2021 US Women's Open, June 3-6

[Argonne69]

42 minutes ago, MelloYello said:

 

Does 19 qualify as young for the LPGA though? 

 

All week long we talked about how this was Lexi's 15th US Open, how Megha Ganne was in contention at 17yo and how others like Morgan Pressel had contended at similar ages. All week they kept flashing over to Lucy Li who famously qualified at what? 11yo or something insane like that? You cited Lydia. There's also Brooke and several others too who've done impressive things on tour while they were essentially kids. 

 

Success at 19yo ain't exactly abnormal for the LPGA. We cannot continue to act shocked every time a young person wins on the LPGA. At this point it's a trend in the women's game. Acting shocked is just pretending at this point.

 

The women's game is heavily biased towards younger players. Let's be real. Impressive to you and me? Sure. Notable in the history books of the US Open? Okay. In the larger picture though? Eh, not really. 

 

Plus, I kind of disagree with your point. The reason Tom Watson's "almost" was so popular is that it was Tom Watson. Same for Phil's recent PGA victory. We've seen the same thing happen when Fred Couples posts a good opening round at Augusta. It's as much about who does it as anything else.

 

I do have a question for you though. While I'm sure it's no issue among fans like us, do you think it's generally a bad look for girls as young as 11 or 12yo to be qualifying for Majors? When that's obviously never going to happen in the men's game, does it suggest to the viewer that the women's game is just too easy?

 

If it happened 1 time I think it would look historic. But when we begin to routinely see it happen, does it actually just serve to make the women's game look like "child's play?"

 

Is that you, Stacy? 🙃

 

No, I don't think it's a bad thing for young players to compete if they qualify. It's an Open tournament. If one can beat the hundreds of other players trying to get into the field, then they deserve the spot. 

 

Now, if they were playing on a sponsor's invite, I'd probably say otherwise unless they were a top ranked amateur. 

 

I don't think we'll be seeing 12 year olds winning majors any time soon. Making the field and making the cut are one thing. Didn't Yuka tie Inbee for youngest major winner? 

 

Edited June 9, 2021 by Argonne69

[MelloYello]

7 minutes ago, Argonne69 said:

 

Is that you, Stacy? 🙃

 

No, I don't think it's a bad thing for young players to compete if they qualify. It's an Open tournament. If one can beat the hundreds of other players trying to get into the field, then they deserve the spot. 

 

Now, if they were playing on a sponsor's invite, I'd probably say otherwise unless they were a top ranked amateur. 

 

 

Eh...you're skirting the real question here. It's not about fairness. It's about the test in general. Of course the test should be open to everyone and the same rules should apply to all but that's not the question. 

 

Why could an 11 or 12-yo boy not qualify for a PGA event? Why do we know that's never going to consistently happen?

 

The answer is obvious. He doesn't have the physical strength nor the distance at that point, so why do we so easily accept that 11 or 12yo girls do? Does it not suggest that we ought to be setting up LPGA courses tougher so that 11 and 12yo's find it too hard? 

 

And if we're so quick to defend 12yo girls and their right to compete, why aren't we clamoring to see more 12yo boys get into US Opens?!

 

I think it's a fair question. Maybe I'm ignorant. But it's an interesting question from my perspective. Why the asymmetry in the male and female games? 

 

Edited June 9, 2021 by MelloYello

[MelloYello]

9 minutes ago, Argonne69 said:

 

Is that you, Stacy? 🙃

 

No, I don't think it's a bad thing for young players to compete if they qualify. It's an Open tournament. If one can beat the hundreds of other players trying to get into the field, then they deserve the spot. 

 

Now, if they were playing on a sponsor's invite, I'd probably say otherwise unless they were a top ranked amateur. 

 

 

Btw, who's Stacy? 

 

Stacy Lewis? 

 

I'm guessing there a story? 🙂

[HMHS]

17 minutes ago, MelloYello said:

 

Nobody said it was "easy." 

