Why does Ryder Cup tie go to current cup holder?

Why does Ryder Cup tie go to current cup holder?

Post by Annika19 » Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:36:06


Quote:
>From: "formerly known as 'cat arranger'"
>Wouldn't you say that the defending champion has
>an advantage in just about everything? I don't mean
>in every aspect, just in every sporting event, everything
>else being equal. Momentum. Experience. Bragging
>rights.

It's like I told the lamb-killer, "To be the man you've got to beat the man!"
 
 
 

Why does Ryder Cup tie go to current cup holder?

Post by sfb » Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:04:59

Pavin is only 5' 9" and Sutton is all***.


Quote:

>>Captain with the biggest***. At 6' 1", Sutton has to be the winner.

> If that was true, Corey Pavin would be the Captain.  Best hung white guy
> on
> tour.
> The opposing captain would of course be Harold "The Horse" Henning.


 
 
 

Why does Ryder Cup tie go to current cup holder?

Post by Frostbac » Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:39:30


Quote:

>>Captain with the biggest***. At 6' 1", Sutton has to be the winner.

> If that was true, Corey Pavin would be the Captain.  Best hung white guy
> on
> tour.
> The opposing captain would of course be Harold "The Horse" Henning.

He's South African, you know!

 
 
 

Why does Ryder Cup tie go to current cup holder?

Post by Howard Braze » Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:27:21


Quote:
> The guy is arguing about taking that 1/2 point away, and is saying that
> if you did, the defending champs would STILL have an advantage.

I suppose the advantage would occur when one team historically has a better
talent pool to continue dominating cup after cup.   Moving this 1/2 point from
the champion to the underdog would counter this.

But that wasn't the case this year.

 
 
 

Why does Ryder Cup tie go to current cup holder?

Post by formerly known as 'cat arranger' » Wed, 22 Sep 2004 01:59:48


: >From: "formerly known as 'cat arranger'"
:
: >Wouldn't you say that the defending champion has
: >an advantage in just about everything? I don't mean
: >in every aspect, just in every sporting event, everything
: >else being equal. Momentum. Experience. Bragging
: >rights.
:
: It's like I told the lamb-killer, "To be the man you've got to beat the
man!"

To be the man you've got to beat the competition.
Tying is not good enough to be the man.

 
 
 

Why does Ryder Cup tie go to current cup holder?

Post by formerly known as 'cat arranger' » Wed, 22 Sep 2004 02:04:44


: And exactly how does that insure that the tie is broken?  It could end up
3-3,
: and some matches could still be halved.  You would have to have an odd
number of
: matches with a rule that no matches could be halved  Perhaps sudden-death
for
: every match..
:
: Going back to the original question of why a tie goes to the cup-holder:
I see
: nothing wrong with that.  I don't understand how giving the 1/2 point
advantage
: to the other side makes any sense.  Why should they have an advantage?
Would
: this idea even have been raised if the US were the cupholders?
:
:
:

:


: > :


: > :
: > : > You have to beat the other side to take a title away from them. I
see no
: > : > other
: > : > sensible way of doing it short of arranging the scoring system so
that a
: > : > draw
: > : > is no longer possible.
: > :
: > : Hows about a tiebreaker?
: > :
: > : Ben
: >
: > That is better. A four hole, random selection,
: > of 6 twosomes.
:

Duh, you're right. But the chance of a tie after 6
more matches would be less. It would just be
cool to have the matches determined randomly
and not be sudden death. After the six matches
were tied then the best commentator from each
team (BBC and CBS) could play left handed
for the match. If that is a tie then we could pick
a random member of the population, golfer or
not to play for the cup. over age 12 and not
incarcerated... : -)

 
 
 

Why does Ryder Cup tie go to current cup holder?

Post by A.E. Jabbo » Wed, 22 Sep 2004 03:32:11


Quote:
> Maybe it should be the other way... that the current should
> have to win by 1/2 point. It would make the cup circulate
> more what I think is a good thing.

It's the same as it is in boxing, e.g.  If Boxer A holds the title,
and Boxer B is fighting him for it, a draw results in Boxer A
retaining the title.  He needs to be defeated to lose his title.

The Ryder Cup is no different.  Whoever has it must be defeated,
not tied, to lose the Cup.

It makes perfect sense.

--
AE Jabbour

"If I did have a tumor, I'd name it Marla."

        Narrator, "Fight Club"

 
 
 

Why does Ryder Cup tie go to current cup holder?

Post by formerly known as 'cat arranger' » Wed, 22 Sep 2004 09:28:43




: > Maybe it should be the other way... that the current should
: > have to win by 1/2 point. It would make the cup circulate
: > more what I think is a good thing.
:
: It's the same as it is in boxing, e.g.  If Boxer A holds the title,
: and Boxer B is fighting him for it, a draw results in Boxer A
: retaining the title.  He needs to be defeated to lose his title.
:
: The Ryder Cup is no different.  Whoever has it must be defeated,
: not tied, to lose the Cup.
:
: It makes perfect sense.
:
: --
: AE Jabbour
:
: "If I did have a tumor, I'd name it Marla."
:
: Narrator, "Fight Club"

It didn't take me long to think that boxing would
be better if ties went to the challenger. If you aren't
a good enough fighter to beat a challenger then you
don't deserve to be the champion. A rematch in
short order should be assured but you aren't the
champion if you haven't won.. unless you're the
challenger. : -)

I'm just saying it could have been set up either way
and I like it better if the champ has to win. A change
is good if the competitors are equally matched.