This post is by from Mostly Harmless
Click here to view on the original site: Original Post
As Tony Jesselli has already noted, Cheyenne Woods and 2007 LPGA Rookie of the Year Angela Park missed the 36-hole cut at the 1st stage of LPGA Q-School today. Other players I’m following to fall on the wrong side of the +4 cut line included Lee Lopez, Moah Chang, and Susan Choi at +5, Tiffany Lua, Maria Laura Elvira, and Jillian Fraccola at +6, Rui Yokomine, Elena Robles, Keiko Kubo, and Maiya Tanaka with Woods at +7, Sally Watson at +10, Keiko Kiyomoto at +11, Kristina Wong at +12, and Violeta Retamozo at +32. Now obviously those in double digits under par didn’t have a real chance to get into the top 60 after 72 holes. But why cut a field of 240 down to 70 and ties after only 2 rounds? Wouldn’t it have been better to go down to 120 and ties after 36 holes, 90 and ties after 54, and 60 and ties after 72?
Right now we have 80 golfers playing for 60 spots over 36 holes. That’s a lot of holes to eliminate at most 20 golfers. And imagine if it had been exactly 70 players on the dot who made the cut! 36 holes to eliminate at most 10 golfers doesn’t make much sense to me–especially considering that in that scenario 170 were cut over the 1st 36 holes.
Let’s face it: probably only 10% of the original Stage I field has a real chance to contend in the final stage of Q-School. Even the top third are entirely capable of blowing up over 9 or 18 holes. If they do worse than that, fine, try again next year. But with such a draconian halfway point cut, the LPGA ran a real risk of losing some top-notch golfers. And they did. A more gradual series of cuts wouldn’t have ruled out losing some big names at some point. But it would have been nice to see if at least some of them could have turned things around tomorrow!
What’s more, everyone paid a lot of money for the chance to compete. Allowing half the field to at least play 54 holes seems fairer to everyone.
[Update 1 (11:47 pm): Here’s Brent Kelley‘s take.]