Tiger Woods and Majors

[statsfreak]

OK, Tiger Woods is a great golfer, and clearly because of his accomplishments and marketing, attendance at tournaments and TV audiences has grown significantly in recent years.

But is it just me, or does it seem that by lengthening courses which are used for the majors, the organizers of these events are just playing into his hands, and to a certain extent enhancing the number of them he will win over his career and reducing the overall "value" of what he is accomplishing?

Don't get me wrong, I think Tiger is a fantastic golfer, and would win his share of tournaments under any circumstances. But setting up courses which place a premium on being long only makes it more likely he will win since it effectively takes a greater number of other tour players out of the equation.

Sure, there might be a couple of average length players who seem to be able to make a run at it in any given tournament, but that is because they are having an excepetional period in terms of some other aspect of their game: either driving accuracy, putting, or just dumb luck I suppose. But generally the players who are at or near the top in the majors recently are all those who can play AND ARE LONG!

:brain Now there is nothing wrong with being a good golfer and being long, but if all the courses for the majors are set up to favour length as the primary characteristic, then only a handful of tour players will generally be in contention, and the best of those will have a chance of winning. That is why you see Tiger, Sergio, Phil, VJ, and a couple of others there in my opinion.

I guess what I would like to see is a return to more traditional setups, so that more of the field will have a realistic chance of contending, so that there might be more interest from a viewer perspective in the majors again. Now maybe that will mean less Tiger, and the sponsors and networks will be less satisfied with that, but overall it might be better for the game.

One or two last comments on The US Open. Where are the announcers who used to be critical of loud, obnoxious, and sometimes down right boorish behaviour from the crowds? Maybe they need to sell less beer, but it seems to me that once golf becomes the WWF, the game needs to take a second look at itself (from an image point of view). Sure Sergio's regripping can be annoying, but so is marking, cleaning, replacing, and then "reading" a six inch tap in putt (which virtually all pros seem to do now). And cat calls about friends from the galleries simply is unacceptable behaviour.

And finally, didn't they call the game yesterday for 50 minutes while it rained and Tiger was on the course....just like Sergio suggested they would?

[4jag]

I don't quite agree with your suggestion that lengthening the courses (esp. The US Open courses) gives an advantage to Tiger.

Yes, the Black course was very long - but the premium was on accuracy over length. You had to hit the fairway to make par (unless you are Tiger and can muscle it out of that knarly rough).

The fact that even Tiger had to hit driver on some holes at this couse when normally he would hit an iron to make sure he was in the fairway, makes it more fair then a shorter course would be.

If the course was shorter but still had the wicked rough, then Tiger would be hitting 4, 3 or 2 iron while most others would still have to hit less accurate clubs like driver or 3 wood.

Heck Corey Pavin (last in driving distance) finished well ahead of John Daly, proving that accuracy is more important then length on these types of courses.

[statsfreak]

Sure Corey finished ahead of John, but I don't think anyone with a driving average of 239 yds was ever going to be a factor in this tournament no matter how many fairways he hit. At that pace, he was destined to bogey at least three par 4s on each round, meaning he was starting the tournament 12 over (hypothetically speaking).

In fact, statistically speaking, Pavin outdrove Tiger (75% fairways hit versus 73%), but he was 41 yards behind Tiger every time he did, meaning he had harder second and third shots to the green. The value of favouring length is shown in the greens in regulation stat, where Tiger was at 74% versus Corey at 55%. If you have 210 yards to go on a par 4 to make the green versus 250 yards, I think I can guess who's putting for bird or par more often between those two players. But shorten that par 4 to a more normal length of lets say 470 yards and even if Tiger hits 2 iron off the tee Corey still has a chance to be on also and putting for bird. That's my point.

[chad]

No matter the USGA and PGA Tour do to ANY course that they play, Tiger will hava an advantage! Let's not forget that he is the # 1 golfer in the world!!!!!

[statsfreak]

I didn't say he wouldn't win, just that the tournaments would be more competitive. Meaning that you wouldn't have to check the first round scores to know whether you should bother to watch golf on the weekend to know who will win.

I would much rather watch five or six guys on the leaderboard on Sunday afternoon with a chance to win than slogging through six hours of coverage knowing that in the end very few players in the field have the tools it takes to win because of the way the course has been set up to favour the skills of a very select group.

But I have past the point of flogging this dead horse, so I guess I'll leave it at that.

[jimrobin]

I agree with Statsfreak.

#7-489yd par 4, #10-492yd par 4, #12-499yd par 4. #16-479yd par 4.

Don't try and tell me Tiger, Phil, VJ, etc. don't have an advantage before they even tee-off. By having holes this long, whether there is thick rough or no rough, Corey Pavin has trouble hitting those greens even from the fairway. If he does land on the green he'll probably roll off the back because he's hitting a 3 wood or 2iron in, where Tiger is hitting a 7 or 8iron and he can hold the green.

The USGA are playing right into Tiger's hands.

Sure he's a great player, probably the best ever, but by playing courses that are over 7200yds long, they are playing right into his strenghts. No wonder he's winning all the time.

They say "Drive for show, Putt for dough" well it sure helps when everybody else is chipping and Tiger is putting. His 2 weekend rounds he had over 65 putts. To me you don't deserve to win a golf tournament by 3 strokes with a stat like that.

[em69]

Hopefully the USGA will realize it soon that they are not doing competitive golf any favours.

For petes sake...look at hole number 10, less than half the field couldn't even make it to the fairway. In some respects and I repeat some, the course was set up way too difficult even for the pros. A lot of players did praise the course but they did admit there were foolish things about it.

Think of it, the top three players were some of the longests hitters in the field. Long courses are better suited to longer hitters....there no ifs, ands or buts about it.

[4jag]

D you guys really think that shortening the courses hurts Tiger while helping the rest of the field?

My only point about Corey Pavin is that he placed ahead of a long ball bomber John Daly because accuracy is more important then length on US Open courses. You have a better chance of hitting the green with a 3 iron from the fairway then a 8 iron from that rough. Of course, Pavin will never beat Tiger on any length US Open course.

Tiger will still hit more GIRs on a 6500 yrd course only he'll be coming in with 9iron or pw and be putting for birdie from 6 ft instead of 20ft.

The only way shorter courses even the field is if they also mow the rough down and let everyone swing from their sphinkters and spray the ball with no penalty.

The winning score will be -30 and it likely still be Tiger.

[jimrobin]

I disagree.
At 6500 yards all the players will be hitting 9's & PW's in and have 10 footers for birdie. The competition will be won by the best player that week. It maybe Tiger, it may not. At least there will be a competion instead of putting Tiger's name on the trophy the Tuesday BEFORE the tournament.
Par 70 at over 7200, only a few player even stand a chance. At least with a shorter course, more players will be able to compete.

[chad]

OK then, so what does "the field" do when the par 4's are around say 420 when Tiger hits a 2 iron stinger and wedge to the green??? Like I said before Tiger is #1 for a reason. He is just that much better then the the rest of the Field.

And what exactly did Vijay and Phil do with there HUGE advantage??? If I am correst Vijay tied for 30th, that advantage served him well!!!!!!!!!!!

[4jag]

I don't want to see the Majors or any PGA golf tourney decided by a chipping and putting contest. It it much more exciting to see the best palyers in the world work hard for par. Even the world number 1 was only -3 after 4 rounds.

The real trick to evening out courses is strategic placement of hazards not shortening the course.

Put bunkers or creek at 310-330 yrds down the fairway and let the big boys hit 3 wood while the rest of the field hits driver. Although I don't think that courses s/b setup to handicap long hitters by penalizing good shots.

[jimrobin]

That I agree with.
Set a course where hazards come into play alot. Make players think their way around the course instead of powering around the course. Chances are Tiger will still win, but aleast they will not be taking players out of the competion by making it a power show. Make courses Par 72 around 7100 yards. This way power helps but does not dominate.

Look at it this way. On Sunday Tiger took 37 putts and still won by 3 strokes. This was a major, wouldn't you like to see the player playing his best win, not the player whose game sets up best to that course and plays average. With the lenght that Bethpaige Black was, Tiger really only had to bring his "B" game to win. Where guys like Faldo & Maggert brought their "A" games and really didn't stand a chance (5 & 8 strokes back).

[jimrobin]

4jag
"I don't want to see the Majors or any PGA golf tourney decided by a chipping and putting contest."


