Talk:Ryder Cup

Scoring
Gareth, maybe it's useful to explain the scoring (since these are in the table). Also, you may want to make the two draws more clear by not putting a team in the "winner" column. Jeronimo


 * Thanks! Jeronimo
 * Since the Cup stays with the team that won from the previous year, shouldn't we put that team in the winning column? I have always gotten the impression that in the case of a draw, the last winning team is still considered the winner based on that being a tiebreaker of sorts, but that teams want to win the trophy outright so that they need not resort to the tiebreaker.
 * I'm not sure either. For sure, if it's a draw, the previous winners retain the Ryder Cup. I'm not sure if they technically "win" though, and I can't find a good reference. Dze27 01:58, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess my point was, irrespective of whether they technically "win," they're certainly ahead of the other team in that they keep the Cup, and it would then correct the irregularity in the chart that I think looks distracting and makes it more difficult to read.
 * http://www.pga.com/rydercup/2006/usa/history/past_results.html also puts both teams in the "Winners" column when the match is drawn. I agree that it doesn't look great, but I think the existing layout is better for displaying the info accurately. Dze27 06:04, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps put "Tied"? If you think I'm beating a dead horse, I'll give it up, but I just wanted to explore a 1-line solution that wouldn't throw off the look of the table. 19:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

cameras
I was wondering how they do the cameras for TV? Some of the shots seem to come from overhead. Are they shooting from a blimp?Robinrobin (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Reformatted Table
I don't care to fix it myself, but I would ask for someone to "fix" the table so that the most recent results are at the top. It doesn't make a lot of sense to demand that people scroll all the way to the bottom to get the information that's going to be most relevant to the most people.

I would also like to see some explanation of the "flags" that appear on the table of Ryder sites. Some of them are easy to understand, but I can't find some of them in any flag site that I have examined so far. -Error- After posting this, I finally 'discovered' using the site (You've done an excellent job!!!) that England has a separate flag from Great Britain. Who knew?

Format Prior To 1979
Watching the event this week here in the States on NBC, they talked about the format (team play the first two days, man vs. man the final day) of the Ryder Cup being different prior to the 1979 event. Anyone got any idea what the change was? BigPauly

Board
Perhaps the board could use some modifying? In a competition with only two teams, seems unnecessary to have a column for "Winners" and a separate one for "Losers". If you say that, say, the US won, it is obvious that Europe lost, and vice-versa. To integrate the scores, perhaps it would be more effective to have a single column, marked "Results", and say "USA/Europe def. Europe/USA X and/to Y". I'm not really certain on how the scores should be specified though. Thoughts? Regards, Redux 21:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Can the Swiss play for Europe?
Can the Swiss play? The Ryder Cup is described as being between the U.S. and Europe. But it has the E.U. flag, and Switzerland aren't in the E.U. If Swiss are allowed to enter (and Norwegians and the many other European nations not in the E.U.), then it should have a different flag, and if not they should refer to the "E.U." and not "Europe". Aaron McDaid


 * The twelve star flag originated with the Council of Europe, which Switzerland is a member of. Susvolans ⇔ 13:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It seems that the Council of Europe and the European Union use the same flag. --Aaron McDaid 12:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no official flag for the continent of Europe which is what the team consists of, therefore the 12-Star flag is the de facto flag rather than the official flag.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.187.123 (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality
From the article:

By closely watching television recordings one can only agree, as on crucial moments spectators needed to cough, sneeze or shoot in their cell-phones, with only pupose to unbalance the European players. Never in history of the golf game there was so much un-etiquette.

I took this out but flagged the article anyways. Any input on this?--- Count de Des Moines
 * I can't see why you flagged the article anyway and I will remove the flag. Osomec 15:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is highly biased and really should be flagged up for it. the above comments about the poor etiquette of the gallery is very accurate. Also, the incident below, there are numerous video clips, which unequivicolly contradict the view that the Americans were innocent gentlemen. I suppose you could paste together enough obscure shots of the incident to exonnerate them. Also, why does his article imply that "gentlemenly conduct" is a thing of the past and no longer adhered to, as any golfer will ell you this is absolute balls. Im sorry if i upset anyone with my comments but i feel they are points that need to be made.

I have removed the following sentence from teh end of the 'controversy' section, as it is blatantly POV, and does not proceed from the rest of the paragraph it was appended to: "The beginning of the "bad blood" for the Americans started with Olazabal's cha-cha on the 18th green in the 1987 Ryder Cup at Muirfield Village so it is somwhat ironic that it may end with him as well." This incident is not mentioned beforehand in the article, does on naturally com after the comment about subsequent Cups being played in good spirit, and is also unsourced. Boldymumbles 07:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Leonard Incident
I would like to see some evidence for this - nobody walked on Olazabal's line information. From a quick search online it looks like several members of the american media walked on it. It seems nobody from the team ran on it but that isn't the same as nobody at all as this article suggests.

Ryder Cup points and team selections
DaveCrane 20:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)DaveCrane: Missing, and badly needed, is a discussion of how Ryder Cup points are awarded and how the two teams are selected. A good start for the US team is http://www.rydercup.com/2006/usa/teaminfo/qualification.html. There is a comparable page for the European team.

History
History section states "In 1923 he sponsored the..." This date seems to be either incorrect, or out of order chronologically since the previous sentence discusses events from 1926 and 1927. It is unclear to the reader if Ryder sponsored this before he actually became a golfer, or if it is just an error.

Similarly, the opening line that the cup was 'born' in 1926 is confusing. This para should include the date of the first Ryder Cup event, to match the 1927 date in the table of results.

Flags
I feel the flags that appear in the results are inconsistent and misleading. For events lcoated in the USA the flag of the nation state is displayed. For Europe, sometimes the flag of their nation sate is displayed (as in the case of Valderama in Spain in 1997 and K Club in Ireland in 2006). For other events a regional flag is displayed, namely the regional flags of England, Scotland or Wales. For consistency, I believe the flag of the nation state shouls always be used and not regional flags. Any event in the United Kingdom should display the 'Union Jack; and not regional flags.
 * Golfers represent the 4 constituent countries, not the UK. There's no reason why it shouldn't be the same for courses. Marky-Son 00:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Nationality Rules
How strict are the nationality rules for the Ryder Cup? Does one have to be a U.S. citizen to play for the United States? And are there any cases of non-U.S. born golfers playing for the United States after becoming naturalized citizens? JAJ 04:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Match-ups
Can someone please provide some information as to how the opponents in each match are decided? It's something I'd really like to know! tmimh 01:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The captains decide the order of play for their teams, and the pairings for the fourballs and foursomes. There is no knowing pairing of opponents. Kevin McE 16:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Pictures
I think it would be a really great idea to get some pictures of the ryder cup onto this page. Does anyone not argee with me on this?


 * Of course -- the problem however is finding freely-licensed photographs to begin with. I put some on the 2004 Ryder Cup page, and there are a few more from that series on commons, but I'm not sure any of those are illustrative enough for the main article.  The Cup itself may be copyrighted as sculpture (or at least the golfer on top), so photos of it may be derivative works (maybe we could use those under the fair use exception though).  If you have some pictures that you took, please upload them ;-) Carl Lindberg 02:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

2008 Format
Check the official 2008 Ryder Cup site. There is important information regarding the change of format that will take place for the 2008 Ryder Cup. The idea came from U.S. captain Paul Azinger and was announced on January 30. Someone should write here about these changes. Here is the link: Azinger changes format; alternate shot first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.76.226 (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Great Britain & Ireland Team Information
I have noticed that Irish players played in the Great Britain side from 1953 so the Great Britain side from 1951 should be known as the Great Britain & Ireland team from 1953 though to 1977 rather than Great Britain & Ireland team being known from just 1973 though to 1977.


 * I believe those were the official team names at the time, even though they may not have really reflected reality. We've generally kept with those I think.   You can see the history page on the official site does the same thing (click on the year links to see the team names).  Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I updated the Summary section today to try and make reading he results pre 1979 when the USA played against GB & Irl and after this when the USA faced Europe. To keep it consistent with the previous table I put in a table for both GB & Irl team (1973 to 1977) & a GB team (pre 1973). Irish players were always eligible to play in the Ryder Cup and many have done so (Christy O'Connor Snr played in 10 Ryder Cup teams). The table of results would be far simpler to read if the results of the pre1973 teams were combined with the post 1973 teams and would be more accurate as both eras in reality represented the Great Britain & Ireland team. Would it be ok to put both the pre 1973 & post 1973 teams under the heading 'Great Britain & Ireland' ? User:Leo1977 —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC).

Holes in one
Ryder Cup appears to contradict Ryder Cup. Is it 6 for Europe, 1 for the U.S., or is it 5 for Europe, 1 (Scott Verbank) for the U.S.? If one of the listed golfers accounted for two holes in one, then I think it should say "twice". Also, when I click the reference link for the list, it says "The page you were looking for could not be found." Art LaPella (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * According to this (written prior to Verplank's), it is a total of six, five of them being European. I fixed the part which said six for Europe.  The reference article was correct I'm sure, but web pages do get taken down.  We usually keep the link in the article though, since it was a reference, and could probably be researched some (and often shows up on web.archive.org at some point).  Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Summary table
Which table?

My contention is that the first table is overly cumbersome with all the "N/A"'s and large size. The second table is short and sweet. The USA's record against Europe/GB&I/GB is necessarily the inverse of the opponent - why restate the obvious? Tewapack (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Most certainly the second table is perfectly suitable. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Think I started off this argument few days ago, still think the summary I put in for each era (ie. USA against GB, USA against GB & Ireland & USA against Europe) of the Ryder Cup is better than either the large table with all the N/A's in it or just showing the USA overall result without explaning the various component results (who they achieved the results against).

Summary
From 1979 to the present the Ryder cup has been competed between teams representing USA & Europe. Below is a summary of the results for matches between these 2 teams. Between 1973 & 1977 the Ryder cup was competed between the USA team & the Great Britain & Ireland team. Below is a summary of the results for matches between these 2 teams. Between 1929 & 1971 the Ryder cup was competed between teams representing USA & Great Britain. Below is a summary of the results for matches between these 2 teams.


 * I'm afraid I still agree with the others... the additional detail does not add much, since you only have to invert GB/GB&I/Europe's record to get the U.S. record for the same time frame -- those records alone explain where the U.S. got its record.  For that matter, I don't think the European Home Match History section adds much either, since that is also pretty self-evident based on previous sections.  Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Still think that Summary table needs more explanation. When the European team replaced the Great Britain & Ireland team in 1979 in some ways this was the start of a new competition. While I am aware to begin with that the Ryder cup was a competition between the USA & Great Britain (& Ireland), many of the people who will look up this page will not be. A lot of people who look up this page will not be golf fans. Many of these will go to this article and scroll straight down to the Summary section. While it might seem obvious that you invert GB/GB&I/Europe's record to get the U.S. record for the same time frame, many many will assume that the USA record against Europe is 25-10-2 as the only Ryder cup they have known is USA against Europe. The main reason for the large number of N/A's in the table I created is because of the breakdown of the teams representing players from Great Britain & Ireland into 'Great Britain' up to 1971 & 'Great Britain & Ireland' from 1973 onwards. (See my comment in the 'Great Britain & Ireland Team Information' section of this discussion page. User:Leo1977 —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC).

Ties
How about this: – Howard  the   Duck  07:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

European Union not Europe
Why is the entry called "Europe" which is rather a geographical term ? The entry in the table and throughout the article should be changed to "European Union" like the flag is already indicating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.7.94 (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Participants from Europe are not required to be citizens of one of the 27 EU members. A Swissman (or Ukrainian, or Andorran, etc.) could qualify and play for Europe. Courcelles 15:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the EU flag is also the flag of Europe. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, non-EU players have represented Europe in the past. Seve Ballesteros (1979 & 1983), Antonio Garrido (1979), Manuel Piñero (1981) and José Maria Cañizares (1981) all played in the European team before Spain had joined the European Union. Additionally, Joakim Haeggman played in the 1993 matches, two years before his country became a member of the European Union. In fact all those Spanish players appeared in the Ryder Cup before the flag of Europe was even adopted by the EU. At that point it was solely the flag of the council of Europe.Tvx1 23:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Partial victories
I've added this table that has been deleted arguing that all the information it provides is already included within the summary table. While it is true that the information can be extracted from there, I think it is useful to see the results by periods (in fact I made up the table because I didn't find the info in the article in the first place):

Anyone agrees or disagrees? It's OK if I restore the table?--RR (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Best left out I think. Just more meaningless statistics that doesn't add anything especially useful to the article. wjemather bigissue 18:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Results order
Should the results table be listed in chronological order or reverse chronological order. User:Brad78 has changed it from rev. chron. to chron. saying that Timeline applies. I reverted saying Manual of Style (lists) applies which does not require either - only an ordered list.

As with almost all golf tournament pages, the results have been listed in reverse chronological order. I contend that this makes sense - in that if user jumps from the table of contents to the results list they are more likely looking for recent winners not the first winners.

Comments? Tewapack (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're presuming that a user will jump to the results to look at the last result. I changed this because earlier today I came to the article to find out when the Ryder Cup was first held outside US and UK so I had to jump to the bottom and work up. The same would apply for various reasons. Any proseline works from the earliest point to the most recent, any proper timeline works from the earliest point to the most recent, see any featured section. You quoted in your last revert Manual of Style (lists), which suggests either numerical, alphabetical or chronological order. I realise that quite a few pages do run in reverse chronological order and probably for the reason you've said above, but it's simply wrong to do so. Brad78 (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * From Manual of Style (lists): "Although lists may be organized in different ways, they must always be organized. The most basic form of organization is alphabetical or numerical (such as List of Star Wars starfighters), though if items have specific dates a chronological format is sometimes preferable (List of Belarusian Prime Ministers)." (my emphasis). Suggested, not required. Tewapack (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is prefectly acceptable either way, but since latest first is the order for practically all golf tournament pages, it is best to stick with that. Any argument that it is "simply wrong" is just well, simply wrong, and WP:TIMEL does not apply to these kinds of lists because they are not timelines in the sense that is discussed there. In any case surely this could be easily solved by making the table sortable by year. wjemather bigissue 08:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "latest first is the order for practically all golf tournament pages," Well, apart from every one the featured Golf lists. And why for featured? Because chronological order is an accepted standard and shows how competitions evolve over time. Brad78 (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * These are stand-alone lists so Stand-alone lists applies. The corresponding articles use rev. chron. ordering. Tewapack (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And the corresponding articles aren't featured. All featured articles have their lists in chronological order. Brad78 (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My vote is for reverse chronological; most people are interested in more recent winners so I think those should be at the top. I seriously doubt any of the list articles would have been refused featured status if they were in the other order, and the full list is generally repeated on the main tournament page in reverse chronological order.   The featured lists are a nice secondary article, and since the main page has reverse chronological, it seems like a good idea for those secondary ones to be in chronological to differentiate them a bit more.  But the main tournament articles, and this is one, should be in reverse chron order, in my opinion.  It is far from "simply wrong", it is usually "better", as you may find from other golf coverage around the web -- most will have recent winners first.  Including the Ryder Cup site itself.  Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

European home match history
This section (Ryder cup) seems to me to be very strange. Why only home match history? Why not away match history too? Why in the Results section? I suggest simply adding Start Year and End Year columns (or From and To) to the Summary table immediately above. We could also do with some discussion about the fact that Irish golfers played before 1973 even though the team was called Great Britain. Nigej 16:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Matches
The article refers to the whole event as a Match and also refers to individual games as Matches too: "The Ryder Cup Matches involve various match play competitions between players selected from two teams of twelve. Currently, the matches consist of eight foursomes matches, eight fourball matches and 12 singles matches. The winner of each match scores a point for their team, with ½ a point each for any match that is tied after 18 holes." twice using Match for whole event + 5 times for individual game + match as in match-play. Could be confusing to the uninitiated. Nigej 16:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"xxx retains the Ryder Cup" or "xxx wins the Ryder Cup"
When a team wins the Ryder Cup for the second time in a row do they "retain" or "win" the Ryder Cup. My preference is for "wins".

The original 1927 Ryder Cup Deed of Trust says:

The team which shall have at the end of such two days obtained the larger number of points shall be adjudged the winners and in the event of both teams having obtained an equal number of points at the conclusion of the second day the Cup shall remain in the possession of the team holding the same at the commencement of the tied Competition and for this purpose the British team shall be deemed to hold the Cup at the commencement of the Competition played in the United States of America in the year One thousand nine hundred and twenty seven

I've no idea what the current one says but based on the above it seems that "wins" is correct. In the event of a tie the team "retains" it. Nigej 10:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed, "win" has a much stronger connotation than "retain". Tewapack (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Relevant in 23 cases (I think): 1937, 1947, 1949, 1951, 1953, 1955, 1961, 1963, 1965, 1967, 1971, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1979, 1981, 1983, 1987, 1993, 1997, 2004, 2006, 2012. Currently most of these now say "retain". Says "win" for 1993, 1997, 2006 and 2012. Nigej 06:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * 19 pages changed. All these 23 pages now say "win" Nigej (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Win by 1 hole/2 holes or 1 up/2 up
Currently we use (I think) 1 hole/2 holes for 1927, 1929, 1933, 1935, 1937, 1949, 1977, 1979, 1981, 1983, 1987, 1993 and 1 up/2 up for 1947, 1951, 1953, 1955, 1959, 1961, 1963, 1965, 1967, 1969, 1971, 1973, 1975, 1985, 1989, 1991, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012. 1931 and 1957 had no instances.

Personally, being something of a traditionalist I prefer 1 hole/2 holes but there seems to be an unstoppable force moving us towards 1 up/2 up. I propose that we use 1 up/2 up throughout. Nigej 18:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I prefer the 1 up/2 up since that is what the official site uses, for example here. It should definitely be consistent over all Ryder Cup pages though. Tewapack (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I have changed all pages to 1 up/2 up for consistency. Nigej 06:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

'Great Britain and Ireland' flags
This may be a bit awkward as anything to do with my country's name(s) and flag(s) tend to be, but is it correct to be using the Republic of Ireland flag (which has 'Ireland' beside it, but displays 'Republic of Ireland' when the cursor hovers over it, and links to Republic of Ireland when you click on it) in what was a 'Great Britain and Ireland' team, not a 'UK and Republic of Ireland' team, particularly as the text explains the renaming of the team by talking about players from both Northern Ireland and the Republic, not just players from the Republic. There is an all-Ireland flag in use in Wikipedia for other all-Ireland teams such as Rugby (and, I think, cricket (I'll check), and quite likely other sports too). Has some good historical reason (such as that these flags were in official use at those Ryder Cups) or guideline already been given for using the Republic's flag in this case? I'm well aware that quite a lot of my fellow citizens would insist that the Republic's flag is the flag of all Ireland, but to the best of my knowledge (and by all the rules of common sense) that is NOT Wikipedia policy. Somebody may well add that it's not particularly logical to be using the flag of the UK (the United Kingdom of Graet Britain and Northern Ireland) for Great Britain either, but I expect there's plenty of precedent for that within Wikipedia, particularly as I don't think there is a separate flag available for Great Britain alone, whereas there are separate flags available for All-Ireland and for the Republic of Ireland. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The original Ryder Cup terminology was to refer to the team as 'Great Britain' but it seems that eligibility was open to Irish golfers (whether north or south) and, indeed, the Channel Islands. The name change in 1973 simply reflected this reality. As such the issue of the flags is rather academic. Currently in the Ryder Cup articles the flags (roughly) reflect the official name, not the eligibility (which would involve including Irish flags from 1927 and Guernsey and Jersey ones too. The 1927 Deed of Trust makes no mention of eligibility at all except that they had to be members of the PGA. The revised (8 Dec 1929) Deed of Trust, made changes "which meant the players of both sides had to be resident in the country they represented and to have been born there" (from Peter Fry's biography of Samuel Ryder page 112) but whether the 1929 Deed of Trust defines "country" is unclear since I've never seen the original wording. Nigej (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This document https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/1125/1/The%20Rough%20and%20the%20Fairway.pdf ("The Rough and the Fairway: Processes and Problems in Ryder Cup Team Selection 1927-2006") says "From the beginning the Ryder Cup team was labelled as being from Great Britain which excluded non-Ulster Irishmen as the Republic had separated politically in 1922 and its residents were considered as foreign players. But when a combined Irish PGA division was created in the early 1950s players from Eire became eligible for the Cup. The first golfer from the Republic to play in the Cup was Harry Bradshaw who was paired with Ulsterman Fred Daly in an unbeaten partnership in the 1953 tournament." However I find elsewhere mention of the "PGA of Ireland during its amalgamation with the PGA in 1984." so it perhaps wasn't a separate division of the PGA in the 1950s but a separate organisation. The whole situation is surprisingly confused. Nigej (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Failure to mention recent European dominance
The article currently fails to mention recent European dominance, and the consequences of this. A reader unacquainted with the recent history of the cup could be forgiven for imagining that the contest is now very even (10 to 8 and 1 tie), whereas the reality is one of recent European dominance. Europe has won 8 of the last 11 contests, including all 5 held in Europe, as well as 3 of the last 6 held in America (Europe has also retained the cup after 11 of the last 16 contests). This has had various consequences, such as suggestions at various times on how to even things up, perhaps especially from the European Tour (who are afraid of killing the goose that lays a golden egg that is allegedly far more important to the European Tour's finances than to those of the US PGA). The problem was arguably already a factor behind the American behaviour at Brookline in 1999, when the Americans were trying to prevent Europe retaining the cup on 6 of the previous 8 occasions (tho, as with everything else said here, one would need backing from reliable sources to say so in the article). Our readers currently get to hear none of this from our article. I could try to fix this myself, except that I'm not sufficiently interested to do anything more than briefly point out the apparent problem here (per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BNO), and then let those who are more interested and more expert than I am deal with the matter as they see fit. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

British or American English or neither or both
There's an uncertainty about whether to use British or American English or perhaps a mixture. I seem to think I wrote most of the "Gleneagles 1921" section using American terms since there was a US slant to the tale (use of 'British Open Championship Fund' for instance). On the other hand you could argue that the cup has British origins (i.e. Samuel Ryder) so perhaps British English would be better throughout. Nigej (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Per WP:ENGVAR, it should be whatever variant the article used first. Tvx1 11:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Significance of the event
Can the article address the significance of the event? For example, is the Ryder Cup unique and significant because it brings together in one non-elimination event the best players in the world in a major sport? Well, what about the Olympics? Well, that is different because its 35 sports and 400 events in elimination events. What about the World Cup? Well, that's different because it's many teams in elimination events that concludes with two teams from different countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.137.86 (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)