Women's British Open

[gxer]

Originally Posted by MarinePaul

I disagree. As long as it's women's golf, the media doesn't care.

In general, I agree with you, but the media has a huge vested interest in one female and they would like a payoff for all the time they have invested in her.

IMO, it's not likely that they will ever get a quid pro quo payoff but it's their fault not hers, she can only be what she is, not what someone else wants her to be.

[MarinePaul]

Originally Posted by gxer

In general, I agree with you, but the media has a huge vested interest in one female and they would like a payoff for all the time they have invested in her.

IMO, it's not likely that they will ever get a quid pro quo payoff but it's their fault not hers, she can only be what she is, not what someone else wants her to be.

Your last paragraph is right on the money. I agree that, had she been the winner, it would have been a big story. Unfortunately, it's hard for anyone to live up to that kind of hype.

[bangkokbobby]

Originally Posted by sag

Bobby, I'll agree with you in part. I think winning two majors in a year is a big deal. My way of saying it, and I think you'll agree, is that winning two majors in a year is more than twice as good as winning one major. However, I wouldn't say that it necessarily trumps all else. So here's my suggestion--keep the current POY point structure, but add three lines at the bottom of the description:

2nd major win in the season=60 bonus points
3rd major win in the season=120 bonus points
4th major win in the season=180 bonus points

Yani's two majors wins would thus total 180 points (60 for KNC, 60 for RWBO, 60 bonus), equal to one major plus four non-majors, or six non-majors. Yani's current lead over Ai would not be 4 pts, but rather 64 pts--Ai would have a lot more work to do to catch up.

Took a while to get back...I needed a week away...ok...in my quote...you only requoted half of my original post...the important part...the one that expresses my feelings on this is the part about how Majors define careers...the part where I name a number of all time greats whose Major totals I can quote by heart but have no idea how many overall wins they have...that is secondary...so two Majors for me trumps almost everything else except in special cases...

...such as...

...ok, here is where I would be willing to compromise...

...there are only three players I would be open to possibly rethinking my position, Ai Miyazato, Cristie Kerr and Paula Creamer...

...but it would take a lot...first of all, in Miyazato's case, she would have to win three or four more events, including the LPGA Tour Championship...

...for Cristie, she has a Major...and the State Farm...she would need 2 or 3 more wins including the LPGA Tour Championship...

...Paula Creamer, she has the biggest Major...but she needs to finish with 3 or 4 more wins including the LPGA Tour Championship...

...I'm all about the big tournaments...the Majors...but a few I look at as "mini-Majors"....such as Evian and the LPGA Tour Championship...if Cristie or Paula can combine their Major with a "mini-Major" and a few other wins...I could re-examine my Tseng declaration as POY...also, if Miyazato had 7 wins or more, with a "mini-Major"...I would be less inclined to compare that to two actual Majors...but I would take a look...

...the one thing that makes me rethink Tseng's achievement and whether it could be matched or surpassed are the Majors she won...maybe this is my tennis fan background creeping in...in tennis, different players have their favorite Grand Slam...for example, clay courters love Roland Garros...however, generally speaking, Wimbledon and the US Open hold higher prestige than Roland Garros and the Aussie...in fact, the Aussie at one time was at the end of the year, but they had to move it to the beginning of the year, in part because too many players were skipping it at the end of the year...nobody skips the US Open at the end of the year unless they are legitimately injured...so winning Wimbledon and the US Open in one year to many tennis fans would trump winning the Aussie and French...although both are huge achievements...

...now, you folks who have been LPGA fans longer than me will probably disagree...but I see the US Women's Open and the LPGA Championship as greater than the British and Kraft Nabisco...regardless of what the computer might say...so had Tseng won the USWO and the LPGA Championship, I would completely shut the door on Miyazato and possibly on Kerr and Creamer...but the fact that Kerr won the LPGA Championship in dominant fashion and Creamer won the USWO keep them alive in my mind...in fact, I'd say Creamer was also dominant in her win, even though her margin of four strokes was considerably less than Kerr's runaway 12 stroke win...still, Creamer was the only player to "tame" Oakmont...with everybody save for the Pink Panther over par...

...I'm not about the points...I'm about whose year contributes more to the first paragraph of their legacy when their careers are over...in that first paragraph it's Majors...if any player wins half of them in a year and nobody else does...it'll take a whole lot to displace that player as my POY choice...

...unless...

...Tseng goes into the tank the rest of the year missing cuts in event after event after event....and absolutely bombing...that could change things...but if she maintains a decent level of play....she's the one...

[sag]

Bobby, it sounds like we're mostly in agreement at this point. My views on the subject were shaped in 1987, when Martina won Wimbledon and the U.S. Open, while Steffi won the French and every other tournament she entered except Wimbledon and the U.S. Open (she did not play the Australian Open).

Martina: 56-8, 4 wins in 12 starts (Wimbledon, U.S. Open, Filderstadt, Chicago)

Steffi: 74-2, 11 wins in 13 starts (French Open, Boca Raton, Key Biscayne, Hilton Head, Amelia Island, Rome, Berlin, Los Angeles, Hamburg, Zurich, WTA Tour Championship in NYC.)

At the time, some went as far as to say that if you win Wimbledon and the U.S. Open you should be POY no matter what even if you lose first round every other tournament, and Martina certainly did much better than that. But the computer said Steffi was year-end #1, and the WTA named her the POY, and I concurred.

I'm rooting for Yani to play well the rest of the year and beat out Ai and Cristie. Nothing against the latter two--I'd just rather see the double-major champ get POY.

For some more LPGA major history, here's a recent article I'll recommend to you just in case you haven't seen it:

A fifth LPGA major?

[xman5]

Luckily they have a system in place for POY. I think that if everyone at the top plays well it will be a close race, comming down to the last tournament. So that should make for added excitement.

I don't worry about how they do the points. It has not been a problem in the past and should not be now. If the players have no problem with it, we shouldn't.

Not knowing the standings, I think I will go with Shin. I think that she is playing the steadiest and should pick up more wins. Creamer was hurt by too long of an absence with the injury. Tseng is a little too inconsistent, though if it is close as I said, she has a habit of playing well in the big tournaments.

[bangkokbobby]

Ricoh Women's British Open Rewind

[heddwyn]

Neat to relive it ... thanks!