Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: 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.

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.

73 posted on 07/23/2003 6:51:28 AM PDT by presidio9 (RUN AL, RUN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]


To: 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.

Faulty logic. Woods still needs 1 shot to get to Par 3's and 2 shots to get to Par 4's. He'd get to the Par 5's in 2, but he regularly does that anyway. The one advantage he'd have is being closer to the pin, but he still wouldn't 1 putt every hole, which is what he'd need to do to shoot in the 50s.

143 posted on 07/23/2003 10:54:14 AM PDT by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson