The Open vs. the British Open

[Big Ben]

The British Open is my favorite tourney of the year!...BB

[GTA SOL]

It is the Open Championship - maybe us brits are just too sensitive but how hard is it to get the name right.

Think of The Masters - it is not called the US Masters even though there is a British Masters (and maybe others as well, I don't know). Everyone understands that The Masters is held in Augusta and is a US based event.

In a similar vein, The Open Championship is held each year in the GB. While a host of other countries have their own Open (US, Scotland, Australia, France etc etc), they are the "XXXXX (insert country name) Open", NOT "The Open". Fact.

Maybe there is too much 'history' taken into account when it comes to golf, but i don't think it is too much to ask that people (or for, for example, US TV audiences) understand that The Open is held in GB once a year.

We can debate which Major hlds the most respect etc till the cows come home, but lets at least get the name right.

Just my two pence worth.

[sevenfourate]

Interesting so far......Another factor:

The Open Championship is rightly called "THE" Open because it is just that.Of the four Majors of the year,it is the only one that is truly 'open' to anyone in the World to enter if they have a bonafide handicap of scratch or below.Qualifying events are held Worldwide to make it truly "open" to anyone irrespective of race,colour,creed or their current World ranking.

If you win the Open you have beaten every single player on Earth,including any player showing great current form who has gone through the qualifying route,as opposed to the others which in their own ways may be considered a more closed field,with participants being chosen from rankings lists,previous performances etc.All of this some time in advance in some instances.

[Sawgrass]

[quote name='sevenfourate' post='1842309' date='Jul 25 2009, 08:49 AM']Interesting so far......Another factor:

The Open Championship is rightly called "THE" Open because it is just that.Of the four Majors of the year,it is the only one that is truly 'open' to anyone in the World to enter if they have a bonafide handicap of scratch or below.Qualifying events are held Worldwide to make it truly "open" to anyone irrespective of race,colour,creed or their current World ranking.

If you win the Open you have beaten every single player on Earth,including any player showing great current form who has gone through the qualifying route,as opposed to the others which in their own ways may be considered a more closed field,with participants being chosen from rankings lists,previous performances etc.All of this some time in advance in some instances.[/quote]

Sevenforate,

I hate to reduce this thread from relatively meaningless chatter to legitimate communication, but I'm afraid you've inspired me to attempt to do just that. It is my understanding that anyone of sufficient skill can enter the U.S. Open if they succeed in qualifying events, some of which are even held in Europe. Is that not the case? And isn't it true that The Open Championship also doesn't require many elite golfers to qualify, somewhat filling up its field? And if both of those things are in fact true,, is The Open Championship still unique in some other way in regard to its "openness"?

GTA Sol,

Now let me get back to relatively meaningless chatter. If I ever hear someone call "The Masters" "The U.S. Masters", I won't get my golf towel all in a wad over it. I'll instead presume that the speaker comes from a country where another "Masters" might exist. My feelings truly will not be hurt.

[Benefactor]

[quote name='mjtoal' post='1842400' date='Jul 25 2009, 10:08 AM'][quote name='Sawgrass' post='1842376' date='Jul 25 2009, 02:49 PM'][quote name='sevenfourate' post='1842309' date='Jul 25 2009, 08:49 AM']Interesting so far......Another factor:

The Open Championship is rightly called "THE" Open because it is just that.Of the four Majors of the year,it is the only one that is truly 'open' to anyone in the World to enter if they have a bonafide handicap of scratch or below.Qualifying events are held Worldwide to make it truly "open" to anyone irrespective of race,colour,creed or their current World ranking.

If you win the Open you have beaten every single player on Earth,including any player showing great current form who has gone through the qualifying route,as opposed to the others which in their own ways may be considered a more closed field,with participants being chosen from rankings lists,previous performances etc.All of this some time in advance in some instances.[/quote]

Sevenforate,

I hate to reduce this thread from relatively meaningless chatter to legitimate communication, but I'm afraid you've inspired me to attempt to do just that. It is my understanding that anyone of sufficient skill can enter the U.S. Open if they succeed in qualifying events, some of which are even held in Europe. Is that not the case? And isn't it true that The Open Championship also doesn't require many elite golfers to qualify, somewhat filling up its field? And if both of those things are in fact true,, is The Open Championship still unique in some other way in regard to its "openness"?


[/quote]

There is a US Open qualifying event held in the UK in June each year. The Open Championship has qualifying events in the US, Australia, Asia and S. Africa, in addition to the standard qualifying events held in the UK prior to the event.

Both the US Open and Open have handicap qualifications for entry. For The Open, it is around scratch, not sure about the US Open.

Perhaps the difference is that outside the US, The Open is more likely to be seen as the major to go for, and has a long history of welcoming players from all over the world. In the case of the US Open, it was a bit of a closed shop (as was the US Tour) for many years, and it is only relatively recently where large scale participation from non-US PGA Tour players has occurred. In the 70s and 80s, many Euro Tour players, event winners and placed high on the Order of Merit did not get invites.
For example, Mark James has 18 Euro Tour wins and 7 Ryder Cup appearances from the late 70s to the 90s, but has played in the US Open only 2 times. Sam Torrance, 21 wins, 8 RCs, 3 US Open appearances, none before 1994 when he was 40 years old. And so on. So not really all that Open for many years.
[/quote]

Mark James has 18 wins over 3 decades...I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that to be like the mid 70's to the mid 90's. That's around one win a year. Why should that get you an automatic exemption into the US Open? The European Tour is, in reality, the premiere minor league organization in golf, nothing more. Winning one tournament over there doesn't necessarily mean all that much. Even the PGA tour has some events that aren't terribly strong, so when you water it down further because you're in Europe, a win may not mean much in the grand scheme of things at all. The same can likely be said for Sam Torrance.

[Benefactor]

[quote name='sevenfourate' post='1842309' date='Jul 25 2009, 08:49 AM']Interesting so far......Another factor:

[b]The Open Championship is rightly called "THE" Open because it is just that.Of the four Majors of the year,it is the only one that is truly 'open' to anyone in the World to enter if they have a bonafide handicap of scratch or below.Qualifying events are held Worldwide to make it truly "open" to anyone irrespective of race,colour,creed or their current World ranking.
[/b]
If you win the Open you have beaten every single player on Earth,including any player showing great current form who has gone through the qualifying route,as opposed to the others which in their own ways may be considered a more closed field,with participants being chosen from rankings lists,previous performances etc.All of this some time in advance in some instances.[/quote]

This differs from the US Open in what way? Admittedly, there are more qualifying sites for the British Open, but anybody who has the requisite handicap can qualify for the US Open, as well. That doesn't mean the qualifying site will be in your back yard, but heaven forbid you have to travel a little bit to have a chance to play in a tournament where you're playing one of the world's best courses for millions of dollars.

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='Sawgrass' post='1839749' date='Jul 23 2009, 08:37 PM']Perhaps we can agree to "the Brit's Open Championship" instead of the "British Open Championship"? Because the possessive "Brit's" makes it more clear that this is not meant to be confused with the title of the tournament?[/quote]

Thing is it isn't the Brit's Open Championship. It's everyone's Open Championship, whether you come from Australia, Africa, Europe, South America, North America, Asia or even Antarctica.

[avrag]

[quote name='GTA SOL' post='1842296' date='Jul 25 2009, 02:27 PM']even though there is a British Masters[/quote]

Unfortunately, there isn't, not this year, anyhow.

Back to the topic:

If Americans want to call The Open Championship "British Open", I really do not care. But what bugs me a little more, is when they start referring to the US Open as "The Open", like Johnny Miller does often.