 

Inserting that word completely changes the message.

20 minutes ago, MelloYello said:

 

Nobody said it was "easy." 

 

Inserting that word completely changes the message. 

 

At least I don't keep editing my post to clarify 😂

[Argonne69]

I think the answer is simple. The women's game is different. While strength and distance are important, it's not a guarantee of an easy win. As long as a player has median length they can compete. Lydia became #1 being mid pack in driving distance. This wasn't just a one time win on a challenging course. She racked up record wins across a variety of courses. 

 

The vast majority of women #1s in the past 10 years were median length. Stacy. Inbee. Lydia. Jin Young. So Yeon. Jiyai. Ai Miyazato was a short hitter, but she didn't stay at the top for long. Yani, Ariya, and Sung Hyun were long. 

 

The men on the other hand need length to compete on a regular basis. You just don't see the short hitters on the leaderboard week after week 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2021 by Argonne69

[Argonne69]

1 minute ago, MelloYello said:

 

Btw, who's Stacy? 

 

Stacy Lewis? 

 

I'm guessing there a story? 🙂

 

Yes, Stacy Lewis. She was very critical of Lucy playing in the '14 US Women's Open at Pinehurst, even though Lucy qualified to be in the field. 

 

 

[Argonne69]

I'd love to see a 12 year old boy qualify for the Open. I think he'd get a ton of media exposure. However, it unlikely that he would be mid pack in driving distance. 

 

[xxio]

Girls physicaly mature earlier.

 

You should complain about last year's as well.

 

Last years Women's US Open only had 3 scores under par the final day from those in the top 10. The winning score was lower than the leading score after the 3rd round. 

 

Lexi's meltdown was only 1 shot worse than Hinako's 3 over final round score in the 2020 edition. 

 

 

[MelloYello]

 

9 minutes ago, Argonne69 said:

I'd love to see a 12 year old boy qualify for the Open. I think he'd get a ton of media exposure. However, it unlikely that he would be mid pack in driving distance. 

 

 

Well, first off, F the media. Who cares about them? They're insufferable. 

 

And secondly, why does it matter how old someone is? Who cares?! 

 

Sports should be about the accomplishment and how much a person was in control of that accomplishment. Making a hole-in-one is great. I've done it. It was lucky. Moe Norman has 17, presumably recorded in competition. Who knows how many else? So he's obviously better. It's great to win 1 major. Tiger won 4 in a row. Clearly he's better than most. 

 

This preoccupation with age though. I don't care for it. 

Edited June 9, 2021 by MelloYello

[MelloYello]

1 minute ago, xxio said:

Girls physicaly mature earlier.

 

You should complain about last year's as well.

 

Last years Women's US Open only had 3 scores under par the final day from those in the top 10. The winning score was lower than the leading score after the 3rd round. 

 

Lexi's meltdown was only 1 shot worse than Hinako's 3 over final round score in the 2020 edition. 

 

 

 

Stop making points about general scoring. 

 

No one's talking about US Open scoring averages. WTF?

[MelloYello]

16 minutes ago, Argonne69 said:

 

Yes, Stacy Lewis. She was very critical of Lucy playing in the '14 US Women's Open at Pinehurst, even though Lucy qualified to be in the field. 

 

 

 

Haha, I figured. 

 

I want to be 100% clear. I would never be critical of anyone who fairly qualified. That's ridiculous. 

 

But questioning the asymmetry and whether it's fundamentally healthy for the system to have 11yo qualifying is valid. I think a major should be tough and it's hard for me to believe an 11yo has what it takes to be the best in the world for even 1 week. 

 

Then again, this is a distinctly golf-specific issue so maybe I should be okay with it? Maybe it's just one of the things that makes golf unique among the "physical" sports? It just strikes me as very strange-looking. 

Edited June 9, 2021 by MelloYello

[xxio]

You're the one complaining about seeing 39s and 41s and yet wanting to see tough layouts-not resort style courses.