Well I wasn't very impressed watching Tiger hitting for the middle of greens and lagging putts either. Like they say "You putt for dough." Most times the winner is the hottest player around the greens. Well that certainly wasn't the case this weekend. Why? Because the course was set-up for Tiger's strength's and really the tournament was over on Thursday night.

[McGavin]

Although I agree that longer courses may fit Tiger's game, I don't think they are doing it FOR Tiger nor do I think they should start making courses shorter.

With the emerging of all this young talent and the improvement in golf equipment it is quite necessary to try and lengthen these courses. Look at it this way.... in 1990 no golfer averaged even 280 yards per drive... yet in 2001 only 11 years later you've got 89 guys hitting over 280 yards per drive. With the leader averaging over 27 yards more per drive. Those numbers are astronomical. Over 100 guys on tour averaged 279 or more last year and thats plenty to reach those par 4's in 2.

Traditionally the U.S. Open has done everything in its power to protect par in their tournament. In 1970 at Hazeltine the course played at 7,151 yards as a par 72... only 63 yards further than this year. Those guys as a whole were hitting way shorter than the tour pros today. At the Black course they made the greens extra slippery and the rough super thick. The premium was accuracy... Tiger was tied for 7th in fairways hit and 1st in greens in regulation. I disagree that the premium in this U.S. Open was to be long... rather it was being straight. If you look at the leaders of this tournament there isn't a really strong correlation with driving distance and scores. Only 4 of the top ten leaders were in the top 25 in driving distance... while 9 of the top ten were in the top 25 in fairways hit.

Length should be a factor in detemining the best golfer in the world... if you look at the best players of all time.... Palmer, Nicklaus, Jones, Snead etc... they all outdrove most of the field in their primes. Players now are just hitting it a lot further than they did only a decade ago and golf courses are just beginning to adjust to their length.

I really don't think Tiger won this week because of his length... although it did help him, as it should.

Also... they stopped play during the final round because there was a thunderstorm nearby... not because it was raining. Tiger played most of round 2 in rain... although it certainly wasn't pouring like it was when the afternoon guys were hitting.

Just my humble opinion,

McGavin

[martymcfly]

With a shorter course at the US Open last weekend, someone like Nick Faldo would have been a lot closer. His ball striking was incredible over the 4 days, but he just doesn't have the length.

That course needed both length and accuracy. I could have played the course, hit 7iron all day, advancing 160 yds at a time and never lose a ball. I'd be right down the middle, but I'd never be close to the lead.

They needed a lot of distance with a lot of accuracy. That is what Tiger had. The truth is, his putting won the tournament. On day 1 he made a number of tough par putts. Without those, he would not have been in the lead. 10 and 12 ft par putts are not easy, and he made them look routine.

[4jag]

jimrobin -
"This was a major, wouldn't you like to see the player playing his best win"
No, this is not a handicapped event. The best player should win (and he did) which is not always the guy playing his best.

Sure, with a shorter course Faldo would have shot a lower score but so would have Tiger and any number of other guys.

[jimrobin]

McGavin:
I'm not disagreeing with anything you said, except that course accuracy thing. With the length of BPB, guys had to "grip it 'n' rip it" this week whether they wanted to or not, because of the lenght of the course. That was #1. If they hit the fairway bonus. If the shorter hitters were able to hit 2 irons & 3 woods like Tiger, they wouldn't of reached the par 4s in two. This course was length dominent (4-par 4's over 480yds). I just suggest they find a happy medium with hazards, length, rough length, bunkers, water, small landing areas, etc. then to try and try not to make the course's length the major hazard. Like I said, "This tournament was virtually over on Thursday night."

Tiger knew that. On Saturday and Sunday he wasn't playing to win the tournament, he was playing to NOT lose the tournament. He knew even par on those 2 days would probably win. If on the back 9 on Sunday he had to turn it up a notch he would. He wasn't shooting at pins, he wasn't putting aggressively, he was lagging putts.

That's not the way Majors should be won. Maybe the back 9 on Sunday, but certainly not all weekend.

[spidey]

What a bunch of whiners.

1 - The fact that the course is long gives Tiger an edge.

What a bunch of crap. ALL long hitters have an advantage if the course is long. Tiger is not the only long hitter. And he's not the longest hitter. And Faldo played awesomely even though he averaged something pitiful like 255 yds.

2 - Tiger only has to bring his "B" game.

Give me a break. NO golfer can guarantee his best shots will happen on 18 on Sunday. Tiger wins based on how well he plays over 4 days. He played well enough on Thursday-Friday to give him the space that he needed. He played his best rounds before Sunday. Is that the fault of the USGA??????

3 - The course should be set up to allow more competitors to vie for the championship.

OK, so, I'm the USGA and I should make a championship setup so that the best players in the world can get beaten by somebody who's lucky this week. Hm... that would be real good for my image.

Personally, I think that when you get the longest, straightest, best all around players to come to the top of the leaderboard on Sunday, and the acknowledged best player in the world comes out on top by a couple of strokes, then you have a prestigious championship and a fair winner.

Maybe I sympathize with all those pros? NOT A CHANCE. Guys like Davis Love have already been beaten by the Tiger phenomenon from the beginning. Lots of them are intimidated by his repeated winning, and it's a psychological advantage to Tiger. It's not the course setup... DUH!!!!

Think about it. Tiger won by 3 strokes. Phil Mickelson is RIGHT. All you have to do is shoot a lower score. Other guys have won majors when Tiger is in the field. A couple more birdies here or there, a few less bogeys or doubles and... presto. David Duval takes home the claret jug... or Vijay takes home the Wanamaker.

When I play in a tournament, I already know that the long hitters are going to be able to recover easier and birdie easier... everything easier. And if the long hitters are on their games, then it's like shooting fish in a barrel. I'm sunk. Well, Tiger has figured out how to be the most accurate and mentally tough long hitter in the modern game.

I pull for Mickelson, Duval, Furyk, Singh, Love... and Tiger. And whoever has the complete package (including getting away with marginal shots because he's built up a cushion) is who I admire as the champion. The field are NOT pushovers. Nicklaus says he had tougher competition. BS. Nobody could hit the ball back then like they do now. Nobody played on immaculate greens like they do now. If Tiger slips and gives them a window, the field will eat him alive. Sergio and Mickelson were sitting right there waiting for him, and if Tiger had hit one OB, or made a double anywhere, there would have been blood. But he didn't. And now we have a continent full of sour grapes. Go Tiger!

[chad]

Thank you 4jag, he put it the best!! The best player won wether the course was too hard for everybody but him (wich some people are suggesting) or not! He won that's all that counts!

He may nbot have had to bring his A game but that's whart happens when your a Tiger.

[McGavin]

McFly,

Tiger hit more fairways and more greens than Faldo over the 4 days. There putting stats are almost identical.

JimRobin,

Tiger's short game was unbelievable during the first two days.... making birdie putts from everywhere and getting one up-and-down after another. On the weekend he put on a ball striking clinic. On Sunday he only missed 2 fairways and missed 3 greens. His putting was bad.... but he made up for it in other areas. He was trying to protect his lead. He was trying to make pars. He was trying to win a major. He was trying to play smart. He did all of these things. And whenever there was a challenge he answered the bell.

During the course of these four days he showed that he could excel in every aspect of the game and tamed an incredibly difficult course. Why won't people give credit where it was due? Every time this guy wins I am reading about how people helped him win and how the course was "set up" for Tiger. Is Augusta set up for Tiger? Was Pebble Beach set up for him? How about the oldest golf course in the world? Which I agree is well suited for his game... but when you do everything well.... all courses look like they are set up for his game...

JMHO

McGavin

[jimrobin]

Spidey
You trying to tell me 37 putts is his "A" game.

McGavin:
Sorry, but with the ability of the PGA players, to me, being able to hit the middle of a green is not a ball striking clinic. (which is what Tiger did). Then again it was all that he had to do also.

Yes Tiger is amazing, and I give him credit, all I'm saying is, at that length, the USGA is bringing out an aspect of Tiger's game that other great players don't have. If they keep doing this, they might as well put his name on every trophy.

Why do you need four par 4's that are 480+ yards? To me that doesn't prove who is the best. That proves to me that if you can hit it far you have a better chance. I have no problem having a long par 4 on a course, but to have 4 on the same course is silly. What's wrong with 450 yd par 4's with alot of hazards (water, bunkers, trees, doglegg, etc.) I just think the better test is to think your way around the course and bring out all aspects of a game.
My opinion, BPB brought out 1 major aspect, which was POWER.

BTW: How many par 4's at 480+ yds are there in the Ottawa area?

[spidey]

jimrobin announces....
Spidey
You trying to tell me 37 putts is his "A" game.

I already answered this...

spidey said....
Tiger wins based on how well he plays over 4 days. He played well enough on Thursday-Friday to give him the space that he needed. He played his best rounds before Sunday. Is that the fault of the USGA??????

You don't deserve the trophy based on how many putts you made or missed on one day....

[spidey]

BTW: How many par 4's at 480+ yds are there in the Ottawa area?

The answer to this is obvious. First, the USGA would never agree that there are ANY US Open calibre venues in Ottawa. Second, any par 72 course they choose would have 2 par 5's converted to 475+ yd par 4's for the championship. So if they pick a course in the Ottawa area then it will automatically have two 475-499yd par 4's.

Either way, this debate is OLD. Who cares what the par is. It's all about who scores the lowest average on all the holes. They can call it a par 1 if they want. The fact is that you still have to go out and play it as best you can.

[martymcfly]

McGavin,

Lets be serious. Yes Tiger might have hit more fairways and greens than Faldo but it has to do with Faldo having to swing out of his shoes to cover the distance.

On a course of that length, Faldo's best can't beat Tiger on an average day.

Tiger is the best right now. No questions about it. The problem is, everybody knew going into the US Open that only a handful of players could compete. Duval, Singh etc... they choked and struggled. Mickelson and Garcia hung in there. Players like Faldo and Mayfair and Maggert never had a chance because of the length.

If they played there again next year, the top 6 hopefuls would be similar: Tiger, Mickelson, Garcia, Singh, Love and Duval and then add some Europeans. Why? Because they have the length. The others don't. There is no point in playing when your best golf won't get you close.

Why invite 144 golfers to play a tournament that only 6 or 7 have a chance to win? That's what a course like that does.

That would be like having a boxing tournament. Invite Lennox Lewis and a couple heavyweight contenders, then invite a bunch of middleweights and lightweights. See who wins. Only the heavyweights have a chance. The others are wasting their time.

At any point did you think there might be a surprise winner at this US Open? NO WAY.

[chad]

ok this is getting really old, so we will just say that Tiger was the only contender because of his length and the rest of the field, well...we will say they were there just to practice and maybee get a couple of good shots of them on TV!!!!!

[jimrobin]

Thank you Marty!!!!!!!

I agree 500%.

[martymcfly]

Chad,

Would you be willing to play in a tournament with 100 golfers, 10 of whom are at least 10 strokes better than you, on a course where you know you will be lucky to reach the fairway on some holes and the 10 better golfers will easily reach them?

Not only would you not win, but you would be wasting your time.

Maybe it's a major so they want to have the elite on Sunday TV but anybody can win the weekly events. There are different winners all the time. Short hitters, long hitters, great thinkers etc...

[chad]

First of all, I enjoy golfing with people that are better than me. I find that I play a bit better plus I learn a lot from them. But that's besides the point.

We are not talking about me playing in tournaments where people are 10 shots better than me anyways so I don't understand what that has do do with anything!!!

Are you saying that the pro's (other than those with the supposed huge advantage over the others) playing in the US Open thaught that they were gonna lose from the begining?? What would be the point of them rvrn playing then? So like I said I guess they just wanted to be seen on TV!!!
:mad:

[spidey]

If I'm playing in a tournament that's meant to be for the best players in the game, and there are guys who are 10 strokes better than me, then I'm in the wrong tournament.

OTOH, no matter how many excellent players there are, somebody is going to be 10, 20, 30 strokes behind by the end of the tournament. And even the guy who comes last can whip any one of us any day of the week.

In fact, there were over 8,000 individual entries for the US Open, and the maximum index for local qualifying is less than 2.0. So, I bet the worst golfer who got into local qualifying can still spot any of us 2 strokes a side and clean us.

[martymcfly]

Of course there are players in the US Open who don't think they can win on a course like that. They would never admit it, but let's be serious. How many seniors played in the tournament?

Bruce Fleisher declined invitation because the course is too long and he can't compete. He has the guts to admit he can't win.

Do you think Corey Pavin thought he could win? Maybe if a lot of other golfers dropped out.

The pros could not turn down an invitation. Their reputation would be ruined.