Remembering Jean Van de Velde’s surreal collapse 25 years later

If we’re listing the most famous images in golf history, it won’t take long to get to Jean van de Velde standing in Carnoustie’s Barry Burn. The largely unheralded golfer was contemplating whether he wanted to try one of the riskiest shots imaginable to salvage a 1999 Open Championship victory — a victory, which just minutes earlier, was a certainty.

A lot led to that moment. A lot also came after that moment. Here, on the Silver Anniversary of one of golf’s most famous (or infamous) moments, we’re going to look back on it all.

Note: Links to the commentary cited can be found at the bottom of the article.

Getting to 18

Van de Velde’s playing partner in the final round was Craig Parry. Parry and Justin Leonard (who was in the penultimate pairing) started the final round five shots back of Van de Velde. Now, seeing that and seeing that Van de Velde carried a three-shot lead into the final hole, one might assume that he gave up a few shots but still had the tournament firmly in command throughout the final round. But that’s not true.

Even before the 18th hole, Van de Velde did not play particularly well on Sunday. In fact, due to a combination of his own strong play and Van de Velde’s struggles, Parry was tied for the lead after only eight holes and carried a one-shot lead into the 12th hole. Unfortunately for Parry, that was his high-water mark.

While Van de Velde bogeyed the 12th hole, he got his outright lead back, thanks to a disastrous triple bogey from Parry. Parry bogeyed No. 13 and while he stabilized some over the next three holes, a triple bogey on 17 took him completely out of the mix.

Leonard, meanwhile, played a consistent round. Through his first 13 holes, he made one birdie, one bogey and 11 pars. A birdie on No. 14 briefly drew him even with Van de Velde. But Van de Velde’s subsequent birdie on No. 14 and Leonard’s bogey on No. 15 put the Frenchman firmly in the driver’s seat. Leonard then bogeyed the final hole to take himself out of the tournament — or so it seemed.

When Van de Velde teed off on No. 18, he knew that he was five shots ahead of Parry and three ahead of Lawrie, in the clubhouse. While Leonard had not finished No. 18 by the time Van de Velde teed off on the final hole he’d already failed to make par. As the leader was teeing off, Bob Rosburg, doing on-course commentary for ABC, said “[Van de Velde] knows he has a two-shot lead; he does not know he has a three-shot lead.”

Golf Gods smile on Van de Velde

Carnoustie — or as it’s often referred to, Carnasty — is generally regarded as the toughest course in the Open rota. Its 18th hole is a big reason why. It’s a long par-four and with the Barry Burn running down the right side and out of bounds on the left, there’s little margin for error.

So, given his lead (either the lead he thought he had or the one he actually had), this was the time for Van de Velde to get conservative. That means, hit a long iron off the tee and a mid iron on the second shot. That way he would have been pitching onto the green with his third shot, needing only two putts (and given Leonard’s bogey, three putts) to win.

Van de Velde, though, opted to hit his driver. The ball was not well-struck as it sailed off to the right. But while the drive was errant, it fell into the “so bad it’s good” category. Not only did Van de Velde’s ball go right of the Barry Burn but it settled in a good lie — albeit on the 17th hole.

This was the equivalent of a pitcher hanging a curveball, only to have one of the outfielders rob a would-be home run. Good luck outweighed poor execution. So, after one shot, Van de Velde remained in the driver’s seat.

Golf Gods frown on Van de Velde

Luck was a big part of Van de Velde’s first shot. It was an even bigger part of his second shot. Unfortunately for Van de Velde, not all luck is good. If the first shot was poor execution and great luck, the second was poor execution and worse luck.

Van de Velde could have opted to lay up, taking a short or mid iron,  getting the ball back onto the 18th fairway and pitching on from there. Instead, he took a long iron out and went for the green. And as was the case with the tee shot, Van de Velde’s second shot was off target. That said, it did accomplish the one thing it needed to do — it cleared the Burn.

Then it didn’t.

Van de Velde’s second shot did clear the Barry Burn, sailing into the grandstands lining the 18th green and the area around it. After hitting the grandstands, the ball shot back. It first went into the Burn, then, after hitting a brick wall continued to fly backwards, eventually landing back in front of the Burn. Once again, Van de Velde would have to contend with the Burn. Only this time, he’d do so from knee-deep rough.

Had the ball stayed in the grandstands, Van de Velde would have gotten a free drop and probably ended up with a good lie. Had it bounced out horizontally, he would potentially have had another bad lie but would have been well clear of the water, near the green and completely in the driver’s seat.

Even if the ball had stayed in the burn, Van de Velde would have taken a one-shot penalty, but his drop would have been in grass not nearly as thick as what he ended up in (though not ideal) and would have likely been much closer to the water. So, clearing it wouldn’t have been an issue. He still would have been in good shape.

Now, he was hitting his third shot instead of his fourth. But due to how poor his lie was and how far he needed to go to clear the Burn, Van de Velde had very tough shot ahead of him. And if he couldn’t clear the water, the once-safe tournament would be very much in doubt.

Finding the Burn

Coming out of the knee-deep rough, Van de Velde couldn’t get a clean club on the ball. His ball came out heavy. After narrowly avoiding the Barry Burn on his first and second shots, Van de Velde’s third shot came to rest in the Burn. Van de Velde now had to drop his fourth shot in a spot where attacking the flag on his fifth shot was virtually impossible. Or, that’s at least what it seemed like he was going to have to do. Van de Velde did have one other option.

Unless the water is out of bounds or there’s a local rule, it’s legal to go into the water to hit your ball. Most of the time, it’s completely impractical. But occasionally, if a ball is not completely submerged, a player will try it. At the Presidents Cup eight years later, Woody Austin tried (and hilariously failed) to hit his ball out of the water.

Van de Velde’s ball was not completely submerged. And with his grasp on the tournament slipping away, Van de Velde wanted to consider every possible option.

Personal story

The summer of 1999 was the first time I began following golf regularly. It was the summer between my eighth and ninth-grade years. I turned 14 that summer and had been playing golf for a little more than a year.

One of the first golf tournaments I remember watching was a few years earlier, the 1996 Phoenix Open. My dad was watching it and a few friends and I got drawn into the playoff between Phil Mickelson and Justin Leonard. Officially, Mickelson won the playoff in three holes. At the time, it felt like the playoff went no fewer than 25 holes. Three years later, when I began to follow golf, Mickelson and Leonard were both golfers I cheered for.

So, as Leonard was battling for his second Open Championship on that Sunday, I was cheering for him. When he bogeyed the final hole, I was disappointed. He was tied for the clubhouse lead with Paul Lawrie, who had gone off hours before the leaders and fired a brilliant 67. But Van de Velde was three shots clear of them. His victory was seemingly a foregone conclusion.

As a soon-to-be 14-year-old kid still relatively new to golf, I didn’t quite understand how remarkable Van de Velde’s performance through the first 71 holes was. And when he teed off on the 72nd hole, I still wanted to see Leonard win. Only, as that became more possible, my attitude changed.

In the world of team sports, the closest comparison to this would be Game 1 of the 1995 NBA Finals between the Houston Rockets and Orlando Magic. With only seconds left and Orlando nursing a three-point lead, Nick Anderson went to the free-throw line. One make would effectively ice the game. He missed both free throws, but the ball found its way back into his hands on the rebound. Once more, he went to the line needing to make one of two free throws to ice the game. Once more, he missed both.

If you were an actual fan of the Rockets in 1995, the misses probably delighted you. But if you were a relatively neutral observer and slightly pulling for Houston, it’s likely that at some point in that process, you found yourself hoping Anderson could make one free throw.

That’s about where I was after Van de Velde’s third shot. Yes, what was happening helped the chances of the person I wanted to see win, and yes, a few minutes earlier, I might have even said this was what I wanted to see.

But as it was actually happening, it just felt cruel.

Van de Velde goes into the Burn

Seeing that roughly half of his ball was not underwater, Van de Velde took his shoes and socks off, rolled up his pants and went into the Burn. How good of an idea was this? Your answer may depend on which side of the Atlantic Ocean you were watching the tournament from.

ABC analyst Curtis Strange indicated that it was a reasonable idea.

“If any part of the ball is above water, just a fraction, you can get it out,” Strange said. “Just hit it like a buried bunker shot.”

BBC announcer Peter Alliss was much more critical. As Van de Velde began to take his shoes off, Alliss made his opinion clear.

“What are you doing? What on earth are you doing? No, Jean, please. Would somebody kindly go and stop him? Give him a large brandy and mop him down.”

That attitude did not change once Van de Velde got into the Burn.

“I’ve never seen anything like it before and to attempt to hit the ball out of there is pure madness, because he could hit the wall, go back in, the ball could hit him, he could end up not finishing in the top 20.”

The problem for Van de Velde wasn’t just that his ball was partially submerged in the water. He also had to clear a wall that was roughly his height — a wall that he was standing no more than a few feet from.

As risky as the shot was to begin with, it only got tougher in the following minutes. While there was not heavy rain at Carnoustie, raindrops were falling. Those created mini ripples in the water, causing the ball to gradually sink further. Van de Velde getting into the water did the same. As if that was not enough, photographers on the other side of the ball were trying to get a good shot of Van de Velde. Some of them had their feet in the water, creating more waves.

Van de Velde, meanwhile, just stood in the Burn, trying to figure out what to do. He had been incredibly aggressive on the 18th hole to that point. But eventually, Van de Velde decided for the more conservative play.

He picked up the ball and took his drop.

Preservation mode

Hitting his fifth shot, Van de Velde finally cleared the Barry Burn. He did not, however, find the green. The ball landed in a greenside bunker, not far from where Parry’s second shot landed. While Van de Velde appeared to be away, his stance would have put his feet close to Parry’s ball. With that, Parry went first — and provided Van de Velde with the best visual possible. Parry’s bunker shot found the bottom of the hole. If Van de Velde could follow, he’d win outright.

While Van de Velde’s bunker shot was not a particularly challenging one, he couldn’t hole it out. There was going to be a playoff. The question now was, would Van de Velde be part of it? He left himself a short, uphill, straight putt — though not a tap-in.

As Van de Velde approached his putt, Alliss and Tirico expressed similar sentiments, which likely went hand-in-hand with anyone watching the respective broadcasts.

“Please give him one good putt. Please,” Alliss said.

“You root against no one. You root for no one. But you’ve got to hope that this goes in,” Tirico said.

Their wishes were granted. Van de Velde buried his putt.

The 18th hole was a complete disaster. Still, though, he had a chance.

The playoff

Lawrie, Leonard, and Van de Velde all headed to the 15th tee for a four-hole aggregate playoff. Van de Velde’s driving issues continued on the first playoff hole. Lawrie and Leonard also found trouble but were able to play their second shots. Van de Velde could not hit his second shot, instead taking an unplayable lie. Lawrie and Leonard made a bogey while Van de Velde made a double.

The struggles continued on the second playoff hole, as all three men made bogeys. Two holes into a playoff, Lawrie, Leonard and Van de Velde were collectively seven-over par. Leonard made a par on No. 17. Interestingly, it was the only par any of the three golfers made in the four-hole playoff. Van de Velde made birdie, briefly tying Lawrie. Lawrie, though, made a birdie of his own and took a one-shot lead to the 18th hole.

Trailing by one shot, Leonard and Van de Velde both found trouble on the 18th tee. Van de Velde’s tee shot went into the rough, while Leonard’s went into the water. Both made bogeys. When Van de Velde played the 18th hole in regulation, a bogey would have won him the tournament. In the playoff, though, he would need a mistake from Lawrie.

That did not happen.

Lawrie’s day

What’s unfortunate about the 1999 Open Championship is that Lawrie’s performance is largely forgotten. Given what happened to Van de Velde, it’s easy to see how Lawrie was overshadowed. But Lawrie didn’t just overcome a 10-shot deficit because the 54-hole leader had a bad day. His final round 67 was magnificent.

Also magnificent was the shot that Lawrie hit to clinch the tournament. After his tee shot on the final playoff hole found the fairway, Lawrie pulled out a four iron. His shot cleared the bunkers guarding the green, landed on the front of the green and rolled up next to the flag.

Playing the same 18th hole that had given Van de Valde and Leonard fits in both regulation and the playoff, Lawrie now had a kick-in birdie. He made it and won the playoff by three shots.

Two things are true about the 1999 Open.

One, Jean van de Velde should have won it.

Two, Paul Lawrie deserved to win it.

Historical perspective

Where does Van de Velde’s 18th-hole at Carnoustie rank among the greatest meltdowns in golf history?

A natural comparison would be what Mickelson did seven years later at the 2006 U.S. Open. In one respect, we might even say that collapse was greater. Van de Velde’s standing in golf in 1999 was nowhere near what Mickelson’s was in 2006. On the other hand, Mickelson didn’t have a lot of margin for error. He needed a par to win outright. Additionally, Winged Foot’s 18th hole at the leaders alive throughout the day. Like Mickelson, Colin Montgomerie (who finished tied for second) double-bogeyed the 18th hole. In fact, the only player in the top five to par the 18th hole that day was Geoff Ogilvy, the champion.

Greg Norman’s loss at the 1996 Masters deserves some recognition. But that happened over the course of a full round. Rory McIlroy’s 2011 Masters loss was also a full-day collapse. And while Jordan Spieth’s meltdown in 2016 was closer to Van de Velde’s it didn’t come on the final hole. Victory was far from assured.

The actual closest comparison might be Kyle Stanley, who took a three-shot lead into the final hole of the Farmers Insurance Open in 2012, made a triple-bogey, and lost in the subsequent playoff. Of course, the Farmers Insurance Open is not the Open Championship.

The more apt comparisons would be the Green Bay Packers choking the NFC Championship Game away against the Seattle Seahawks following the 2014 NFL season or the Atlanta Falcons blowing a 28-3 lead to the New England Patriots in Super Bowl LI. Those meltdowns each came late in the game, with victory seemingly well in hand. And in both cases, we can look at at least a half dozen plays and say with very little doubt that if any had gone different, the result would have changed.

Fallout

Responding to a commentator’s claim that he could have made double-bogey or better on the 18th hole using just his putter, Van de Velde returned to Carnoustie months later and put that theory to the test. He failed twice, but on the third attempt, he succeeded.

That’s consistent with how Van de Velde has handled the last quarter century.

While his name is not on the Claret Jug, Van de Velde arguably has a bigger place in golf history now than he would if he hadn’t collapsed. Is that better or worse? Honestly, it doesn’t matter. We can’t change the past. Van de Velde is part of golf history, something he hasn’t shied away from.

Sources:

Commentary Links: ( ABC broadcast , BBC broadcast )

[Photo Credit: ABC/Golf Channel on X ]

The post Remembering Jean Van de Velde’s surreal collapse 25 years later appeared first on The Comeback: Today’s Top Sports Stories & Reactions .