Tiger Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jim Kobylinski

Super Moderator
Just wanted to add a few things:

1) Tiger hit driver quite a few times in round 4 which i did watch a lot of.
2) Tiger was hitting very very large pull fades off the tee which is part of the reason he looked so fluid, just aimed way left, swung way left and was hitting big fades he knew he wouldn't hook. I've said multiple times he should do this more often.
3) Winning a golf tournament does involve some luck, sometimes it's the luck of the ball going in on an extraordinary shot, could be weather related (think British Open tee times), you (ultimate winner) getting the bounces when the loser (maybe board leader) didn't get the right bounces.

Reality is this:

Tiger played some damn good golf and pulled off 3 amazing shots to put the tournament out of reach on 18: a great drive, a well placed iron shot to take advantage of the slope, and then a good putt to make birdie to put it away.

Don't know why people see more into that.
 
M

ms1170

New
Matt 4-L said:
I guess I am classified as a hater, Tiger is not the best player ever or best in the world right now. The gold standard for best ever is most majors and that belongs to Jack so to say Tiger is the best ever is to disrespect what Jack has done. When and if Tiger beats Jack's record then you can call Tiger the best ever. As for the best in the world we have an accepted formula to calculate that and it says Luke Donald is best in the world right now, so to say Tiger is best in the World because he has won two tournaments this year is crazy. What Tiger IS RIGHT NOW is best player this WEEK!

It's funny, the haters want to discredit Tiger and the lovers want to crown him before it's his time.
Click to expand...
It's interesting that you say to be the best ever is all about a players Major Total, but to be the best right now has nothing to do with Majors? That seems contradictory to me. You realize that either Luke Donald and or Lee Westwood could be ranked number one for the next 15 years and never win a Major, while Tiger or Mcllroy pick up 5-6 majors each. I don't accept Sony's system for rankings. It's not bad for determining the top 50 for invites to certain events, but I do believe it gives too much credit to Asian and European events, and not enough for winning events, and not enough for winning Majors.

Just curious, if Tiger gets to 100 tour wins and 17 Majors, will you still give the nod to Jack, even though Tigers played at a time where there were many times as many people playing the game worldwide as when Jack played?
 
O

OLIVER1

New
ms1170 said:
I don't accept Sony's system for rankings. It's not bad for determining the top 50 for invites to certain events, but I do believe it gives too much credit to Asian and European events, and not enough for winning events, and not enough for winning Majors.
Click to expand...

I agree it's nigh-on impossible to figure out a fair and balanced OWGR system that places a correct onus on the regular events viz a viz rewards majors, but to strip away points on foreign tours seems a little rash and short-sighted, don't you think?
 
L

leon

New
Didn't get chance to see it, but read that Tiger had been working on hitting it higher for this week. Can anyone comment on this - any obvious swing changes - maybe less centred and a bit more 'normal' at impact? I seem to recall someone suggesting something similar recently :)
 
mgranato

mgranato

New
Here's my problem with the OWGR...

The winner of Tiger's off-season, unofficial, 18 man field Chevron World Challenge got 44 OWGR ranking points. That is more points than was awarded to the winner of 6 official full field events on the PGA Tour so far this year... including events like Pebble Beach and the Byron Nelson.

How is that right?
 
O

OLIVER1

New
mgranato said:
Here's my problem with the OWGR...

The winner of Tiger's off-season, unofficial, 18 man field Chevron World Challenge got 44 OWGR ranking points. That is more points than was awarded to the winner of 6 official full field events on the PGA Tour so far this year... including events like Pebble Beach and the Byron Nelson.

How is that right?
Click to expand...

It's not right. And probably a reason why Luke Donald, Rory McIlroy, et al. seem so ambivalent when asked if the #1 spot is important to them. Breathing the rarified air on top of Tiger's mountain is their goal, whether they'll say it or not. JMHO of course
 
Matt 4-L

Matt 4-L

New
ms1170 said:
It's interesting that you say to be the best ever is all about a players Major Total, but to be the best right now has nothing to do with Majors? That seems contradictory to me. You realize that either Luke Donald and or Lee Westwood could be ranked number one for the next 15 years and never win a Major, while Tiger or Mcllroy pick up 5-6 majors each. I don't accept Sony's system for rankings. It's not bad for determining the top 50 for invites to certain events, but I do believe it gives too much credit to Asian and European events, and not enough for winning events, and not enough for winning Majors.

Just curious, if Tiger gets to 100 tour wins and 17 Majors, will you still give the nod to Jack, even though Tigers played at a time where there were many times as many people playing the game worldwide as when Jack played?
Click to expand...

