The MOST Boring British Open Ever

[TEPaul]

John Conley:

Face it, a guy like you and a guy like me are probably on entirely different wave-lengths with what all it is that interests them about golf, golfers and golf tournaments!

Of course I love good drama in golf tournaments between a number of competitors--who wouldn't? But I appreciate and frankly am fascinated by a lot more than that.

I'm often fascinated by anyone who is the best at what they do, sometimes no matter what it is they do and for that reason in golf Woods fascinates me and I love to watch him no matter what the situation.

When I hear or read that you're BORED (in big capital letters) by Woods or the tournaments he's in simply because someone's not neck and neck with him, you know what I really think John? I think, well, that's OK I guess if that works for him but I'm sure glad I don't get BORED like that or by things like that!

Moe Norman? Bored by him because he can hit it so straight and pure? No conceivable way! Plenty of pros, including Crenshaw have traveled miles and sought out Moe Norman to see for themselves if what they heard about him was true. It is!! I really don't think it BORED them either--Crenshaw was completely fascinated. My best friend is a Canadian who's played countless pro ams with Norman who reports it's rather common if Norman hit a couple of flags in a round! Boring? Not to me--I'd love to see that!

But if that's the way you feel about some of these things--then hey, that's cool if that's really the way you feel but I'm sure damned glad I don't get bored like you do!

If Tiger happens to take a lead at Muirfield (or even if just the sight of Muirfield bores you) then why don't you do yourself a favor and just turn the TV off and go play golf or something yourself! Unless, of course, that bores you too!

[Bob_Huntley]

Much talk about Ed Fiori amd Bob May. I know it wasn't a major, but didn't Billy Mayfair beat Tiger in a playoff at a Los Angeles Open that had been moved to Valencia G.C.?

[TEPaul]

Oh Christ, is that really true Bob? Tiger actually lost to Billy Mayfair too? I thought that might have been forgotten somehow by the gloriousness of his ensuing career.

But I guess not! Some of these guys will take that fact as proof positive that the young man can then never be more than some chump disguised in Zeus's clothing!

I can just see Tiger at 95 after 47 major victories mumbling like Marlon Brando did in "On the Waterfront"; "I coulda been a contenda, I coulda been somebody, if it wasn't for that Mayfair!"

[Kevin_Reilly]

Much talk about Ed Fiori amd Bob May. I know it wasn't a major, but didn't Billy Mayfair beat Tiger in a playoff at a Los Angeles Open that had been moved to Valencia G.C.?

Yes, that was in 1998.  But of course this was before Tiger's swing change finally "clicked" with him.  I think that happened during the Byron Nelson tournament.  Interestingly, Tiger finished in 2nd place the following year as well.

[SPDB]

What about that guy who caught woods with a birdie at the 18th to force a playoff in the Disney Classic, only to be disqualified by having illegal grips on his long putter. i respect the rules as much as the next guy, but this guy was a qualifier who managed to chase down woods a la Bob May.

[TEPaul]

That guy should have been disqualified. That illegal putter saved him about 25 shots a tournament. I saw that poor SOB when he first came out with a conventional putter and it was horrible! He had the yips so bad on one short putt the ball hit his left toe and caromed off the green--it was disgusting to watch!

[A_Clay_Man]

I remeber twenty or so years ago the argument that the pros didn't need to work too hard because a diet of top tens,twenties or thirties, made them wealthy beyond their dreams. And as I recall it was mostly directed towards the American golfer, I assume because the tour was getting so big.
Then there was the one that the Americans were brought up playing Baseball and learning to swing on a vertical plane was something just not natural to them.

Now along comes a kid who's been groomed on a steady diet of vertical swings and has a work ethic to boot. Not to mention the creativity and experience to dominate...

And they're gonna call that boring?

 I don't, I call it progress and the perfect golf round is boring, boring boring, good shot after good shot after good shot.

[John_Conley]

That guy should have been disqualified. That illegal putter saved him about 25 shots a tournament.

Taylor Smith (I think that's who it was) should have been disqualified?  What about Tiger Woods, who had a neck on his Scotty Cameron that exceeded the length allowed?  Then he should have been disqualified too.

Tom Paul:

That I should turn off the TV, or better yet toggle the switch and play SSX Tricky on my X-Box, is exactly the point.  B O R I N G if there isn't a question about who will win, but the masses will watch anyway.  When my Mom and an 84-year-old client can tell you more about how Tiger won at Augusta or Bethpage than I - a maniacal golfer - can illustrates the split that exists.

Cliff Kresge finishing birdie-birdie-par to catch Arron Oberholser and then pitch in for eagle on the playoff hole?  THAT'S exciting golf competition.

It is fun to watch Moe Norman hit balls.  But having seen that, I'd prefer a close finish in the next Major.