Also:
If you double -2 it makes -4. -2 on a particular hole is an eagle, so a "double eagle" would be -4 on this particular hole.
Simple maths, really.
-3 on one hole, on the other hand, is correctly called albatross.

[kurob]

I call it by both names depending on who I'm talking to and the degree to which I need to differentiate different Opens.

I do know this, though...comparing the US Open to the BMW PGA Championship or the British Masters when making your point isn't terribly useful. Those two golf tournaments aren't on the same planet of significance as the majors, so there is much less chance of confusion.

[Benefactor]

[quote name='mjtoal' post='1842767' date='Jul 25 2009, 02:47 PM'][quote name='Benefactor' post='1842579' date='Jul 25 2009, 05:13 PM']Mark James has 18 wins over 3 decades...I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that to be like the mid 70's to the mid 90's. That's around one win a year. Why should that get you an automatic exemption into the US Open? The European Tour is, in reality, the premiere minor league organization in golf, nothing more. Winning one tournament over there doesn't necessarily mean all that much. Even the PGA tour has some events that aren't terribly strong, so when you water it down further because you're in Europe, a win may not mean much in the grand scheme of things at all. The same can likely be said for Sam Torrance.[/quote]

I could offer you an intelligent response, but based on your post you wouldn't really understand, so I will save myself the effort.

The short version is that both spent a lot of time in what would be the top 50 or so in the world and often finished high in the Order of Merit, aka Money List.

The reason is that the US Tour (supported by the USGA) operated a closed shop, mainly for the benefit of mediocre nonentities, where foreigners were unwelcome.
[/quote]

To be honest, I think that a lot of the tournaments on the European Tour are weighted too heavily. I don't really understand how a guy like Paul Casey can even be ranked as high as he is - he's never won a damn thing. He has only won once in the US, and it was one of the tour's smaller events with a weaker field. It's like looking at a minor league pitcher dominating the minor leagues and ranking him as high as pitchers dominating the major leagues, as if his competition (the betters) doesn't matter.

[Benefactor]

For what it's worth, in one of my earlier posts, I actually goofed up. The US currently has 6 of the top 10 players in the world. Paul Casey at number 3? lol

[mat562]

Paul Casey has won three tournaments this year. One of those victories was the flagship tournament of the European Tour and, aside from the three wins he has also finished second in a WGC event. Not surprisingly the world rankings, which place increased emphasis on recent results, has him high up in the rankings. It isn't rocket science and, even for someone with a somewhat blinkered view of professional golf outside the United States, his win in Texas and that second place finish in Arizona weren't the result of drawing lots on a Sunday afternoon and should amply explain his current ranking. His other two wins, albeit at venues that didn't have a ZIP code, weren't monthly medals at the local muni either.

As regards the topic at hand, my take is that it's the Open Championship because that's what it's always been called and what it was christened 149 years ago. There's no argument over what its name [i]is[/i]; just over whether it's acceptable to give it a sobriquet because it's convenient to do so in some places outside Great Britain or other areas of the globe where the championship is referred to by its proper title. I personally don't have a problem with anyone calling it the British Open. Many former champions have done precisely that before, during and after their wins. But when people insist that it [i]should[/i] assume that name for some dubious reason then I'm not on-board.

My friends in the U.S. habitually refer to it as the 'British Open.' They laugh at me when I insist on using the proper name and jokingly cite it as 'typical English arrogance.' Conversely, I jokingly refer to their typical American arrogance in that there's even a need to argue over something that was settled a century and a half ago.

[Benefactor]

[quote name='mat562' post='1842939' date='Jul 25 2009, 05:12 PM']Paul Casey has won three tournaments this year. One of those victories was the flagship tournament of the European Tour and, aside from the three wins he has also finished second in a WGC event. Not surprisingly the world rankings, which place increased emphasis on recent results, has him high up in the rankings. It isn't rocket science and, even for someone with a somewhat blinkered view of professional golf outside the United States, his win in Texas and that second place finish in Arizona weren't the result of drawing lots on a Sunday afternoon and should amply explain his current ranking. His other two wins, albeit at venues that didn't have a ZIP code, weren't monthly medals at the local muni either.