I never said I agreed with the world ranking points I think there is a lot of problems with it, but it is the best we have right now. If you want to argue about how they come up with points for the world rankning, I have no problem with that but to take away the title from Luke Donald because Tiger might be back is also unfair. As for the best ever catagory, I didn't make that one up either, it's just the way it has been done and Jack has earned the title of best ever and to take it away from him BEFORE somebody else passes him is unfair. For the record I think Tiger will pass Jack and he will THEN be the best ever but lets wait and see if it happens first is all I am saying.
 
J

JDMAC

New
Jim Kobylinski said:
Just wanted to add a few things:

1) Tiger hit driver quite a few times in round 4 which i did watch a lot of.
2) Tiger was hitting very very large pull fades off the tee which is part of the reason he looked so fluid, just aimed way left, swung way left and was hitting big fades he knew he wouldn't hook. I've said multiple times he should do this more often.
3) Winning a golf tournament does involve some luck, sometimes it's the luck of the ball going in on an extraordinary shot, could be weather related (think British Open tee times), you (ultimate winner) getting the bounces when the loser (maybe board leader) didn't get the right bounces.

Reality is this:

Tiger played some damn good golf and pulled off 3 amazing shots to put the tournament out of reach on 18: a great drive, a well placed iron shot to take advantage of the slope, and then a good putt to make birdie to put it away.

Don't know why people see more into that.
Click to expand...

Jim is right - Tiger played great. The argument that he got lucky doesn't hold water if we are talking only about his hole out in the final round. How many times did Spencer Levin hole out from off the green? 4 by my count including twice on Saturday... At the finish of Saturday you had to know that Spencer was living on borrowed time. He had putted impeccably and was holing out from all over the course and he still only had a slim lead. Tiger hit fairways, hit greens, and made putts on Sunday - it was a terrific round of golf.
 
F

fronesis

New
conkanen said:
I think one person called it lucky and another said it wasn't as impressive as Bay Hill. Who are the folks discounting this win? I thought Tiger looked awesome out there this week. I am just not ready to call him the best golfer on the planet right now. Great win though.
Click to expand...

Sounds like we agree.

Luke Donald is the best player in the world right now. He's earned the ranking by being by far the most consistent player.

Dufner, Mahan, and Woods all have two PGA tour victories this year, so they are probably the best players so far this year on the US tour. Mahan's success was earlier in the year, so maybe Woods and Dufner stand out.

Bubba Watson won the most important tournament of the year, and did it in dramatic fashion.

So no, Tiger is not the best player on the planet at this particular moment.

I was responding mainly to the few commenters who seem to want to respond to Tiger's win in a way completely differently from how they would respond to any other player's win. Saying he won because of a "lucky shot" on 16 is just absolutely ridiculous.

Tiger's 2012 season is still in progress, and there's no telling where it will turn out.

But I think most folks who watched all of the Memorial tournament saw that Tiger was in a form that we haven't seen in a long long time. And as far as I'm concerned, when Tiger is in his best form, he's simply playing a game at a level that no current player can reach on a consistent basis. Rory had an historic win last year at the US Open, but he's now missed 3 cuts in a row. Still, Rory gets a lot of slack: he's a great talent, seems like a great guy, and is a ton of fun to watch. If Tiger Woods missed 3 cuts in a row, folks would be telling him to retire.
 
E

eric54

New
ms1170 said:
I don't accept Sony's system for rankings. It's not bad for determining the top 50 for invites to certain events, but I do believe it gives too much credit to Asian and European events, and not enough for winning events, and not enough for winning Majors
Click to expand...

Sorry disagree about European events. Historically you could earn more points with a win on the PGA Tour but times have changed and European golf is just as strong if not stronger than the PGA now so only right the points are equal if not better
 
mgranato

mgranato

New
OLIVER1 said:
It's not right. And probably a reason why Luke Donald, Rory McIlroy, et al. seem so ambivalent when asked if the #1 spot is important to them. Breathing the rarified air on top of Tiger's mountain is their goal, whether they'll say it or not. JMHO of course
Click to expand...

Yep. Tiger created the vacuum at the top with his play/absence over the past couple seasons. It was the guys with funny accents who were best able to take advantage of the opportunity. They did it fair-n-square under the same points system that gave the top spot to Tiger all those years. Can't blame them at all for being stingy about giving it back.
 