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

That's really funny the way you interpret rule 8-2b to mean a player cannot align a mark on his ball while putting! Now I know you've got to be a lawyer!

Although clearly, clearly, clearly that rule neither means nor contemplates a mark on the golf ball the USGA and R&A are quite proud of their rules wording and do not mean for it to be misleading or confusing.

And you're right, to a very precise and literate person such as yourself the wording could be seen as slightly questionable or misleading. But I'll guarantee you they do not mean a golf ball in that particular rule's context and as such they would not in anyway consider Tiger or any other golfer to be cheating for aligning such a thing. Afterall they're the ones who decide on the rules and their meaning as well as write them!

But having said that, and again, you apparently have discovered some vaguely misleading language and I think it would be fun for you to call the USGA's rules committee and point that out to them to see what they'd say.

I can almost guarantee that if you could engage one of their in-house rules people long enough they might say that the key word in that rule (they always have a "key" word) may very well be "placed" interestingly enough!

And in reality that may very well mean when you get to a green they don't want you "placing" anything anywhere to indicate a line for putting. What that would logically mean is not a line that's already on a golf ball but placing something that in and of itself is "a line". And please don't come back to me and say; "Yes but the line on the golf ball is "a placed line" because in this context you have to know the distinction I'm making.

I can also almost guarantee if you get a rules person with any kind of sense of humor you might hear their age old cliche that such a question is essentially "contemplating 1000 angles on the head of a pin" which the USGA will tell you they don't do.

Or maybe, just maybe, they will take your precision about the wording seriously and make some alteration in the wording that will require the next R&A/USGA rules convocation every other year that considers rules alterations, even wording!

These are exactly the kinds of things I used to bug the USGA about generally in the winters when I was bored and generally when I used to sit on the toilet reading the rules and decisions and also reading deeply into all the wording of the rules.

I could swear more often than not I would hear one of the secretaries say to a rules official; "It's that annoying Tom Paul again!"

[Gib_Papazian]

Everybody seems to have an opinion about Tiger. I wrote a column about his effect on the game (and how it ruined my Father's Day) that went to print on Tuesday and came back into town two days later to dozens of reader e-mails.

The split was about 50-50, although a couple of readers accused me of being a "closet bigot."

One guy hates Tiger because he has proof that "Tiger's  father positioned paid secret shills in spots at St. Andrews atop hidden bunkers as human directional markers."

I understand what Tom Paul is saying, because it is amazing to watch in person. I was inside the ropes at Pebble Beach and it was a frightening demonstration of skill and will.

But so is watching the Lakers and Yankees and the firepower of the St. Louis Rams offense.  After a while, unless you are a season ticket holder, even dynasties get a bit old.

Unless, or course, you happen to be one of those annoying bandwagon sycophants who root for the Yankees (or Lakers) even though you couldn't find the Bronx on a map of New York if your life depended on it.  

Maybe that is an unfair comparison, because Tiger is not a "team," but his is certainly a dynasty already.

The beauty of watching any sporting event is the idea of uncertainty. When Tiger is at full throttle, I am the first person to say it is breathtaking. But when a guy even wins with his "B" game - proving how far ahead of the curve he is -my enjoyment gets blunted a bit.

I remember on the 10th tee at Pebble, Ernie Els clocked one right down the middle into the wind. Tiger stepped onto the tee and it sounded like a cannon going off. The ball was still rising when it went by Ernie's tee shot.

The thing that I always remember is watching Ernie's shoulders slump walking off the tee, staring at the ground like a whipped dog.

Is that good for golf?

All of this said - though it is obvious I'm rooting for an upset - Muirfield does not seem to fit Tiger's game as well as you might think. There are lots of twists and turns out there and the golf course is terribly cruel to any hint of wildness off the tee.

I had so much fun watching Carnoustie and Southern Hills and the duel at Olympic and was so crestfallen at the lack of drama at Bethpage and Augusta this year I sincerely hope Tiger misses the cut.

Sorry, but that is how I feel.

[TEPaul]

Gib:

Another classic Gib Papazian "say it like it is" post but there's something that needs serious clarification in it--or I should  say a "RED WARNING" (like on the side of a medicinal drug bottle).

You said; "....even though you're the type of person who couldn't find the Bronx on a map of New York if your life depended on it."

That's not funny--that's very serious business. Some sychophant foreigner (to NYC) who really can't find the Bronx on a map of New York if his life depended on it should be immediately disabused from coming anywhere near New York because finding the Bronx so as to avoid it at all costs is essential and precisely the thing your life does depend on!

