Tiger Woods and Majors

[4jag]

Funny how you don't hear any of the players complain about the layout of BPB - quite the opposite in fact, they all raved about it- even the short guys.

And it's not because they are afraid to say anything, they've all whined like babies at previous US Opens - the rough is too high, the greens are too fast, the pins are in bad positions waa, waa.

Seem that only a few guys on this thread think the course was too long? I say leave it to the experts to decide that.

Tiger would have won regardless of length of the course. Period.

[jimrobin]

Tiger might of won no matter whatever the length I agree. Its just that at the length the course was, you're making the best player in the world even better because you are playing to his strength.
This weekend, I was bored watching the US Open on TV. There was no excitment. There was no emotion. You guys that are arguing, were any of you sitting on the edge of your seat watching this? Did Tiger do any of his big fist pumps? Did any of you bet against Tiger? Did any of you really think he was going to lose?
I didn't think so. Because of the course layout, it gave the #1 player in the world a distinct advantage over a majority of the field.
I don't understand what there is to argue about. The length of the course was an advantage to Tiger period. To me the only thing to argue if we are going to argue is, should the USGA continue to have the tournaments on extra long courses or not.
I think not.
The NHL changed rules when Gretzky and the Oilers were together to keep things competitive (off-setting penalties). Why does the USGA pick courses that make Tiger even more dominate.

Why not pick courses that are difficult with their layout (i.e. island greens, small greens, small landing areas, fairway bunkers in strategic locations, long rough, tight fairways, etc.) In my mind, it sure would make things alot more exciting, at least I think so.

[martymcfly]

That is completely true. Making a course extremely long favours the #1 player. To be #1 he should beat everyone at their game, on a course of an average length.

It would be like making the baskets in the NBA 1 ft higher, so fewer and fewer people could dunk. It would make it harder for the majority but not all.

[Kilroy]

Originally posted by martymcfly
It would be like making the baskets in the NBA 1 ft higher, so fewer and fewer people could dunk. It would make it harder for the majority but not all.

Wouldn't that play into the tallest players hand (not nessesarily the best player)?

John Daly is not even in the top 30

Long is not all that Tiger is. I thought he played smart on Sunday. He opened with 2 bogies, took a reality check, and then get very cautious, to not throw it away. Not the most exiting tv ever, but I enjoyed it.

[statsfreak]

Great to see a good exchange of views on this subject.

As I mentioned at the beginning, this was not about whether or not Tiger would win the US Open on a layout which didn't put so much of a premium on length (I'm sure he would still have a better than even chance of doing) but simply that it would be more interesting from a spectator point of view to have more of the field be able to challenge him. If that means that someone from out of the pack has a career tournament and manages to win I don't think that diminishes the prestige of the tournament but it certainly makes it more interesting for the spectators.

Looking forward to the British Open where the courses retain more of their traditional characteristics, providing more opportunities for all.

Now, for my next topic, how about we discuss what to call it if Tiger does manage to win all four majors this year, since some have already said he has won the Grand Slam. (hehe)

[big easy]

Take for instance #17 at Sawgrass. Without two miraculous shots (one putt from the fringe after his ball almost went in the water and the miraculous putt that every one remembers from the back edge of the green), Tiger is not really successful on this hole. I would say, he is "human" on this hole. To be honest, he is probably as scared as other players on the Tour when facing this monster.

I have also in mind par 5 (17th) at Valderrama where Tiger sent is ball in the water trying to reach this short par 5 (officially 467yds) and where Mike Weir won his unique "major". Let these players managing courses rather than forcing them to take risks all the time because they won't reach the fairways with a 270yds drive.

I'm not trying to denigrate his awesome talent, but the PGA tour will have to react. Lenghten courses is clearly not a solution. Even if a tournament is won at 30 under par, who cares? We will surely be more interested to watch it on TV knowing that there is room for someone else...

[Colby]

I'm not sure who has seen this article,

http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/story?id=1396374

but there are some great comments in it from some of the best.

Quote:

Blame the comfortable living that golf can provide even middling pros, the five said.

"Tiger Woods won $1 million for winning the U.S. Open,'' Palmer said. "The total prize money my first year on the Tour (1954) was $750,000. ... If you weren't in the top one or two, in a couple of years you were back home mining coal.''

Now, Player said, on the Super Senior circuit for golfers age 60 and up, "If you don't fall out of the golf cart you can make 10 grand.''

End quote.

Another interesting article that I have read is on conditioning:

http://www.badgolfmonthly.com/anti8.htm

[4jag]

The notion that the USGA is making courses longer to suit Tiger Woods is ridiculous.

They are not catering to the world's number one player. Your logic is backwards. The reason, in large part, that he is # 1 is because he is long. Tiger has a length advantage on all sizes of golf course.

Courses are longer because technology makes it so. The world #1 whether it is Tiger or not, will always be a long ball hitter. Shortening course doesn't change that fact.

Turning courses in to "mini-putt" layouts with hazards everywhere, island greens on all par 3's etc. is not a direction that the PGA should or will go. What's next, windmills on the putting greens?

The tour players want pure, difficult golf courses - this requires length that has grown with technology.
I ask again where are the players that are complaining about the length of BPB?

The 17th at Valderama was a joke. Many players complained about it. Do you really think players should be penalized like that (ball rolling back in to water) after hitting the middle of the green with a great shot? Mickey Mouse.

[chad]

Yet again 4jag comes through!!!

[martymcfly]

If they made BPB longer on each hole by 30 yards, how many people would be able to compete? Who would have a realistic chance of winning? Then make it another 20 yards longer... you slowly eliminate potential winners.

What is wrong with 17 at Valderama? Yes the green is sloped, so hit a different shot. It requires a player to hit more than just a high shot that spins back 10ft. They have to hit a controlled shot, with no spin.

Keep the courses a reasonable length. Make fairways narrower, make greens more sloped, add bunkers and water hazards. Force people to play different kinds of shots.

[jimrobin]

4jag
Your missing the point.
The point we're trying to make is make the course long & difficult, but not extra long. Force players to use ever club in their bag and think their way around the course. To me that is a real test. Not just "Gripping it 'N" Ripping it" like 85% of the golfers had to do last week.

By setting up a course like BPB all the USGA did was make the #1 player in the world even more dominate. Do you really need 4 par4's 480+ yds. To me all they are doing is testing the same aspect of a players game over and over again. I think they should have a couple of extra long holes, some short holes, lots hazards, water, trees, tight fairways, etc.
MIX IT UP. TEST THE PLAYER'S WHOLE BAG.
For a majorty of the player's all BPB tested was their woods, long irons & putter.

Even Chris DiMarco stated that he was going to remove his 8 or 9 iron from his bag because he knew he wouldn't need it. Now when players are doing that, something is wrong.

To me, last week did not prove who was best all-around golfer, it proved that if you can hit the ball a tonne, you could compete. Tiger beat the guys that could compete.

And with comments like windmills on greens, I don't even know why I responded.

[4jag]

jimrobin-
"To me, last week did not prove who was best all-around golfer"
Guess what? The best all around golfer won - imagine that.

I'm not saying make it longer (yet) - I'm saying don't make it shorter.

BPB was NOT a grip-it and rip-it course, did you guys not watch? Players were hitting whatever club could put them in the fairway. Accuracy first. (the exception being forced 270-yrd carry to the fairway which I agree is excessive.) Grip-it and rip-it courses don't penalize missed fairways.

Hitting a no spin shot in to V-17 would result in bouncing over the green and chipping back down the slope towards the water like Wier had to. The only real option is laying up - wow, isn't that exciting.

[jimrobin]

Yes, I did watch, and guys had to grip it 'N' rip it to get home. If they hit the fairway it was a bonus. There was only a select few that were able to hit clubs other then driver off the tee, and those guys were the ones you saw on Sat & Sun. The other guys were either cut, or back in the pack so they didn't get any TV coverage.
I bet if you ask a majority of the players last week, most of them used only about 10 different clubs last week. If you & I played that course, we'd used about 5 different clubs (driver, 3wood, 3iron, whatever you chip with, & putter). Now many that maybe an exageration, but you get the point.
I'd like to see players test their whole game, and not just a driver & long iron which is what BPB did.

[martymcfly]

So did everybody spin off the green into the water?

There were people who don't spin the ball as much who landed on the green and stayed there.

Most golfers at BPB had to swing harder than normal just to have a chance.

[McGavin]

I still think the USGA is just trying to protect par in the Open. They tried to make the course as difficult as possible. Short of tricking the course up... they did what they could. Hell in 1970 the guys were playing a course that was 7151 yards. What were they hitting into the greens?

If you look at what I wrote in the first thread it is so blatantly obvious that players are hitting the ball a TON further than they did even 5 or 6 years ago.

I understand that it helped Tiger that the course is long.... but it also helped most of the great golfers throughout golf's history.

4jag also brings up a good point that other tour players weren't complaining. These guys whine about most everything. If a course was all tricked up they'd be whining like crazy.

I watched the entire tournament and it definitely was not all about "grippin it and rippin it".

Mcgavin

[jimrobin]

Let me re-phase that.

I'd like to see players test their whole game (all 14 clubs), and not just a driver & long iron OVER & OVER & OVER AGAIN, which is what BPB did.
4-par4's 480+ yds. The players probably felt they played the same hole 4 times in one round. Mix it up a little.

Anyways guys, thanks for the discussion. I'm out of here.

JR

[statsfreak]

I know we beat this to death just after the US Open, but since the British Open (or "The Open Championship" as the Brits like to refer to it) is just around the corner, I was having a look at The Open website and found this piece with some interesting quotes from the pros themselves which I thought should be shared.


Muirfield will identify the true champion
16-Jul-2002 14:35

Davis Love III - Muirfield will decide the best player
© Harry How/ALLSPORT

One of the game's longest hitters, Davis Love III, does not agree with lengthening courses to combat the power of Tiger Woods. "It is courses like Muirfield that better decide who's the best player. It brings a bigger field into the equation much more so than the US Open or the Masters and that's the way it ought to be. At the US Open only players like Tiger Woods, myself, Phil Mickelson and Sergio Garcia - guys who hit it long - had any chance. There were players like Nick Faldo who played their hearts out but just couldn't get there. At the Masters no one played better than Olazabal, but there was just too much golf course for him and he couldn't handle it."

Greg Norman, twice an Open winner, agreed: Length is not a premium here even when the wind blows. It's accuracy and shaping the ball that counts. Length can be an asset on a couple of holes, but not all 18. The golf course is excellent and very balanced.

[NoBack]

Tiger Woods, myself??????, Phil Mickleson, Sergio.............
good one!

[statsfreak]

Hey, a guy can dream, can't he? How does that old saying go, "If you don't believe in yourself how do you expect anyone else to?"

[mr shank]

Re. British Open & the comments of Davis Love - no way does the British allow the best golfer to win. The golfer who hits the ball well & gets lucky bounces will win. Take a look at the players who have contended at the British recently - Van deVelde, Brian Watts, Paul Lawrie won it - where are these guys now?
The British Open is a lot of hype for a tournament played on courses that most golfers would scoff at if they played on them.
The history of the tournemt is great, but the players who win aren't always as great.
As for Davis Love - he's talking like he's a has been.

[em69]

Aaah Mr. Shank...wake up and smell the coffee. Have a look at the list of great golfers who won over the last 15 years.

1986 Greg Norman
1987 Nick Faldo
1988 Seve Ballesteros
1989 Mark Calcavecchia
1990 Nick Faldo
1991 Ian Baker-Finch
1992 Nick Faldo
1993 Greg Norman
1994 Nick Price
1995 John Daly
1996 Tom Lehman
1997 Justin Leonard
1998 Mark O'Meara
1999 Paul Lawrie
2000 Tiger Woods
2001 David Duval

So your saying that these golfers only won because they got some lucky bounces???
That's funny.

[big easy]

You have more "no name" in the British Open because the field is composed of players who do not cross the ocean too often to play in USA. I think that sometime, Tiger is very lucky also to have so much people surrounding the course to block balls clearly going in deep trouble...

I don't think that you can win a major only because you are lucky. I think that every part of your game must fall together during four days and luck is only one part of your success. I agree that if you are not lucky, you will not win (Greg Norman...) but you can't win only by luck... Because we don't know players doesn't mean that they are not good enough to be in contention in a major. Great golf is played on the European Tour. PGA isn't everything...

[mr shank]

em69 & big easy - Better read my post again. I said the golfer "who hits it well" and has lucky bounces will win. We all know you can't win on luck alone, but in the British Open luck plays more of a factor than in any other major.
Take a look at the players that are in contention every year. This tournament simply doesn't always allow the cream to rise to the top.
You can dig up all the stats you like but if you actually watch the tournament every year & see what the leaderboard looks like you'll realize that this tournament allows many "no names" a chance to win.
Aaah em69, better wake up & smell the tea...

[statsfreak]

I agree with big easy that they may be "no names" over here simply because they choose to play on the European Tour and so have not had the exposure to North American audiences. But that doesn't make them any less talented than Garcia or Montgomerie (sp?). That is one of the attractions of The Open, the chance to see a Van deVelde or Lowrie once in a while.

As for lucky bounces, lets just say that it takes a particular talent to play on courses which are a bit closer to natural layouts than the sanitized, overly manicured tracts the pros on this side of the Atlantic are used to playing on. So there might be a fine line between lucky and playing the course the way it has to be played in order to score well!

[em69]

Good bounces...bad bounces...luck or no luck...no matter how you look at it, the golfer who wins any tournament is the best golfer for that tournament.

As for the "cream rising to the top"...if your referring to North American players, then maybe it is because they do not know how to play links style courses. North Americans need to learn how to play pitch and runs which are imperative in any British Open. You can't just fly the ball to the hole.

And by the way, the courses in the UK are in the best shape they can be in. They do not get very many beautiful summer days , so the grass grows differently over there. On many occasions, they will get all four seasons in one day (yes snow in July). We've all seen the players pull out there touques during most British Opens.

Everyone is playing the same course.

[NoBack]

Not that I dont like Tiger winning, but it sure was a great day to be watching the British Open. It was indeed a blast watching the elements make these guys look mortal and just like a weekend hacker.

Now I am in no way saying I could do better, in fact the opposite it most likely true but, it was nice to see that the length of these guys shots, including the not-so-GOD-like Tiger Woods, was not a factor.:o

So the BEST golfer in the world or the longest ball hitters wont win this one. The one that will beat the elements and the course will...........

[faldo]

Lots of interesting thoughts lads.
Can anybody suggest why 6 of the last 7 British Opens have been won by the "Yanks" who mostly hate this kind of golf with weather, bump & runs & less than immaculate conditions while they have a lot more trouble with their own Championship?? The foreigners always are at the top & often leave with the title........

[The Shtick]

After a human like round for Tiger (81 on Saturday), I must admit that this morning's 65 was very impressive....

What would the world think if he scored another 81 Sunday?

I'm not a very big Tiger fan but he still is Mr. Sunday in my books...

[golfdoc]

The bets golfer always wins. That is why he is the winner, the one who gets the big cheque. It's because he played the best during the four days.

The British is the best test for all golfers. More golfers have a chance to win than any other major. There are long holes, short holes, good weather, bad weather, tough greens, easy greens. Everybody has a chance. Whoever plays the best after 4 days wins. Plain and simple.

Ernie Els was the best golfer. He won. That's it.

Don't make excuses. Don't say the best golfer doesn't win the British Open because the best golfer wins every week.

If you disagree, who was a better golfer than Ernie Els at the British Open?