M

ms1170

New
eric54 said:
Sorry disagree about European events. Historically you could earn more points with a win on the PGA Tour but times have changed and European golf is just as strong if not stronger than the PGA now so only right the points are equal if not better
Click to expand...
If you took the top 10 players on the European Tour and put them on the Nationwide Tour, I don't think they would be as successful. What I'm saying is the Nationwide tour is stronger from players 10 thru 100 than the European Tour. Lee Westwood has 2 wins in 153 PGA Tour events. 34 International wins. Luke Donald has won 7 of 110 in Europe, and 5 of 226 on PGA Tour. Paul Casey has won 11 of 211 in Europe, and 1 of 123 on PGA Tour. I wonder which has stronger fields? The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the PGA Tour. I agree that Europe's top 10 is as good as PGA Tour's, but it ends there.
 
N

Nitro7

New
mgranato said:
Yep. Tiger created the vacuum at the top with his play/absence over the past couple seasons. It was the guys with funny accents who were best able to take advantage of the opportunity. They did it fair-n-square under the same points system that gave the top spot to Tiger all those years. Can't blame them at all for being stingy about giving it back.
Click to expand...

Tiger dominated the OWGR because he won a lot. When he stopped playing those wins dropped
off and he fell dramatically in the rankings. Westwood & company took over with mostly top tens
and not many wins. I'll give Rory and Luke credit for winning more often the last year and half.

Luke 3 wins PGA Tour 2011/2012 -- 4 wins Euro Tour 2011/2012 -- Total 7

His only weakness is majors -- Last 9 events he's missed the cut 3 times
with 2 top tens, not a factor in the other 4 and no wins.

Rory 2 wins PGA Tour 2011/2012 -- 2 wins Euro Tour 2011/2012 -- Total 4

Rory better in the majors -- Last 9 events he's missed the cut 2 times with
3 top fives, not a factor in the other 4 and one win.

I don't think any of these guys who have been at the top of the OWGR since Tiger's fall are better
players than Tiger. Just speaking to ability. They definitely have PLAYED better over the last two
years, but they do not possess the talent and/or ability as a golfer that Tiger is blessed with IMO.

Now that Tiger has won twice in the last couple months he has vaulted up to 4th on the OWGR.
If he wins a major this summer and another tournament along the way he'll probably be on top
again. Seems Tiger wins his way to the top and others earn a lot of points playing consistently
to get to OWGR #1. As I said, what Donald has done is worthy IMO. Seven wins worldwide and
numerous top tens in a year and half is impressive. But, look out now, Tiger is smelling blood
and starting to find his way to the winners circle. Once he gets a major win it could be Katy bar
the door for the rest of the field.
 
O

OLIVER1

New
ms1170 said:
If you took the top 10 players on the European Tour and put them on the Nationwide Tour, I don't think they would be as successful. What I'm saying is the Nationwide tour is stronger from players 10 thru 100 than the European Tour. Lee Westwood has 2 wins in 153 PGA Tour events. 34 International wins. Luke Donald has won 7 of 110 in Europe, and 5 of 226 on PGA Tour. Paul Casey has won 11 of 211 in Europe, and 1 of 123 on PGA Tour. I wonder which has stronger fields? The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the PGA Tour. I agree that Europe's top 10 is as good as PGA Tour's, but it ends there.
Click to expand...

Ouch! That was a kick in the swingers there, ms.;)
Top 10 players on the European Tour wouldn't do so good on the Nationwide Tour? And then you say at the end that they're as good as the PGA Tour guys?
You have to be a bit careful about the stats. Colin Montgomerie would have won a truckload if he based himself in the US, but he hated the U.S for the grief he got over here (And, quite frankly, that's his own fault for being so rude to Americans.) Lee Westwood won the New Orleans Open with one of his first forays over here, having spent the vast majority of his time in Europe. Paul Casey and Luke Donald are practically Americans, having spent their college/formative years here. Robert Karlsson, Darren Clarke, MA Jimenez, Ross Fisher, Oliver Wilson, Thongchai Jaidee, etc. - never permanently here.
Remember, before the OWGR, many Europeans couldn't get invites to the U.S majors and it still wrankles to a certain extent. Guys like Mark James, Sam Torrance, Howard Clark and a few others - all superb players - never got a chance to play in, for example, the PGA and US Open throughout the majority of their careers.
I'm pretty sure that many Europeans would win a few over here if they chose to base themselves here permanently. To say that the Nationwide Tour is stronger than the European Tour 10 thru 125 is faintly absurd. That being said, the PGA Tour is still the strongest, and by some way...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top