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

I knew you'd say that! But I think it's interesting that you already have questioned them on that and their response was about what I'd expect them to say, that the "placing" of some line itself is the "key" issue here and clearly a golf ball that has a line on it before you arrive on a putting green makes this a non-issue to them.

Now if you retort by telling me; "maybe so but if someone happens to mark his ball with a line WHILE ON THE PUTTING GREEN he should be nailed for cheating" all I'm going to say to you Shivas is--would you like to be my lawyer from here on because if you would you've got the job!?

Clearly the USGA sees the reality of a line put on a ball by a player or a line put on a ball by the manufacturer as totally inconsequential and neither as a real aid.

But I've been using the very fine lettering on my ball (manufacturers) that looks not much different than a line I might put on a ball as an alignment for years! The only reason I do it though is because once on TV KennyV said it rolls truer that way because of the construction of the golf ball--something that's probably total bullshit anyway!

And don't forget any of us can tell the USGA what their rules wording really means but certainly that's going to be futile if they don't agree because they know what their rules are supposed to mean even if they didn't write them particularly clearly!

[Kevin_Reilly]

And the mark is not intended to indicate the line of the putt -- it's to indicate the brand of ball  

Yes, but the manufacturers have come to realize that the brand mark on the ball has an importance ancillary benefit, namely aiding in the line of putts.  So now the brand or sub brand mark on balls has become more obvious in its layout...BY DESIGN.

[Rick Shefchik]

I fall into an odd category: I've been a Red Sox fan for 30 years, and I'm a Tiger Woods fan. I love an underdog, and root for a star-crossed franchise that even as we speak is conceiving a heartbreaking secret plan to again lose to the Yankees; and yet, like Tom Paul, I'm fascinated and deeply entertained by Tiger's skills, mental toughness and determination to be great.

As time goes by, it seems to me that what we remember best from past athletic endeavors is greatness, and then specific moments, but not entire games or tournaments. Bobby Jones is remembered, even though most of us can't describe the circumstances of his first U.S. Open win in 1923 (beat Bobby Cruickshank in a playoff.) Muhammad Ali is remembered, although the three Frazier fights tend to blur together; Joe DiMaggio is remembered, though it takes a book by David Halberstam to remind us about his specific glories in 1949; Secretariat is remembered, although no one recalls the horses he beat.

Tiger Woods is interesting to me because he's the best ever at something I love and something that is so damned hard to do. I can see why some don't care to watch, but I feel privileged to be an eyewitness to the history he's making.

[TEPaul]

But I do commiserate wth you Shivas and one of these days I'll call you up and tell you about some of my campaigns with the USGA over the years for explanations and clarifications and even in two cases a request for alteration of a rule.

Some of the time you might get explanations that would make a half asleep judge throw someone out of a courtroom for total incompetence and sometimes it can get darn interesting.

With my "honor" campaign (rule 10-1a) with a bunch of heavy duty people on my side, including a past USGA President, I was told by the past president that they are very apt to sent you what he termed their "bed bug letter" which is essentially almost the same response to almost anything you ask them.

There is one question that is pretty interesting though. It involves strictly a mathematical question and answer involving their handicap system and formula and we have a number of mathmeticians who claim there's no conceivable way the USGA can be correct but to date they refuse to admit that they could be wrong!

[redanman]

A propos Tiger Woods and the comments on him making it all boring............I never much enjoyed watching the USA Dream Team.

I guess that makes me a bigot?

And as for the lines on the ball............There was a golf ball invented by a moron at my club in Colorado (Actually we did have the once owner of the Hogan Company and the founders of Sport Haley   as members) who shall remain nameless (The person, not the ball or club),  called the "Bald Eagle".  It had  six dimple free spots to allow pure hits and the name of the ball placed several times on the ball, perfectly aligned even having directional arrows!  The ball was not very good and too mechanical for me.  The inventor of the ball gave me two dozen, I used one sleeve and didn't even play 9 holes with it.  Luckily the no-talent pro at Rolling Hills really swore by them and traded me sleeve for sleeve Titleist Balatas back then.  I went nuts trying to align the marks, the dimple-free spots, the arrows, .......if that was how I had to play golf for the rest of my life, I'd kill myself or watch NASCAR one.  I'm too busy looking at the line to fart around with some stupid line.

(Anyone outside of Colorado ever even HEAR of this atrocity or whether it was legal?)

Shinnecock 14 is one of the greatest natural holes in golf...........(to make this post architecturally significant)

[John_Conley]

The Bald Eagle isn't/wasn't that bad of an idea.  Hollis Stacy finished 4th with it the first week out about three years ago.  Do dimples deflect the ball?  I don't know, but it isn't a bad marketing premise.

Clayman:

I've told people Tiger is living proof of the "Be careful what you wish for" axiom.  We did "just get it", and Tiger ruined my first Father's Day the same way it ruined Gib's!  I watched Lehman tee it up in the final group four years in a row without winning.  All were great drama.  Pavin, Janzen, Jones, and Stewart?  Pretty cool events if you ask me.

I said the same after Agassi, Courier, and Sampras all became #1 in the world.  Americans were supposed to be toast after Connors and McEnroe.  Lendl, Wilander, Becker, and Edberg were riding high and there was no way an American could ever be #1 again.  LOL.

[Derek_Duncan]

I know I'm getting what I was wishing.  I remember intensely wanting a larger-than-life player to take over the sport during that droll decade or so prior to Tiger's arrival.  Perhaps that's why I found myself pulling for Greg Norman every major, until he began wearing that wide brimmed hat.  He almost had the stuff of heros.  Back then the notion that a player could not only win the Grand Slam, but make it look simple, seemed inhuman, even impossible when you got right down to it.  Therefore it was safe and even whimsical to imagine.  What a formerly romantic notion of a great player somehow, some way, slaying the dragon four times one summer!  

Well, now I'm getting it, but it turns out I preferred the time of yore when I could whole-heartedly root for Tiger, back in the day when there were minor flaws and occasional banana balls, when the image of him hoisitng a jug or silver basin wasn't so completely repetitive that they all run together already.  Oh for those post '97 Masters/pre Pebble Beach days to return.

By the way, the new Strata Straight (in the green box) come with long alignment arrows printed on them.

[TEPaul]

Derek:

That's a good post--and an honest one!

It says to me that as golf fans we probably will continue to hope for what we don't have with tour players and when we get what we hope for we want something else.

Personally, I like Woods a lot, and I don't mind seeing him win a lot either. As such, I'm probably as interested at seeing the career unfold of a truly unprecedented golfer as I am in the dramatic competition that others are hoping for and seem depressed and critcal that it isn't happening.

But I can't agree that Woods has played so far amongst a bunch of chumps, as some are indicating, although in my opinion they're only rationalizing.

These guys that Woods is competing against, has been competing against and may continue through his career competing against can really play, in my opinion, but despite that they probably won't beat him that much, not because they're choking or can't play, only because he's just that much better than them.

And although I do think that winning like Woods does or Nicklaus did to a large extent before him becomes somewhat of a state of mind at that level, I do think that some of those playing today besides Woods could really beat up on some of those former champions simply because some of these guys today really are good. But of course no one could ever prove that--or disprove it, for that matter.

[Bruceski]

Nicklaus vs. Woods. In their primes. Too bad Gary isn't that good.  

[TEPaul]

Woods vs everybody in their prime?

No question!

Tiger Woods!

I would bet on Jack for one of his patented close seconds though!

[Brian Phillips]

I have said it before and I will say it again:

If it blows a gail at Muirfield I don't think Woods will win.

I can't remember who with but I have a $100 bet with someone on this site and I have bet Woods will not win another British Open unless played on Muirfield, Lytham or St. Andrews for the next ten years (I think it was ten years).

I can't remember the details of the bet.  If that person can come forward and remind me I would appreciate it.

If blows at Muirfield I really believe Woods will not win.

Brian.

[TEPaul]

Brian;

That would be interesting if the wind really blew at Muirfield and how Woods would handle it. I don't know if you recall but in preparation for the Open at TOC he apparently had this arsenal of low boring wind shots practiced and ready but the wind never blew and he never had to unveil them. That was one of my disappointments with his win there--I really wanted to see what that arsenal looked like--probably lots of those unsusual 3 woods and plenty of those 2 iron stingers that never get much more than 10ft off the ground.

I do hope the wind blows at Muirfield to see if he has that arsenal ready again--I bet he does. One of the things historically I never could understand though is how Watson won 5 Opens as he was basically a high ball player. With Woods, though, his game is basically all about controlling his trajectory!

Maybe you should hope whomever you bet with doesn't remember!

[Paul Turner]

Brian

I don't understand your theory, what is different about Muirfield, Lytham and St Andrews that suits Tiger, when compared with the other 6 venues?

The bet was with GeoffreyC.

[Brian Phillips]

Paul,

I feel there is less luck on those courses than say Carnoustie.  I feel he can navigate his way around the courses mentioned better than anyone in the world.

However, at somewhere like Carnoustie or Troon you need luck. Remember what happened to him on the Postage Stamp?  Didn't he take a 6 or something like that.  I just don't think the other courses suit him.  Just a hunch no science about it.

I want to see him play in the wind which he hasn't done yet on any of his Majors that he has won.  I can't remember any that he won in a gale.


TEPaul,

The $100 bet was for charity anyway so it wouldn't bother me.  

My outside bet for The Open this year is Nick Faldo!!

 

Brian