What Should Watson Have Done?

[Johneli]

To avoid making bogey on numer 18? He hit eight iron and it seemed to land in the ideal spot but wouldn't stop. He had a trap to get over as well. Others are suggesting that he should have taken 9 and stepped on it to hold the green, even with the possibility that if he didn't make solid contact he would be in the trap.

Also, do you think he should have chipped instead of putted the ball laying right up against the secondary cut around the green? Seems to me (and I said it at the time to my cat who was the only one besides me who seemed interested) that he should have chipped it.

Forget the 8 foot putt. He flinched (yipped) as he stroked it. At that point IMO he was fighting insurmountable nervousness and probably knew he blew The Open after that putt ran 8 feet by.

 

[JB]

I think he should have played it exactly how he did.

 

[AHacker'sHacker]

I think he should have played it exactly how he did.

I agree with you JB. Watson said he committed to the 8 iron and hit it exactly how he wanted to. The result was simply the hazard of links style golf.

 

[Johneli]

LOL! Speaking of links style golf, did anyone notice that when the ball hit a fairway (especially off the tee) a big puff of dust would fly up? Geez, wonder if things were a little dry on Sunday?

 

[roughing_it]

I think he should have chipped his 3rd. The drive was great and the 8-iron was the right club. I think the adrenaline just carried it a couple of yards past stiff. He's always been a great chipper. That's the only decision I'd question but he obviously felt confident with his putter from there. The gacked 8-footer was predictable. He's been doing that for years.

 

[bonknhead]

I think he should have chipped his 3rd. The drive was great and the 8-iron was the right club. I think the adrenaline just carried it a couple of yards past stiff. He's always been a great chipper. That's the only decision I'd question but he obviously felt confident with his putter from there. The gacked 8-footer was predictable. He's been doing that for years.

That's a great point. Watson is a fantastic chipper, and has tons of confidence in chipping. Not so much in putting.

 

[herr_ryan]

I agree with you JB. Watson said he committed to the 8 iron and hit it exactly how he wanted to. The result was simply the hazard of links style golf.

Or of major championship golf, for that matter. Hard greens, baby. He made the only play, which is to hit the shot your committed to. He made up his mind, hit the shot just like he wanted, and it didn't come off. That's golf.

 

[Hanks]

Or of major championship golf, for that matter. Hard greens, baby. He made the only play, which is to hit the shot your committed to. He made up his mind, hit the shot just like he wanted, and it didn't come off. That's golf.

:clapp: I think he played it ok. He just sallied his putt like us mere mortals do all the time....

 

[provisional]

Watson made the right decision at that point in the round for his game. I am not one to go around second guessing one of the few greats of the game. That guy is too good, too classy, and has too much experience to second guess. He was the golfer there, at that moment, and made his decision. He missed an 8' putt. When off the green, if you can putt, then putt. Can't putt, then chip. Can't putt or chip, then pitch. Granted it is too bad he missed that putt, and a 6th Open title, would have been a great thing. It just did not happen. I don't agree with those who think Tiger's missed cut, or Cink's win over shadowed Watson's four days of play.

 

[herr_ryan]

I don't agree with those who think Tiger's missed cut, or Cink's win over shadowed Watson's four days of play.

I completely agree. Tom Watson was and will be the story of this Open. If you need an example, try this: who won the Open that Van de Velde blew on the 72nd hole? A few people know off the top of their heads, myself included, but not many. Not that I'm equating what Watson did with what Vanny did, but it isn't always the winner that's remembered.

 

[PRO V1 KENOBE]

I completely agree. Tom Watson was and will be the story of this Open. If you need an example, try this: who won the Open that Van de Velde blew on the 72nd hole? A few people know off the top of their heads, myself included, but not many. Not that I'm equating what Watson did with what Vanny did, but it isn't always the winner that's remembered.

Paul Lawrie,he started the day 10 shots adrift,thats good going by anyones standards.

 

[barruda]

His philosophy worked for 71 holes - I won't question his thought process on the 72nd.

 

[Ty_Webb]

I completely agree. Tom Watson was and will be the story of this Open. If you need an example, try this: who won the Open that Van de Velde blew on the 72nd hole? A few people know off the top of their heads, myself included, but not many. Not that I'm equating what Watson did with what Vanny did, but it isn't always the winner that's remembered.

van de velde was unlucky with his second shot there. If that ball stayed in the stands, he'd have won the tournament (drop zone on the green side of the burn). And yes, Lawrie beat Van de Velde and Justin Leonard in a playoff.

Watson was unlucky too I think. If his second shot had grabbed just a little bit, he'd have won the tournament. I think he did everything right. As far as the putt from over the back goes, he did basically the same thing on 17 and rolled it dead. I wish he'd done it. Would have been one of the biggest stories in sporting history if he had.