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.

[zoyd]

Fell apart in the back 9 every round of the British.

Uh, who DIDN'T?!

[discostu]

The last people to ever admit they're in a slump is the person in the slump. That's one of the rules of sports. Admitting you're in a slump means admitting there's a problem which means removing pressure from your opponents. Even the Bengals won't admit there's a problem and they've posted more losses in a 10 year period than any other NFL team in history.

That is a slump for him. He's a championship caliber player. Each athlete or team sets their own standard, when their performance drops below that standard it's a slump. And he's gone 5 without a win. The Detroit Redwings slumped through last year in the NHL because they never contended for home-ice through out the playoff and got swept in the first round, probably only 6 teams contended for home-ice and most of the 26 that didn't never considered it a slump, but they weren't perenial contenders. Everybody sets their own bar, some athletes have slumps that other athletes dream of as achievements.

Jack had slumps too. Everybody has slumps. That's part of sports.

Nothing bizarre about my concept of golf. For Tiger going winless in FIVE is a slump. This is the first time since 1999 he hasn't held a single major title, how can that not be a slump? That long period of always holding at least one set the bar, now he holds none that means he's not performing at the level to which he himself has set his bar. That's a slump.

[discostu]

The tournament winner Ben Curtis had 6 bogies and 6 birdies on the back nine for an even performance, no double bogies and he actually got no bogies at all in the back nine during both the first and third rounds. I wouldn't call that falling apart.

Woods had 11 bogies and 1 double bogies, five birdies for a performance of +8, in the second round he got no birdies on the back nine.

One guy fell apart, one guy help it together.

[biffalobull]

Correctomundeo..what a load of crap....Bjorn did a "great" job with that double bogey, right....and the putt that Curtis made on 18, for his par..man, that was no gimmee....what was it 8 feet?...He was a tad lucky, I woudl say, in that at the time he didn;t know that Bjorn had just given back two strokes...if Curtis was in the last pair, and needed to make that putt for the championship, well, then, he might have felt the tension a bit more..but it's marvelous for the game of golf...I saw most of the tournament ont he TV, and I'm so sick of all Tiger, all the time...

ken; I'm with you, pal. Anytime you can play with, and beat that field, on that course, it is something more than luck. I guess it was tigers bad luck when he 4 putted and hit his drive 2 miles into the boonies. Adios, tiger

[zoyd]

The tournament winner Ben Curtis had 6 bogies and 6 birdies on the back nine for an even performance

Curtis shot 35, 36, 32, and 37 on the par 35 back 9, and 37, 36, 38, and 32 on the front 9, par 36. I'm sure you saw plenty of player interviews, all of whom mentioned that you had to get your birdies in on the front 9, because the back 9 was very difficult.

If the forecaddies on Thursday had managed to find Tiger's tee shot off #1, I'd say Tiger would have a had a much better chance, if only mentally, of winning, and we wouldn't be having this silly discussion.

Tournament Stats: Front Nine (Par 36): Avg. 37.07 Back Nine (Par 35): Avg. 37.72.

The back nine was playing 1.6 strokes harder than the front.

I just don't understand this compulsion to want to believe that Tiger is in a slump.

He's got 4 wins this year, nothing lower than a 20th place finish, his scoring average is lower than any year but 2000... there's nothing in his game to indicate he's dropped off his performance level at all. Give the guy a friggin' break. He's not Superman. He's just a golfer, subject to all the whims that every golfer suffers. Add to that the fact that his ball is outmoded (I believe he's even switched to the Nike ONE ball instead of the TW ball). A string of four or five majors is just really too small a sample size to make any wild conclusions. And in those majors, he's placed 4th, 20th, 15th, 2nd, and 28th in last year's British fiasco, where he uncorked that 81 in nasty conditions.

Plus, everyone used the word 'quirky' enough to describe the golf course, that it was pretty evident they were unhappy with balls landing in the middle of the fairway and kicking off omnipresent mounds into the rough. You can't just erase quirks and lukcy bounces from the equation in golf, but all the naysayers want to do just that when it comes to Tiger, as if he should be able to manipulate physics as well as play golf.

[discostu]

Notice the consistency from front to back with Curtis,
Round one front +1 - back E
Round two front E - back +1
round three front +2 - back -3
round four front -4 - back +2

He was +1 once in each half, +2 once in each half and even once in each half. His front nine and back nine performances were clearly comperable and consistent. Now check Woods:
R1 F +2 - B E
R2 F -2 - B +3
R3 F -5 - B +3
R4 F -2 - B +2

Notice only over par once in the front 9 and that's clearly because of losing his ball on the first shot, NEVER under par on the back. No consistency. He made huge gains in the front and lost them in the back.

Plently of people had issues in the back 9, but nobody belly flopped in the back negating huge gains in the front like Tiger. Yes scores were consistently a couple strokes higher in the back than in the front, but to par Tiger has a 15 stroke swing between the two halves.

While losing the ball obviously cost him strokes I don't think it really hurt him mentally. In the next 10 holes he birdied twice and pared the other 8. Bogieing on 12, 13, and 14 set him up for trouble.

For the general populace it played slightly tougher, but Tiger's 15 more strokes for the back is nearly 10 times more than the average of the field.

There's plenty in his game to show he's dropped the level of performance in the majors. +6 over 3 majors. He's still doing well in the non-majors but that's not the yardstick by which he's measured. He's a proven and repeated champion of majors, and he's lost 5 straight, his record is 10 straight, this is the first time since then he hasn't held a major title.

I'm not making any wild conclusions. He's in a slump, that's painfully obvious comparing his record in the majors over his career. You make your own luck in sports, that's always been the rule. One or two bad days out are to be expected, and sometimes they cost you tournaments. Since that 81 in the third round he's had more bad days out at the majors than good and most importantly he hasn't been able to put together the 4 good days necessary to get the W. Until he does that he's in a slump.

[discostu]

MATH FOUL, I added where you didn't. The 1.6 was per round, Tiger's 15 was a running total. His per round difference between the front and back was 3.75, slightly over twice the field.

See I can admit when I'm wrong.

[NittanyLion]

From a PGA Tour standpoint, ALL of the LPGA tour holes ARE birdy holes for Woods. ALL of them. ALL of the par fives are birdie/eagle holes. Now you are learing something.

His GIR should be very high, but that doesn't translate to a birdie on every hole.

[presidio9]

Holds NO major titles for the first time since 1999. Has finished over par in all three majors this year.

(giggle)

What an ignorant observation! Majors are frequently won by the only player to break par. That's one of the things that make them special. If an occurance that had not occurred in 90 years hadn't happended this week, no player would have finished below par. But then, I wouldn't expect you to realize that.

[presidio9]

His GIR should be very high, but that doesn't translate to a birdie on every hole. His GIR should be very high, but that doesn't translate to a birdie on every hole.

Not on a PGA green, but on LPGA greens, that Annika Sorenstam (who is in a slightly better position than yourself to know) observes are slower and flatter with easier pin positions, he WOULD get it closer to the hole and make more long putts. You are just too stupid to understand this.

[discostu]

Ignorant, really? Well I went over the to PGA tour site and checked his history, here's his finishes and final since 1997
02
Master 1 -12
US 1 -3
Brit T28 E
PGA 2 -9

01
Masters 1 -16
US T12 +3
British T25 -1
PGA T29 -1

00
Master 5 -4
US 1 -12
British 1 -19
PGA P1 -18

99
Masters T18 +1
US T3 +1
British T7 +10
PGA 1 -11

98
Masters T8 -3
US T18 +10
British 3 +1
PGA T10 -1

97
Master 1 -18
US T19 +6
British T24 E
PGA t29 +6

Notice 1999 is the only other year he's over par in 3 majors, that would be the three majors before his streak of constant major title ownership started. And there's quite a few where he's under par and loses.

Once again Presidio's insults are destroyed by simple facts he could easily have looked up on his own.

[presidio9]

Yes ignorant. Every tournament is different. Sometimes +10 is a very good score. If -1 wins, +1 is a great score. Scoring is relative in golf. But then, if you knew anything about golf, and if you weren't an idiot, you might understand this.

[discostu]

Every tournament is different. That doesn't change the fact that this is the 1st time since his last big major drought that's he's been over 3 times in one year at majors, and note the fourth hasn't been played yet, there's still the chance of him going over par in all four majors, something that hasn't happened. Or he'll win it and the slump will be over. Or maybe he'll go under par and still lose, slump still on.

Interesting note:
you're original defense was that the rest of the field had caught up, now you're just insisting there's nothing wrong inspite of his nearly unprecidented losses.

[discostu]

You know if you didn't insist in putting either an insult or a lie in every single post this could be an interesting discussion. Thanks to the fact that you must avenge your tiny manhood on the rest of the world no discussion you ever participate in can ever be interesting. Really, you should try it without the insults and lies, you'd stop embarassing your mom then.

[presidio9]

Impossible. You are not capable of interesting discussion. Especially on this subject. You are way, WAY too ignorant, and you refuse to listen to the detailed reason of your intellectual superior. I would help you learn, but it is never about learning for you. You have a boring $30k a year job, you live on the Miracle Mile, and you use FR to indulge your unattainable lawyer-wannabe fantasies. I am long past caring about any type of discussion with you.

[discostu]

I have plenty of interesting discussions all the time. You're always the first with the insults and the ONLY with the lies. I've watched you on other threads, they're all the same only the target of your lies and insults changes. Even the insults remain constant, always the same three: "you're humiliated", "you're ignorant", "you just won't listen". According to you everyone on FR is a humiliated idiot. If you have the same problem with everybody you need to look to the common denominator: you.

More lies and insults. I make plenty more than 30K, don't even go near the renamed Miracle Mile (I'm too white for that neighborhood), and have no urge to be a lawyer.

[presidio9]

you're original defense was that the rest of the field had caught up, now you're just insisting there's nothing wrong inspite of his nearly unprecidented losses.

Riiight. The rest of the field HAS caught up, AND there is nothing wrong. You are too stupid to understand that the two can go together.

Note to anyone else dumb enough to still be reading this thread: The rest of the field has caught up because Tiger uses Nike balls instead of Pro-V1s not because he's slumping. Do not bother trying to explain this to Stu. He's a bit slow on the uptake, as I'm sure you've noticed.

[presidio9]

According to you everyone on FR is a humiliated idiot.

Nope just fat ol' you, and a couple of your companions who you ping in every time you get desperate.

Case-in-point: On this very thread you were pathetically lobbying to get me banned because you were so miserable and couldn't defend yourself.

[discostu]

More lies. I read that Ozzy thread before it got pulled, there were half a dozen humiliated idiots on that thread.

I can't recall ever pinging anyone to any of our threads.

I wasn't lobbying to get you banned. I think you should be banned, I want you banned, I will continue to point out your shameful behavior until you get banned. But you're the one that does all the lobbying, your constant lies and insults are a more effective case for your banning than anything I can ever say.

[presidio9]

I read that Ozzy thread before it got pulled, there were half a dozen humiliated idiots on that thread.

You got that one right. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then.