That's fine, that change makes no substantive difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodney_c
I stated that I was aware she had many wins, but was using this as a single case incident, as if she had not won before.
That ain't not make sense. "I know she has many wins, but if she didn't, this win would support my theory that she doesn't know how to win"?
Not tryin' to get on you about this, but the logic escapes me. If she didn't have any wins, as I said before, I could somewhat understand what you're saying. But she does
Lets use the case of:
- 10 players do exactly what Cristie did.
- They all post a clubhouse lead which is 1 shot behind the leader in different tournaments.
- In Cristie's case the leader falters with bogey bogey, and Cristie wins.
- In each of the other 9 cases, the leader goes par, par, and the player who posts the good score doesn't win.
- Okay in all other 9 cases, the player has done EXACTLY the same thing as Cristie did.
- So does that mean that all of them other players also know how to win?
Since their actions were identical to Cristie's actions, wouldn't it suggest that they do?
****
The leader failed to perform, so Christie won.
You can't argue your point, without stating that the person in the best position to win this event going into the last round, couldn't close the deal. Christie probably didn't think anything more than "post a good number for them to think about", but that was enough.
It is about closing the deal, when you are in a position to do so. Tied for the lead in a tournament going into Sunday and shooting 82 is failing to close. Having a 4 shot lead like Angela had going into Sunday and shooting +2, is failing to close the deal.
Meena Lee and Jee Young Lee, also shot +2. Had Meena Lee shot 68 it would have been her trophy.
Christie shot 65 while starting 8 shots back. I would say that has nothing to do with closing a deal. It wasn't her deal to close.
Last edited by leaguegolf : August 15th, 2006 at 11:59 AM.
Reason: Inappropriate Comment
**** It is about closing the deal, when you are in a position to do so. Tied for the lead in a tournament going into Sunday and shooting 82 is failing to close. Having a 4 shot lead like Angela had going into Sunday and shooting +2, is failing to close the deal.
Having a share of a 3 way lead with 3 more players 1 shot behind, has little comparison to holding a 4 shot outright lead.
Hmmmmmm...Stanford has won before on the LPGA. Once, to be exact. Could you be saying the since Angela won once, and now has learned to win, she should've walked away with a W here, but since she didn't, the "learning to win" is a myth? I think this would be a better argument if you went with this one...(OT)...
"85th ranked Stanford played to the best of her abilities and lost the tournament like any 85th ranked person would do. Since she somehow finished 2nd, she is now ranked 73rd in the world. The ranking system does in fact work."
Hmmmmmm...Stanford has won before on the LPGA. Once, to be exact. Could you be saying the since Angela won once, and now has learned to win, she should've walked away with a W here, but since she didn't, the "learning to win" is a myth?
Let's say that Angela would have started the final round bogey, bogey...and finished par, par. Would that have made a difference in your analogy of "handing" the tournament to Christie?
Personally I dont think this whole *knowing how to win* applies to Kerr, as it has been said, she DOES know how to win, it would seem to me that it was Angela that *couldnt close the deal* and gave it away.
So your theory doesnt wash, you have just attempted to use Kerr to make a point that cant be made in this situation.
So your theory doesnt wash, you have just attempted to use Kerr to make a point that cant be made in this situation.
No, I think Rodney's point is valid and does apply to this situation. I love Kerr, she's an awesome golfer and a great lady from what I can tell. What she did great was to post a score that put her in position to win. That's not easy to do, she had to play great golf. In the end, a little luck and/or the results of the other golfers that were in contention falling slightly short of her result is was what led to her win.
Anyone that puts up a score within 1 or 2 shots of the final best score has played awesome golf and has put themselves in a position to win. Some of the time they will win and some of the time they won't. Once they've played the course well enough to be very close to the best score, or the best score, they've done all they can. The rest is up to luck or bad play or bad breaks for the other players near or in the lead.
Winning golf tourney's is not just skill and composure under pressure. It also requires a little luck on your part and/or bad luck for your opponent.
Anyone that puts up a score within 1 or 2 shots of the final best score has played awesome golf and has put themselves in a position to win. Some of the time they will win and some of the time they won't. Once they've played the course well enough to be very close to the best score, or the best score, they've done all they can. The rest is up to luck or bad play or bad breaks for the other players near or in the lead.
Winning golf tourney's is not just skill and composure under pressure. It also requires a little luck on your part and/or bad luck for your opponent.
Exactly the point I was trying to make. You've articulated it better.
Let's say that Angela would have started the final round bogey, bogey...and finished par, par. Would that have made a difference in your analogy of "handing" the tournament to Christie?
I'm not against Kerr.
Whether Kerr's opponent had faltered and she won, or not faltered and Kerr came 2nd, Kerr should be applauded regardless.
In either case Kerr did a good job, the point is, that performanace by Kerr could have brought a win or a 2nd place, and if it were a 2nd place, that wouldn't mean that Kerr was a mentally weaker golfer.
In either case Kerr did a good job, the point is, that performanace by Kerr could have brought a win or a 2nd place, and if it were a 2nd place, that wouldn't mean that Kerr was a mentally weaker golfer.
Of course not - she came from 8 back. I still don't see what the point is here
August 15th, 2006, 11:55 AM
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
