depends on how you define ground, but if the tops of rooted grass is not part of the ground (you can brush the top of grass while in a hazard), why would you define a loose clump of sand as the "ground"?

Loose Impediments: "Loose impediments" are natural objects including:
• stones, leaves, twigs, branches and the like,• dung, and• worms and insects and casts or heaps made by them, provided they are not:
• fixed or growing,• solidly embedded, or• adhering to the ball.

Sand and loose soil are loose impediments on the putting green, but not elsewhere.
Keep it short stupid.

User avatar
srogers13
Posts: 1014
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: U.S. Women's Open Preview, Pairings, and Much More.

Post by srogers13 » Mon Jul 11, 2016 3:17 pm

It would not be considered a loose clump of sand, per se, since it is on the ground (and the sand in the bunker is part of the ground), and considered part of the hazard. Also, you could make an argument, even though it was not a lot, the sand that moved, in a sense fell over, so there could be less sand that would be between the club and the ball, and could have affected the shot.
I will stand in the fairway, I want to be out of your range.

User avatar
jasonfish11
Posts: 2816
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:27 pm
Location: Virginia Beach
dogs: 2
Contact:

Re: U.S. Women's Open Preview, Pairings, and Much More.

Post by jasonfish11 » Mon Jul 11, 2016 3:44 pm

srogers13 wrote: Also, you could make an argument, even though it was not a lot, the sand that moved, in a sense fell over, so there could be less sand that would be between the club and the ball, and could have affected the shot.
Or it could have fell towards the ball and put more sand between the ball & club?

Unless you know an unfair advantage was gained, or intentionally did something with the intent to gain an unfair advantage no one should be penalized. You can go back to that baseball analogy above, half the time the cleat could make the ball roll foul the other half the time it prevents it from rolling foul, which is why running towards a batter along the base line isn't a penalty.
Keep it short stupid.

User avatar
jasonfish11
Posts: 2816
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:27 pm
Location: Virginia Beach
dogs: 2
Contact:

Re: U.S. Women's Open Preview, Pairings, and Much More.

Post by jasonfish11 » Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:16 pm

srogers13 wrote:It would not be considered a loose clump of sand, per se, since it is on the ground (and the sand in the bunker is part of the ground), and considered part of the hazard.
Do the rules specifically state that?

I mean the USGA wants to only go by the letter of the law here. No room for interpretation.
Keep it short stupid.

User avatar
legitimatebeef
Posts: 5003
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:34 pm
Location: island off the coast of america
dogs: 1
Contact:

Re: U.S. Women's Open Preview, Pairings, and Much More.

Post by legitimatebeef » Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:16 pm

Have you been unfairly penalized by the USGA? Call Fish & Fish Attorneys at Law. We'll fight for you.
Build a bridge and get over it.

User avatar
jasonfish11
Posts: 2816
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:27 pm
Location: Virginia Beach
dogs: 2
Contact:

Re: U.S. Women's Open Preview, Pairings, and Much More.

Post by jasonfish11 » Mon Jul 11, 2016 4:29 pm

I'm just playing devils advocate, mainly because each year the USGA does something really dumb to make me partially regret being a "golfer."

It started with them tricking up courses so that even par could win the US Open. I didn't want to see a fucking windmill put in front of the hole.
Then the ban on anchored putting with no basis in reality other than they think it looks bad. I'm actually fine with that rule as long as they had the balls to admit they were only doing it for ascetic purposes.
Now wanting to make sure everyone knows who they are, by potentially affecting the outcome of 2 of their biggest tournaments.
Keep it short stupid.

User avatar
srogers13
Posts: 1014
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: U.S. Women's Open Preview, Pairings, and Much More.

Post by srogers13 » Mon Jul 11, 2016 5:13 pm

What is a bunker made of? Sand. Was that clump of sand hovering in the air? No? Then it is part of the hazard and part of the ground. Touching the sand is considered grounding your club. And the rules do not differentiate between whether the action improves or harms your lie, it has to do with changing the conditions of the shot. And probably the most important thing is that the analysts that are the players on Fox' broadcast all agreed that she committed the penalty, and I believe when Anna saw the replay, she agreed she committed a violation.
I will stand in the fairway, I want to be out of your range.

User avatar
jasonfish11
Posts: 2816
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 9:27 pm
Location: Virginia Beach
dogs: 2
Contact:

Re: U.S. Women's Open Preview, Pairings, and Much More.

Post by jasonfish11 » Mon Jul 11, 2016 5:22 pm

As I said.

I'm not saying the penalty is wrong. I'm saying dragging ass for this long and continuing to attempt to operate under dated, and archaic rules is what is wrong.

The USGA should be ashamed of itself for not even realizing times change and the rules should change appropriately with the time.

Its like saying "sorry women you can't vote, the constitution says 'all men are created equal' it says nothing about you 2nd class bitches. Where is my dinner?"

No matter the subject, the longer you keep holding onto the futile argument of "this is how it's always been done" the more likely history will look back at you and think, "man, how could people be so dumb back then." This goes for golf the same is it goes for civil rights.
Keep it short stupid.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests