The Masters has a least 2 advantages in being able to give us so called "better" champions. 1. Being that it's the only major played on the same course, the the veteran players that stay in the top 50 or are former champions get to come back year after year and have much better knowledge of the course than most of the field. 2. The field is limited and they have about 50 less players than the other 3 majors. This makes the chances of a Ben Curtis, Rich Beem, Shawn Micheel, Todd Hamilton, John Daly victory much less probable.
My least favorite major
- Thread starter mgranato
- Start date
- Status
birly-shirly
New
I agree on both points. Which do you think is more significant?
Everyone talks about how links golf at the Open is a different game, but how often do we see a genuine links specialist come through? Clarke is a very rare exception, I would argue. I seem to remember that Ben Curtis claimed that he was shown how to play a pitch and run by his caddy during his practice week at Troon. Not exactly "in the blood".
Everyone talks about how links golf at the Open is a different game, but how often do we see a genuine links specialist come through? Clarke is a very rare exception, I would argue. I seem to remember that Ben Curtis claimed that he was shown how to play a pitch and run by his caddy during his practice week at Troon. Not exactly "in the blood".
I guess I think it's a combination. Playing against Tiger and Phil who both have 60 plus competitive rounds and are also better than you is tough. For Guys like Langer, Olazabal, and Crenshaw who all won twice but didn't really figure in too many of the other majors I think it was familiarity, good memories and great chipping and putting. As far as links specialist, obviously Watson and I think Tiger. He had some dominating Open's and I think he'll get a few more wins over there. Everyone thinks Augusta is the best place for Tiger, but now that there are 25 guys as long as him, I don't think so. At the Open he doesn't have to worry about Phil and Rory. So many players that don't embrace the conditions at the Open are eliminated.
Kevin Shields
Super Moderator
I think the the tournament that has identified the best champions year after year is the World Championship/World Series at Firestone.
I think Tiger would agree. Have you played there Kevin? I always loved watching the event. Seems like a very "fair" course where the winning score is never very low. Not many doglegs. Driver isn't taken out of the bag. Seems like a US Open type course. I know they had a couple PGA's there.
Kevin Shields
Super Moderator
It is a great course with no tricks. Very straight forward. Demands long, accurate shots and can attacked many ways. Can't fake it there. One of my favorites.
Lindsey Newman
New
How about all the questioning of the "up" tee on 16. Furyk is still hinting that that was almost trickery. Gimme a break. If you can't hit a slinger then don't try. Like he and Cowan could not "calculate", in the five minutes they take to hit a shot, how far they could hit it straight?
Course was awesome, USGA took it easy on them and they should be thankful.
Course was awesome, USGA took it easy on them and they should be thankful.
birly-shirly
New
Yep. I think that forcing players to "think on their feet" is actually a great response to the technological advances. I wouldn't be averse to seeing driving distance rolled back through limiting the ball, but changing tees seems a much more subtle response than ever narrower fairways and deeper rough. And the more Furyk goes on about it, the more convinced I'll be.
Based on 16's hole geometry...which curved the entire first 400 yards or so...comparing the back tee to the Sunday forward tee, the Sunday shot would require slightly less draw...and if they are hitting a shorter club like Hybrid or 2 Iron (McDowell), maybe 3W, then should not be a real problem. Except it's 3 holes to go in a major. Is this where fluff should say " Nice standard X (3W, 2I, Hybrid) you got this fine. Make par and go on."
aaron_lohan
New
You are basing your knowledge on what somebody wrote on wikipedia?
You say that at players didnt use driver more because their skill level isnt high enough; Ben Hogan never went for the green in 2 on the par 4 11th at Augusta, does that mean his iron play isn't good enough?
Dariusz J.
New member
For a very basic knowledge Wikipedia is the best. Didn't you know it ?
Geez....that was his strategy, and that was only one hole he decided to play this way (or maybe there were two or three). You are free to think that his iron play sucked for this hole.
Opposite to driver whackers for whom it is a constant lottery where they send the ball on any possible hole.
Cheers
Slightly better? Which record would you want...
Furyk
2000 - 60th
2001 - T62
2002 - Missed Cut
2003 - 1
2004 - T48
2005 - T28
2006 - T2
2007 - T2
2008 - T36
2009 - T33
2010 - T16
2011 - Missed Cut
2012 - T4
Tiger
2000 - 1
2001 - T12
2002 - 1
2003 - T20
2004 - T17
2005 - 2
2006 - Missed Cut
2007 - T2
2008 - 1
2009 - T6
2010 - T4
2011 - DNP
2012 - T21
Not true. Nicklaus hit shots Hogan couldn't even dream of. So good, Bobby Jones (Greatest golfer of all time according to Nicklaus) had to say while watching Jack win the Masters in '65, "He's playing a game I'm not familiar with. Oh yeah, Jones saw Hogan play too.
If Hogan had to play against Tiger, I don't think Tiger would have been intimidated at all. Tiger is just as much a steely competitor as Hogan ever was, maybe even more cut-throat. I would bet Hogan would consider Tiger's win at Pebble Beach as impressive as his was in 1953 at Oakmont. Every other great player from the past who saw Tiger's win says it was phenomenal, why would Hogan feel any different? I would bet a lot of money Hogan did not putt the worst against the field in 1953.
If this is true, how can someone who has witnessed ZERO US Opens, say anything that's authoratative? Especially someone who is standing in SEVERE rough in Poland.
BTW, the field at the 1953 US Open was a pretty weak one. Not trying to discount Hogan's performance, but the level of competition compared to 2000 is not even close.
Ben Hogan 67-72-73-71--283 $5,000
Sam Snead 72-69-72-76--289 $3,000
Lloyd Mangrum 73-70-74-75--292 $1,500
Pete Cooper 78-75-71-70--294 $816
Jimmy Demaret 71-76-71-76--294 $816
George Fazio 70-71-77-76--294 $816
Ted Kroll 76-71-74-74--295 $450
Dick Metz 75-70-74-76--295 $450
Marty Furgol 73-74-76-73--296 $325
Jay Hebert 72-72-74-78--296 $325
a-Frank Souchak 70-76-76-74--296
Fred Haas 74-73-72-78--297 $200
Bill Ogden 71-78-75-73--297 $200
Jack Burke Jr. 76-73-72-77--298 $200
Dutch Harrison 77-75-70-76--298 $200
Bobby Locke 78-70-74-76--298 $200
Julius Boros 75-72-76-76--299 $200
Clarence Doser 74-76-78-71--299 $200
Bill Nary 76-74-73-76--299 $200
Jim Turnesa 75-78-72-74--299 $200
Gardner Dickinson 77-73-76-74--300 $162
Doug Ford 74-77-74-75--300 $162
Al Mengert 75-71-78-76--300 $162
Bob Rosburg 76-72-78-74--300 $162
Last edited:
Dariusz J.
New member
OMG...this is what happens when someone does not read carefully what's going on...and has an agenda.
I said clearily -- in the last decade. Do you know what a decade mean ?
Yeah. And that is precisely why Nicklaus said that Hogan was EASILY the best ballstriker he ever saw. ROFL.
What this mumbling has to do with my post ?
Because I am reading what people (including greats, much better players than Miller) saw and wrote.
ROFL. Let me ask only three questions:
- is behind the 2000 Tiger a better golfer than Snead was behind Hogan ?
- is behind the 2000 Tiger a better US Opens contender than Boros was behind Hogan ?
- do you interest a little with history of golf ? are you familiar with some names as e.g. Turnesa, Dickinson, Fazio, Burke, Demaret, Hebert, Locke ? Or maybe do you want to calculate aggregate wins of the crowd behind Hogan and compare to aggregate wins of crowd behind Woods ?
Generally...give me a break. I am tired with writing all this stuff to people who are stubborn and cannot admit even the simplest truth mentioned by me.
Cheers
I said clearily -- in the last decade. Do you know what a decade mean ?
Yeah. And that is precisely why Nicklaus said that Hogan was EASILY the best ballstriker he ever saw. ROFL.
What this mumbling has to do with my post ?
Because I am reading what people (including greats, much better players than Miller) saw and wrote.
ROFL. Let me ask only three questions:
- is behind the 2000 Tiger a better golfer than Snead was behind Hogan ?
- is behind the 2000 Tiger a better US Opens contender than Boros was behind Hogan ?
- do you interest a little with history of golf ? are you familiar with some names as e.g. Turnesa, Dickinson, Fazio, Burke, Demaret, Hebert, Locke ? Or maybe do you want to calculate aggregate wins of the crowd behind Hogan and compare to aggregate wins of crowd behind Woods ?
Generally...give me a break. I am tired with writing all this stuff to people who are stubborn and cannot admit even the simplest truth mentioned by me.
Cheers
SprintingGoat
New
Lindsey Newman
New
Wikipedia
Just so everyone understands and I'm not pointing to anyone in particular - No educator or purveyor of information would consider Wikipedia a legitimate source of vetted content. There is noone of topical authority reviewing the information on Wikipedia. Always, consider what you read there (Wikipedia) as complete speculation and be sure to cross-reference.
Just so everyone understands and I'm not pointing to anyone in particular - No educator or purveyor of information would consider Wikipedia a legitimate source of vetted content. There is noone of topical authority reviewing the information on Wikipedia. Always, consider what you read there (Wikipedia) as complete speculation and be sure to cross-reference.
Not disputing what you say her Lindsey, just would like to point out that ALL information from ANY source can, and probably is, flawed. I find Wiki to have been pretty accurate about most things which I have cross referenced. More accurate than most sources.
If your gonna use quotes from the all time greats...remember Jack said Ben Hogan was the best ball striker he ever saw. Just sayin.
EDIT: Point already made.
Burner
New
Was he "being humble" or had he been "humbled" by superior ball striking?
Just askin'.
Wikipedia's awful. I've learned that the hard way, too many times.
Don't need to know anything more about someone who says Tiger's and Furyk's results in the US Open are even remotely comparable, even with the silly line drawing of "over the last decade"...
I'm amazed how many people don't want to see these guys pushed to the limits. The majors all do that, in slightly different manners. It's only at the limits that the truth is revealed.
Don't need to know anything more about someone who says Tiger's and Furyk's results in the US Open are even remotely comparable, even with the silly line drawing of "over the last decade"...
I'm amazed how many people don't want to see these guys pushed to the limits. The majors all do that, in slightly different manners. It's only at the limits that the truth is revealed.
faux_maestro
New
In "academia" Wikipedia is a no-no. I'm getting my masters now and Wikipedia is the only source that I've been told that is off-limits in research.
- Status