 

 

Guess what.... tough layouts+major pressure= 39s and 41s.

 

 

[Argonne69]

30 minutes ago, MelloYello said:

 

Haha, I figured. 

 

I want to be 100% clear. I would never be critical of anyone who fairly qualified. That's ridiculous. 

 

But questioning the asymmetry and whether it's fundamentally healthy for the system to have 11yo qualifying is valid. I think a major should be tough and it's hard for me to believe an 11yo has what it takes to be the best in the world for even 1 week. 

 

Then again, this is a distinctly golf-specific issue so maybe I should be okay with it? Maybe it's just one of the things that makes golf unique among the "physical" sports? It just strikes me as very strange-looking. 

 

I'm confused. You keep saying that age doesn't matter, but then question why an 11 year old should be able to compete. 

 

I think one should keep in mind that many players in the Open are simply proud to be playing. While winning would be fantastic, their expectations are down to Earth. It's still an achievement for any player to make the field. Making the cut is the next milestone. 

 

While Lucy was enjoying an ice cream cone at her post round interview in 2014, she wasn't upset that she didn't make the weekend. She was happy to have learned a lot from playing with the best. 

 

[MelloYello]

1 hour ago, Argonne69 said:

 

I'm confused. You keep saying that age doesn't matter, but then question why an 11 year old should be able to compete. 

 

I think one should keep in mind that many players in the Open are simply proud to be playing. While winning would be fantastic, their expectations are down to Earth. It's still an achievement for any player to make the field. Making the cut is the next milestone. 

 

While Lucy was enjoying an ice cream cone at her post round interview in 2014, she wasn't upset that she didn't make the weekend. She was happy to have learned a lot from playing with the best. 

 

 

If you don't want to answer my question, that's fine. But don't ask me to keep repeating it. 

 

I didn't say she shouldn't be allowed. That's absurd. I'm asking whether you think the test is being made too easy in certain areas (i.e. course conditions) if an 11yo is passing the test of qualification. 

 

What are you testing that an 11yo has the answer? Does an 11yo girl have the physical tools to compete against the world's elite? Would we feel good handing a US Open title to an 11yo? What would it say about the physical difficulty of the game should an 11yo girl win? And if you're so confident that an 11yo isn't going to win, then why is she there? How'd she get in? Was her qualifier not demanding enough? 

 

You said the test should be open to all and fair. Open-to-all is the format. Fairness is a Rules-of-Golf conversation. We're not discussing either one of those technical points. 

 

I think an 11yo Amateur winning the U.S. Open would be catastrophic. That'd be indescribably embarrassing to the sport to have that happen.

 

[Argonne69]

1 hour ago, MelloYello said:

 

If you don't want to answer my question, that's fine. But don't ask me to keep repeating it. 

 

I didn't say she shouldn't be allowed. That's absurd. I'm asking whether you think the test is being made too easy in certain areas (i.e. course conditions) if an 11yo is passing the test of qualification. 

 

What are you testing that an 11yo has the answer? Does an 11yo girl have the physical tools to compete against the world's elite? Would we feel good handing a US Open title to an 11yo? What would it say about the physical difficulty of the game should an 11yo girl win? And if you're so confident that an 11yo isn't going to win, then why is she there? How'd she get in? Was her qualifier not demanding enough? 

 

You said the test should be open to all and fair. Open-to-all is the format. Fairness is a Rules-of-Golf conversation. We're not discussing either one of those technical points. 

 

I think an 11yo Amateur winning the U.S. Open would be catastrophic. That'd be indescribably embarrassing to the sport to have that happen.

 

 

No, I don't think the test is too easy. We've only had a handful of very young players qualify for the USWO. Lexi, Morgan, Lucy, and Ariya come to mind. Three of the them became top players, and Lucy is well on her way to earning a living on the tour. If it was too easy, wouldn't we see dozens of young teens in the tournament? What we do see is 17 to 21 year old high school and college amateurs.

 

When was the last time we saw a qualifier contend for the win? I don't recall one in recent memory. The players competing in qualifiers are filling out the field. I don't think many of them have the game to win, or they wouldn't have to qualify.

 

If an 11 year old makes the cut, it's telling me that they are hitting fairways, have solid long games, and can scramble like the best of them.

 

If an 11 years old showed up and beat 155 other players I think it would be awesome. They'd have to be world class to win against the best in the game in USWO conditions. Lydio Ko won the CWO twice. It's Canada's national championship. The golf world didn't come to an end. It wasn't catastrophic. It was an eye opener seeing a top young talent who'd quickly rise to #1 in the World.

 

 

Edited June 9, 2021 by Argonne69

[MelloYello]

8 minutes ago, Argonne69 said:

 

No, I don't think the test is too easy. We've only had a handful of very young players qualify for the USWO. Lexi, Morgan, Lucy, and Ariya come to mind. Three of the them became top players, and Lucy is well on her way to earning a living on the tour. If it was too easy, wouldn't we see dozens of young teens in the tournament? What we do see is 17 to 21 year old high school and college amateurs.

 

When was the last time we saw a qualifier contend for the win? I don't recall one in recent memory. The players competing in qualifiers are filling out the field. I don't think many of them have the game to win, or they wouldn't have to qualify.

 

If an 11 year old makes the cut, it's telling me that they are hitting fairways, have solid long games, and can scramble like the best of them.

 

If an 11 years old showed up and beat 155 other players I think it would be awesome. They'd have to be world class to win against the best in the game in USWO conditions. Lydio Ko won the CWO twice. It's Canada's national championship. The golf world didn't come to an end. It wasn't catastrophic. It was an eye opener seeing a top young talent who'd quickly rise to #1 in the World.

 

 

 

 

We're closer to agreeing that not although I kind of think it's unrealistic to consider what happens in Canada to be reality. Nobody cares about Canada. 

 

Do you think the LPGA should in general toughen up the rough at more events? The reason I ask is that I'm sympathetic to the idea that course setup helps dictate who wins. I wonder if ball-strikers like Megan Khang wouldn't benefit from tougher setups? I think the LPGA has room to increase difficulty. I'm not sure they want to do that though. It might bring crappy putters like Lexi and Carlotta even more into the fray of being competitive each and every week. That's hard to watch. 

 

Where do you stand on that issue? Would it make the LPGA worse? Better? No difference? 

Edited June 9, 2021 by MelloYello

[Argonne69]

12 minutes ago, MelloYello said:

 

 

We're closer to agreeing that not although I kind of think it's unrealistic to consider what happens in Canada to be reality. Nobody cares about Canada. 

 

Do you think the LPGA should in general toughen up the rough at more events? The reason I ask is that I'm sympathetic to the idea that course setup helps dictate who wins. I wonder if ball-strikers like Megan Khang wouldn't benefit from tougher setups? I think the LPGA has room to increase difficulty. I'm not sure they want to do that though.

 

Where do you stand on that issue? Would it make the LPGA worse? Better? No difference? 

 

OK, this is where I check out from this thread. The Canadian Women's Open is basically the 5th major, or should have been. Most LPGA fans care about the CWO.

 

Yes, I'd like to see the courses toughed up. I don't agree that the rough is the way to do it because it usually just winds up helping the longest hitters. I don't mind a reachable par 4, or a shortened par 5, but there are many tournaments where they go overboard and have multiple shortened holes on the same day. Knock that off.

 

The biggest problem is that many tough courses won't open their doors to the LPGA, so they wind up playing on benign resort courses. Wildfire was one. Thornberry Creek was another. When they play "real" courses, e.g. Wilshire, Inverness, we see higher scores without having to artificially harden the courses.

 

 

Edited June 9, 2021 by Argonne69

[Golf Dino]

6 hours ago, Tasals said:

 

I agree, its no different when my team is eliminated from most major sports I quickly lose interest as well. Hockey - Team Canada isnt playing I dont usually watch, NHL if my team is eliminated Ill casually watch the play offs unless I have buddies over but that hasnt been possible for two years. 

 

Oh man, I feel sorry for you Leafs fans. 

Well at least there is one team from Canada into the next round vs. Colorado/LV.  😉 😆

[Golf Dino]

3 hours ago, MelloYello said:

I didn't say she shouldn't be allowed. That's absurd. I'm asking whether you think the test is being made too easy in certain areas (i.e. course conditions) if an 11yo is passing the test of qualification. 

 

The qualification system is inherently good and bad. 

 

Good in that it encourages participation and any player with a low enough handicap can enter -- hence the democratization of golf and the term "OPEN".   It is a test in which one must earn the right to participate in the Big Show and then with the tough set up, must play the best that week to win. 

 

Bad in that not all regional qualifiers are equal.  Some qualifiers are conducted the week (ie: Tue-Wed) at a venue close to where an LPGA event was held.   The purpose being to give those players a chance to qualify if they were not already on the exempt list.  So those events are notoriously difficult given the "strength of the field".  Then there are others that are easier to qualify from given the weaker fields. 

 

Some players have a strategy of which qualifier they want to play based on the notion that one qualifier will be easier.   The USGA tries to account for this by the number of spots that they assign them ... the harder (post LPGA) events are 4-spots, easier events are 2 - spots.  And yes, not every qualifying event is tough like the big show. 

 

Edited June 9, 2021 by Golf Dino

[ChronicSlicer]

On 6/8/2021 at 1:05 PM, Supermilo said:

Bianca might have been lighting in a bottle in 2020 

No offense but 2 top ten's out of 10 events isn't exactly lightning in a bottle. Here's her ending positions.

T68, cut, 76, T34, 3, T9, T64, T71, T59, T28

[ChronicSlicer]

11 hours ago, Argonne69 said:

 

Most of the time. However, if a player is very young, or "old", there seems to be more interest. 

 

Lydia's two wins at the CWO in her mid teens was great television. Tom Watson almost winning the Open Championship was compelling. Phil winning the PGA was something to behold. If Bernhard ever contends for the win at Augusta National I bet there will be more eyeballs than usual. 

 

I would absolutely love to watch Bernie put a whooping on the guys half his age. It's doubtful, but it would be quite the spectacle. 

[ChronicSlicer]

9 hours ago, Argonne69 said:

 

It's still an achievement for any player to make the field. 

 

I believe Rickie Fowler can vouch for this..😂

[xxio]

7 hours ago, MelloYello said:

 

I'd be extraordinarily hesitant to allow you around any farm animals smaller than a cow. 

And when someone can't sort out what to say, they insult.

 

All I said was you can't complain about 41s and say that the US Open shouldn't be played in resort courses. It's there in separate posts of yours.

[OrangeGravy]

11 hours ago, MelloYello said:

 

IDK, man. 

 

I watch the LPGA virtually every week and there's A LOT of young talent out there and it contends quite often. 

 

To act surprised that a 19yo won an LPGA tournament, major or not, just seems out of touch with what we've been watching for the last 10 years on the LPGA. 

It's no different than women's tennis in that respect. Although tennis is leveling out some, but both sports  typically see players start to phase out of meaningful contention in their early to mid twenties. Physically they should be in their prime, but they just don't hold up against the competition as long in those women's games. 

My theory is their talent level still isn't as refined as it could be (mostly due to strength when comparing to the men's game skill level). The younger kids come in stronger with more speed and can hit shots that the current players physically can't hit because they don't have enough speed (short game spin and approach hight/spin). 

[OrangeGravy]

11 hours ago, MelloYello said:

 

Eh...you're skirting the real question here. It's not about fairness. It's about the test in general. Of course the test should be open to everyone and the same rules should apply to all but that's not the question. 

 

Why could an 11 or 12-yo boy not qualify for a PGA event? Why do we know that's never going to consistently happen?

 

The answer is obvious. He doesn't have the physical strength nor the distance at that point, so why do we so easily accept that 11 or 12yo girls do? Does it not suggest that we ought to be setting up LPGA courses tougher so that 11 and 12yo's find it too hard? 

 

And if we're so quick to defend 12yo girls and their right to compete, why aren't we clamoring to see more 12yo boys get into US Opens?!

 

I think it's a fair question. Maybe I'm ignorant. But it's an interesting question from my perspective. Why the asymmetry in the male and female games? 

 

If you set it up so those young girls couldn't compete, you'd be eliminating half ( or more? ) the regular field right along with them. That's the difference between the 2 tours relative to their own competition pool. 

[xxio]

12 hours ago, Supermilo said:

  At some point, I see Asian sponsors in the LPGA increasing rather than declining, barring global financial crises.  

 

Singapore was/is a case in point - nowhere was Sentosa considered a venue, heck third world city state in the 70s.  I'm waiting to see a Singaporean LPGA "competitor" - that will bring the entire SG portfolio (eg Temasek, Etc) into play... Malaysia needs more Kelly Tans, Thailand has Jeen, Jaravee, etc etc, Philippines is "third world" for sure but there's quite a few Filipinos (expat or former Filipinos) abroad that are in corporate decision making... Finally, aren't Korean companies sponsoring Americans? Qcells come to mind... Im hopeful...

Btw you already know this but for those who don't, the guy who bankrolls Yuka (has her cap space) owns the company-Casino that has the cap space on world no1 JYK for about 2-3 years now. 

Edited June 10, 2021 by xxio

[JungleJimbo]

3 minutes ago, xxio said:

Btw you already know this but for those who don't, the guy who bankrolls Yuka (has her cap space) owns the company-Casino that has the cap space on world no1 JYK for about 2-3 years now. 

@xxio Thanks, didn't know that  ICTSI and Solaire casino were related / have the same owner ...

this article mentions "ICTSI has been the godfather of Philippine golf with its sponsorship of Saso and another Filipina golfer making waves overseas in Bianca Pagdanganan. It has also bankrolled the country’s professional golf circuit, the Philippine Golf Tour."

https://www.spin.ph/golf/yuka-saso-s-main-sponsor-assures-continued-support-after-us-women-s-open-win-a795-20210607

 

[KBong]

19 hours ago, Steele47 said:

 

 

Dat's some creepy sheet.

It's pathetic...lol.

[HMHS]

37 minutes ago, xxio said:

Btw you already know this but for those who don't, the guy who bankrolls Yuka (has her cap space) owns the company-Casino that has the cap space on world no1 JYK for about 2-3 years now. 

A little research goes a long way... Aka Bloomberry... Jeju resorts etc... Good job digging ... 😎 (honestly, these guys don't want the limelight and there's a few more of them - kudos to them). 

 

Of course there's some who are late to the game but weren't there at the beginning, no kudos to them... Always happens right? 

Edited June 10, 2021 by HMHS

[HMHS]

47 minutes ago, JungleJimbo said:

@xxio Thanks, didn't know that  ICTSI and Solaire casino were related / have the same owner ...

this article mentions "ICTSI has been the godfather of Philippine golf with its sponsorship of Saso and another Filipina golfer making waves overseas in Bianca Pagdanganan. It has also bankrolled the country’s professional golf circuit, the Philippine Golf Tour."

https://www.spin.ph/golf/yuka-saso-s-main-sponsor-assures-continued-support-after-us-women-s-open-win-a795-20210607

 

Yup.  As I said, the Philippines is third world but there's some support... 😃

 

Just like @Argonne69, am signing off this thread (just don't wanna keep tracking so many threads)... Onwards to Mediheal... See you there Junglejimbo

Edited June 10, 2021 by HMHS
Signing off this thread...