As regards the topic at hand, my take is that it's the Open Championship because that's what it's always been called and what it was christened 149 years ago. There's no argument over what its name [i]is[/i]; just over whether it's acceptable to give it a sobriquet because it's convenient to do so in some places outside Great Britain or other areas of the globe where the championship is referred to by its proper title. I personally don't have a problem with anyone calling it the British Open. Many former champions have done precisely that before, during and after their wins. But when people insist that it [i]should[/i] assume that name for some dubious reason then I'm not on-board.

My friends in the U.S. habitually refer to it as the 'British Open.' They laugh at me when I insist on using the proper name and jokingly cite it as 'typical English arrogance.' Conversely, I jokingly refer to their typical American arrogance in that there's even a need to argue over something that was settled a century and a half ago.[/quote]

I just took a quick look at the BMW PGA leaderboard, and if that's the flagship event of your tour, that says everything you need to know about both that event and your tour in general. I'm not trying to say he's a bad golfer, but it's hard for me to put him above a lot of the other players behind him, who are more accomplished and on a better tour to boot. I'd put Paul Casey probably in the world's top 25...but in the top 3? No. The fact that the ranking system is set up such that he can be that high despite being so unaccomplished, relatively speaking, should really raise some eyebrows.

[mat562]

I think Martin probably nailed it in an earlier response.

[Benefactor]

[quote name='mat562' post='1842962' date='Jul 25 2009, 05:26 PM']I think Martin probably nailed it in an earlier response.[/quote]

Nailed what?

[golfsouth]

Always known The Open as The Open and certainly the big one to win in terms of its history and golf course test.

[url="http://www.golfsouth.co.uk"]www.golfsouth.co.uk[/url]

[Benefactor]

[quote name='golfsouth' post='1843034' date='Jul 25 2009, 06:09 PM']Always known The Open as The Open and certainly the big one to win in terms of its history and golf course test.

[url="http://www.golfsouth.co.uk"]www.golfsouth.co.uk[/url] [/quote]

The golf course test? lol. That must be why the British Open routinely has some of the lowest scores shot in any major. Since Carnoustie in 1999, the winning scores have been [b]-19[/b], [b]-10[/b], -6, -1, [b]-10[/b], [b]-14[/b], [b]-18[/b], -7, +3, -2.

As soon as somebody shoots -18 on one of your courses while only using his driver one time....I think your argument is shot. Even Peter Aliss said that there are only a couple courses in the rota that can hold their own without cooperation from the elements.

Over the same period of time, the winning scores of the US Open have been: [b]-12[/b], -4, -3, [b]-8[/b], -4, E, +5, +5, -1, -4.
Even this year, when Bethpage was made considerably easier by the rain, the winning score was only -4.

[MizzyMan]

"The winner and champion golfer of the year" is said by some bloke at the R & A. Thus, he's the champion of the R & A's open tournament. A guy at the USGA could say the same thing at the US Open. People who get upset or offended about calling it the British Open are being petty. Age doesn't necessarily equate to importance.

[mat562]

The argument isn't over importance. It's over what the championship is properly called and whether or not the 'British' rider is necessary or warranted.

The Champion Golfer title harks back to the days when the Open Championship was the only golf championship in the world and the winner of it was thusly precisely that. It's simply a title that's remained in usage over the years out of tradition. It's not something that's done simply to annoy people from particular nations who may see it as cocking a snook at their own (or any other) national championship. I know that some people see it as being outdated or no longer relevant, but most people simply see it as a honorific that's more rooted in tradition than it is in relevancy.

Honestly, I think some people who've commented in this thread would re-write history, given the chance, to remove any mention of anything of importance happening prior to 1776.

[D'KRUSHER]

I heard they are changing the name again: The Anglow-Saxon Championship.

[MizzyMan]

It might not be necessary to use the moniker all the time. But on this side of the pond, it just avoids the need for clarification when talking about different majors. No offense intended by/to anyone, simply avoiding confusion.

BTW, did something important happen before 1776?

[Dario]

The first thing is to name everything correctly. I´m American because i born and live in Argentina. America is a continent , not a country.

[AcesAZ]

I always call it the British Open since thats what we call it here. If I were to say "The Open" people would be unsure what I was talking about.

[Benefactor]

[quote name='Dario' post='1843269' date='Jul 25 2009, 09:12 PM']The first thing is to name everything correctly. I´m American because i born and live in Argentina. America is a continent , not a country.[/quote]

Actually, no, you're Argentinian. The US is the only country with America in its name, and as such, Americans are justified in calling themselves Americans.

[SadTrombone]

[quote name='Benefactor' post='1843312' date='Jul 25 2009, 09:40 PM'][quote name='Dario' post='1843269' date='Jul 25 2009, 09:12 PM']The first thing is to name everything correctly. I´m American because i born and live in Argentina. America is a continent , not a country.[/quote]

Actually, no, you're Argentinian. The US is the only country with America in its name, and as such, Americans are justified in calling themselves Americans.
[/quote]
Yep. I'm not a Unitedstatesian.

-mini

[mat562]

Not to nitpick, but the universally accepted demonym for a native of the United States is indeed [i]American.[/i]

[MizzyMan]

I'm a Texan cuz I'm from the country of Texas. (sarcasm; I've no desire to secede, please no redneck rants)

[Benefactor]

[quote name='mjtoal' post='1843957' date='Jul 26 2009, 11:58 AM'][quote name='Benefactor' post='1842908' date='Jul 25 2009, 09:52 PM'][quote name='mjtoal' post='1842767' date='Jul 25 2009, 02:47 PM'][quote name='Benefactor' post='1842579' date='Jul 25 2009, 05:13 PM']Mark James has 18 wins over 3 decades...I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that to be like the mid 70's to the mid 90's. That's around one win a year. Why should that get you an automatic exemption into the US Open? The European Tour is, in reality, the premiere minor league organization in golf, nothing more. Winning one tournament over there doesn't necessarily mean all that much. Even the PGA tour has some events that aren't terribly strong, so when you water it down further because you're in Europe, a win may not mean much in the grand scheme of things at all. The same can likely be said for Sam Torrance.[/quote]

I could offer you an intelligent response, but based on your post you wouldn't really understand, so I will save myself the effort.

The short version is that both spent a lot of time in what would be the top 50 or so in the world and often finished high in the Order of Merit, aka Money List.

The reason is that the US Tour (supported by the USGA) operated a closed shop, mainly for the benefit of mediocre nonentities, where foreigners were unwelcome.
[/quote]

To be honest, I think that a lot of the tournaments on the European Tour are weighted too heavily. I don't really understand how a guy like Paul Casey can even be ranked as high as he is - he's never won a damn thing. He has only won once in the US, and it was one of the tour's smaller events with a weaker field. It's like looking at a minor league pitcher dominating the minor leagues and ranking him as high as pitchers dominating the major leagues, as if his competition (the betters) doesn't matter.
[/quote]

You can be as honest if you like, as I will be.

To be honest, you really don't know what you are talking about, and it is not worth trying to persuade you otherwise.

I believe you have a later post suggesting that because US Open scores are lower, it is a better test. I tjink you are beyond help, although high wattage ECT might still be worth a shot.
[/quote]

I think you haven't addressed a single thing I've said yet. You keep telling me how wrong I am and don't give any reasons for it.

[DaveyH]

the open is the official name therefore i call it the open.
Simple as that.

[Roland]

[quote name='mat562' post='1842962' date='Jul 25 2009, 10:26 PM']I think Martin probably nailed it in an earlier response.[/quote]