| An example of purple prose from the Guardian February 1st
FLOYD RIDES RYDER HOBBY HORSE
by
David Davies
One of the particular pleasures of beating the Americans in the Ryder
Cup is that they are totally unablde to accept defeat. With the
honourable exception of Jack Nicklaus, who in addition to being the
world's greatest winner has also been the world's greatest loser, they
whinge and they whine with such petulance that it actually enhances the
joy of victory.
They are, of course, unaccustomed to defeat, having won 22 matches to
five, but they have lost they have lost the last two.
In 1985 some of the players blamed British spectators at The Belfry for
"booing and hissing" at them; others blamed the then captain, Lee
Trevino, for being "invisible". In 1987 at Muirfield Villae, Ohio, the
spectators again copped it, this time for being too quiet, and the
losing captain, Nicklaus no less, was criticised for not playing strong
young players like Mark Calcavecchia.
Now this year's captain, Ray Floyd, has suggested a change in the
format. He wants more points to be available - to go back to the format
that existed prior to 1979, when there were 32 point in the match and
not the current 28. He believes playing eight singles matches, both
morning and afternoon of the last day, would enable the Americans to
demonstrate their alleged greater strength in depth. In other words,
now that we've lost twice on the trot can we please change the rules?
His thinking is demonstrably fallacious, of course, in that the team
with the strongest eight players, is more, not less, likely to win in
such a format, but then the Americans are not thinking clearly about
golf at the highest level at the moment.
In the January edition of the American magazine Golf there appears a
piece by a man called Thomas Boswell who, on a blurb for one his books,
is described as "golf's most eloquent chronicler".
The article carries the title "America's still king" and makes some
strange assertions. "The only reason," he says, "that America loses the
Ryder Cup is that we were generous enough to let Great Britain team up
with all of Europe so they'd have a chance after years of
disappointment." In fact it was Nicklaus who suggested the
amalgamation. He, at least, realised that asking a team drawn from a
territory the size of Great Britain and Ireland to take on the whole of
the USA was a bit like asking New Mexico to take on the other 49
States.
Boswell burbles on: "If golf had a Davis Cup we would win it in a
yawner every year. Do you think that Seve or Greg would like to get up
a team of Spaniards or Aussies to stand [up to] Curtis and the boys?"
Since he asks, I think they would love to. Davis Cup rules state that
teams can be a minimum of two, a maximum of four, I would put my
mortgage on Ballesteros, Jose-Maria Olazabal and Manuel Pinero against
Curtis and any of his boys. And if Boswell wants to take on Great
Britain, I would bet the Bank of England on Sandy Lyle, Ian Woosnam and
Nick Faldo.
One final assertion. "It's no accident," says Boswell, "that in the
Eighties only one foreigner, David Graham, has won the US Open and none
has captured a PGA Championship. Foreign players have done well in the
British Open and the Masters because the depth of the PGA Tour is not
reflected in these weak fields."
This is ultimate stupidity. Foreign players have not done wiell in the
US Open or PGA because it is difficult to do so when you are not
allowed to play in them. Both championships invite only three or four
token foreign players, whcih fails to recognise the revolution in world
golf over the past decade.
In contrast the Open, far from having a "weak field", ensures the top
30-40 players from America, plus all the top players from the rest of
the world are represented, and produce better winners that its
counterpart in America. In the Eighties those winners have been Tom
Watson (3), Ballesteros (2), Bill Rogers, Sandy Lyle, Greg Norman and
Nick Faldo.
<end of article>
Can anyone supply the quoted article by Thomas Boswell in GOLF
magazine, or indeed any other related articles?
|
| I have to admit that I don't really fancy our (Europe) chances of
retaining the cup this year. I still think our top men are better
than yours, but our current form is not great and I don't think
the 2nd string men in our side are as strong as yours this time.
(Unlike the noter in the Walker Cup note, I don't think Sam Torrance
is any benefit to us at all this year - I seriously hope he proves
me dreadfully wrong - he's been playing bad ever since the last
Ryder Cup and has only just scraped in the team this time round.)
Also Jacklin's picks are likely to be saviours for the likes of
Sandy Lyle - people with the talent, but currently WELL out of form,
rather than, say, someone with experience who has only just missed
out.
I think if Langer makes it by qualification it summs up my apprehension
(nothing against him, but he ain't in form!) - if he can play
so abysmally and still qualify on merit (which he might), it doesn't
say much for the merit.
A bit pessimistic, but I think it will be close - I still think
we've got the big names now, not the US.
Paul
(Eur-ope Eur-ope Eur-ope!)
|