THE LUCKIEST GOLFER

The Miami Herald ^ | Tue, Jul. 22, 2003

[presidio9]

With all due respect to PGA Tour golfer Ben Curtis, the title, ''Champion golfer of the year,'' seems an awkward fit. Mr. Curtis is an unknown rookie who walked away with the claret jug on Sunday in the British Open.

The Open, one of golf's four big tournaments -- or majors -- is intentionally designed as a grueling test. Playing conditions are awful -- it often is cold, blustery and wet. Fairways are pinched to the width of a traffic lane, the rough is knee-deep, and greens are as slick as a marble tabletop.

Usually, the Open identifies the golfer who is the best player, has control of his emotions and the patience of Job. Sunday's final round began with Mr. Curtis and some of the world's best players, including Tiger Woods, Vijay Singh, Thomas Borjn, David Love III and Sergio Garcia, bunched within two strokes of each other. By day's end, Mr. Curtis emerged victorious because he shot the day's best round, a 69. He also won because in the course of the week, he suffered fewer ''unlucky'' breaks. This happens when course conditions are so severe that excellent shots aren't always rewarded and bad shots get ''lucky'' bounces. Organizers should ponder if the 2003 Open put too high a premium on luck.

[discostu]

I never said he should quit. But his consistently horrid performance on the back 9 continued to show there's something wrong with his game and it appears to be between his ears. The slump continues.

[headsonpikes]

Looks like a great day for golf in sunny B.C.

Too bad I'm nursing a pulled calf-muscle. :^(

[presidio9]

I never said he should quit.

More revisionist history from stu. You said exactly that. You he should hang 'em up for the rest of the year. Then you tried to turn a thread into a definition of slumps, and put philosphies into Tiger Wood's head. Were it not for the lost ball on the first hole (again, if you knew ANYTHING about the British Open, you would know that NOBODY loses a ball on the first hole) he would have won the tournament. As it was, he had the lead on several occasions. Your stupidity is only matched by your stubborness.

[presidio9]

Is Phil Mickelson competitive? Do you know anything about golf, or do you just like looking stupid in public?

[Protagoras]

BS.. you make your own breaks. Keep the ball in the fairway and on the green and you won't have to worry about a "lucky" break.

BS. The game is a series of breaks and bounces, some advantagous, some not. It's called "rub of the green".

Courses like the goat pasture they just played have all kinds of stupid little mounds everywhere and who wins has much to do with which way the ball bounces.

[discostu]

We're in that part of the year in Tucson when it stops being a good day for golf about 7 AM, it's not hot yet (by our standards) but the air stops moving and doesn't seem to start again until we top 100. I've never been anywhere else where outside gets stuffy from lack of air circulation, worse now because we're getting night drizzles so the morning air is not only stagnant but thick with ground evaporation. It's the price we pay for being able to grill/ pool Christmas party.

Pulled calf muscle huh? Kick too many rear-ends?

[an amused spectator]

Is Phil Mickelson competitive? Do you know anything about golf, or do you just like looking stupid in public?

Phil "The Adventure Kid" Mickelson IS competitive, except in the majors. ;-) **snicker**

I'm always fascinated with that eagle-triple bogey-birdie-double bogey-birdie-birdie thingie he does in the big ones. Maybe he should shut his right brain off on the course. :-)

[discostu]

Not revisionist history at all. I said "he should announce his sabatical on the flight home from Europe" there's an obvious assumption there that he'd finish the tournament.

Were it not for 11 bogies and one double bogie in the back 9 over the length of the tournament he'd have won. Inspite of that opening triple bogie he managed to fight back and even held the lead for a bit, but when you go over par 1/3 of the time in the back 9 you can't hold a lead and what happens in the front 9 becomes immaterial.

[an amused spectator]

(again, if you knew ANYTHING about the British Open, you would know that NOBODY loses a ball on the first hole)

OMIGOD, he's doing it AGAIN!!! "Strawberries" p9 is going to "prove geometrically" that Tiger Woods didn't actually lose a ball on the first hole of the 2003 British Open!!!

I'm going to go make some popcorn for this one. **snicker**

[presidio9]

Not at all. Clearly he was very competitive and had a good chance of winning. He was undone by bad luck, not some fanciful slump.

[an amused spectator]

He'd make holes-in-one on all the par 3

Well, Woods would actually make zero on some of the par 3s - he'd lean on his stick, looking real cool, and then do that Bewitched blinkie thing, and the ball would be in the hole without him actually taking a stroke at it.

Between the magnets and the blinkie zeros, he'd prolly shoot in the 40s for 18 on the women's courses most of the time. **grin**

[presidio9]

Not revisionist history at all. I said "he should announce his sabatical on the flight home from Europe" there's an obvious assumption there that he'd finish the tournament.

Actually, you said: "This is not his year. IMHO once he makes enough for next year's card he should take the rest of the year off."

Either you know so little about golf that you do not understand that "next year's card" stopped being an issue for Tiger a long time ago (in which case you are at a serious information disadvantage), or you thought he should quit. Which was is?

[presidio9]

Based on the one sample of evidence we have, this is not only possible, but likely. Woods averages 68 on the PGA Tour. Sorenstam averages 69 on the Ladies Tour. Let me do the math for you. That's +1. In the one event Sorenstam played, she missed the cut and finished 13 strokes behind the 36-hole leader. That's +6.5, for a grand total of +7.5. Not even taking into account the fact that the top four players in the world, including Woods, did not play at Colonial, you are left with 60 and change. It also ignores the fact that Sorenstam supposedly played the absolute best she can play (or better than her 69 average). As much as your insecurity tries to mock those that demonstrate your ignorance, you can't argue with the facts. The women's courses are shorter, wider, flatter, and slower. If you knew anything about professional golf, you would understand this.


What about this is so difficult for you to understand?

[discostu]

Bad luck?! He bogied 17 three times. 15 twice. 14 twice. 12 twice with one being a double bogie. +13 on 36 holes. That's constistency, and consistently bad, in the short part of the course no less.

[cinFLA]

he suffered fewer ''unlucky'' breaks.

That was the reason de jour. I was amazed at how many hosts on TV alluded to this!

The guy was being chased by Tiger Woods and he held it together! That is NOT luck!

[discostu]

Notice how that shows he should still be sticking it out through a tournament. Once again you can't refute what was actually said so you make up crap and demand the person refute that. I hadn't paid any attention to Tiger's earnings in relation to the card, that's the simple truth there.

[presidio9]

Whatever. Was he competitive? Absolutely. Did he put himself in position to win? Absolutely. You can't put yourself in position to win if you quit. I let the other thread go because I got tired of beating you up with the facts.

[presidio9]

once he makes enough for next year's card

Either you have no working knowledge of golf, or you wanted him to quit. Which is it?

[presidio9]

Not revisionist history at all. I said "he should announce his sabatical on the flight home from Europe" there's an obvious assumption there that he'd finish the tournament.

Actually, you said: "This is not his year. IMHO once he makes enough for next year's card he should take the rest of the year off."

Either you know so little about golf that you do not understand that "next year's card" stopped being an issue for Tiger a long time ago (in which case you are at a serious information disadvantage), or you thought he should quit. Which was is?

[an amused spectator]

Clearly he was very competitive and had a good chance of winning.

I guessed I missed the post where I said that Woods was not competitive at the 2003 British Open. I also missed the post where I said that Woods didn't have a good chance of winning at the 2003 British Open.

Be a good fellow and post those statements up under my screen name, will you? That way you can then tell me that I don't know anything about golf, that I'm embarrassing myself, and that I've never watched an LPGA event.

discostu: BTW, my favorite LPGA babes to watch are Helen Alfredsson, Kelly Robbins and Dottie Pepper. How about yours?