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.

[JonH]

I thought that you avoided unlucky bounces by working hard and hitting the ball where he was not at the whim of the humps and bumps on the golf course. Last weekend Ben Curtis was the best golfer in Sandwich England! He may never have the magic again, but that is irrelevant.

[irish_links]

"...But the fact remains, her participation thrilled both TV and the sponsors. It led to huge publicity for the event itself, as well as for future LPGA events. Whether the other tours lose money or not is irrelevant -- they'd lose a helluva lot more without sponsors and TV. And frankly that's irrelevant too -- the sponsor can give an exemption to anyone they want to -- with the possibly limitation being that they must have a scratch handicap or better (I'm not sure of the exact rules)...."

Your arrow is true BT. A bit of advice, however; don't try to overcome presidio with logic. He either can't grasp it or is too obtruse to relent to it. You will wear out your keyboard before he accepts the fact that sponsors are good for the tour and should be free to exercise their sponsors' exemptions rights as they please, within reason.

Regards

[lawdude]

"Geez, did someone on the Herald's editorial staff lose some money this weekend? An axiom of golf is to never begrudge the lucky breaks, because there are plenty of unlucky breaks to offset them."

But God's designated supergolfer, Tiger, was not the winner as the media wanted. Tiger was out-played and that, my friends, is totally unacceptable. I suspect that the writers will ask to have Curtis's rounds analysed for cheating. Otherwise, how could he win.

[oust the louse]

"and I'm so sick of all Tiger, all the time"

Tiger is a whinney little baby.He was interviewed right after he finished and his exact words were,"I was pissed" when asked how he felt he played on the back nine.Hey tiger,how about using the word disappointed or discouraged or something that a young 8 year old who's watching doesn't have to hear?(my son) I'm sick of reading his lips every tournament after he misses a putt as he says f*ck or Da*n or some other swear word.He's just an ungracious punk.Who else on tour does that or who else in history has ever been known to be a crybaby the way he is.I will root against him ONLY because of his lack of class in the way he carries himself.(That's all,I'm done ranting)

[paul51]

Hard to be the luckiest guy on the course four days in a row. The guy won fair and square.

[deport]

Stupid publicity stunts notwithstanding, women ARE different from men.

---

As Ben Wright so stated one time..........

[Moonman62]

I will root against him ONLY because of his lack of class in the way he carries himself.

I agree. He's way past the grace period for fixing his language. Nicklaus was and is one of the classiest guys in sports. Tiger may equal him in golfing accomplishments, but nowhere near when it comes to class.

[an amused spectator]

You also have to remember that certain posters on this thread think that Hank Kuehne, who hits it 325+ (into the woods), is a "competitive player". **snicker**

I can hit 280 yard drives if I crank it - most of them will be in the woods. I have this thing about playing it as it lies, unlike a lot of the "play it from the tips" crowd.

[an amused spectator]

The guy you're arguing with is the one that fervently believes that Woods would shoot four straight rounds in the 50s on any LPGA tour track, most of the time.

Give it up.

[presidio9]

I've been brainwashed by nobody... the fact remains, her participation thrilled both TV and the sponsors. It led to huge publicity for the event itself, as well as for future LPGA events. Whether the other tours lose money or not is irrelevant -- they'd lose a helluva lot more without sponsors and TV. And frankly that's irrelevant too -- the sponsor can give an exemption to anyone they want to -- with the possibly limitation being that they must have a scratch handicap or better (I'm not sure of the exact rules).

Quick: Who won this week's LPGA event? This is a rhetorical question, I know that you can easily look it up on ESPN.com. The point is, you don't know now, as you are reading this. Neither does anybody else. Sorenstam's play caused a minor media sensation for the same reason a plane crash does: It was unusual. And it required everyone to be on his PC-best behavior. But it accomplished nothing other than to demonstrate that she had no business being out there. Case-in-point: Every single one of the 11 men she supposedly "beat" had twice as many birdies than she did. The difference? She was trying to make the cut. They were trying to compete and win money. You can't win money at Colonial without making birdies. In the end, Colonial could have had a similiar ratings boost if they invited Anna Kournikova to play in their tournament. Her inclusion would have been more entertaining, and just as relevant. But, then, you've been willingly brainwashed, so you probably don't understand this.

[presidio9]

As Ben Wright so stated one time..........

Exactly. Those who would speak with reason against the Feminist Inquisition are silenced.

[presidio9]

You also have to remember that certain posters on this thread think that Hank Kuehne, who hits it 325+ (into the woods), is a "competitive player". **snicker**

Um, professor, Kuehne has finished second and third in two events on Tour this year. Only an idiot would consider that less than competitive. Why do you insist on embarassing yourself?

[presidio9]

The guy you're arguing with is the one that fervently believes that Woods would shoot four straight rounds in the 50s on any LPGA tour track, most of the time.

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.

[an amused spectator]

Check out the certain poster's #73. Old "Strawberries Queeg" p9 is once again "proving" with geometric logic that Tiger Woods would shoot four straight rounds in the 50s on just about any LPGA tour track, any old weekend.

And that Kuehne, who was cut in 6 out the 13 tourneys he entered this year, is Mr. Competitive. I guess Hank DID place 4th in the BC Open. ;-)

[discostu]

hehehe

Don't mention slump around him, he'll go postal.

[an amused spectator]

Don't mention slump around him, he'll go postal.

Actually, on the LPGA tour tracks, Woods wouldn't even need his missing putter. He would just chip everything in after driving through the green with his tee shots on the par 4s and the par 5s, because chipping is easier on an LPGA course.

</snicker>

[discostu]

He'd make holes-in-one on all the par 3 and most of the par 4 because they put big golfball magnets in the flags to help the ladies out. Everybody knows it, no need to provide proof.

Hmm this is easier than he makes it look.

[presidio9]

You still around? Oh, BTW, Tiger clearly should have quit after the first round, right?

[presidio9]

Yes, check out post #73. The rationale is quite clear. Too bad you have never actually WATCHED an LPGA event.


Actually, not too bad. The quality of play is sorely lacking.

[presidio9]

Snicker all you want. Rebutt post #73.

Ooops. You can't.


You never could let being 100% wrong stop you could you?