If you really wanted to "Tiger Proof" a golf course wouldn't you

[Patrick_Mucci]

introduce pronounced contouring into the putting surfaces ?

Length has little influence.

Narrowness has little influence.

ONLY pronounced contouring would seem to thwart his greatness, or would it ?

[Bill_McBride]

introduce pronounced contouring into the putting surfaces ?

Length has little influence.

Narrowness has little influence.

ONLY pronounced contouring would seem to thwart his greatness, or would it ?

.....when combined with F&F conditions and 10-11 stimp readings?

Oh yeah!

[Guy Nicholson]

Isn't he supposed to be the best putter, or at least one of the best, in the game? Or maybe the theory is that if you make the greens crazy enough, nobody will make any putts. At the very least, it would be a good way to Hunter Mahan-proof a golf course.

My own theory is that the best way to Tiger-proof a course is just to make sure you're not hosting a major or an event linked to one of his sponsors.

[Pete_Pittock]

Tiger has a putting advantage when he has makeable putts. When the putts are big breakers no one has an advantage and it becomes luck or who hits more approaches stiff (Romero at Oakmont).

[Joe Perches]

I think a "Tiger Proof" golf course is a par 70, with 16 par 4s, all 400 yards 60 degree doglegs that allow 250 yard drives at most, and 2 par 3s of 170 yards or so.  All greens would be dartboards,  soft, receptive, dead flat but bumpy poa.

[Ed Oden]

Pete, I disagree.  If the contour is as severe as Patrick is describing, no one is going to be hitting it stiff and approach putts will be extremely hard to get close to the hole.  Seems to me the premium is on the guy who can make the most 5-15 footers for par.  Who is the best at that?

Ed

[Tim Gavrich]

If the only type of course that could thwart Tiger is one on which scores would be arbitrary (e.g. because bumpy greens can send otherwise perfect putts off line), is there any question as to his being the best ever?

I think it would be a better idea to force all the crowds to leave before his next chance to make a tournament-winning putt.  It is the presence of people, the very pressure itself, that brings out the best in him.  It is the exact opposite for most people.

[Pete_Pittock]

     My supposition is that Tiger is the best putter because he is the best at believing he will make the putt. Give him a severe contour, ala Oakmont or Dove Mountain and he may not expect to make a big breaker. Advantage gone. When you hear him commenting about green contours, that means something.
     Amother factor is green speed. The faster the speed the better he becomes, relative to other players. When the speed drops, more equality.
     Consistency also plays a part. When you play/practce 90% of your golf at one general green speed, the putting at the other 10% should suffer. 

[Ed Oden]

Pete, I see your point.  But at the end of the day, Tiger adapts better than anyone else.  He could be beaten on a course of the type Patrick describes just as he can be beaten on courses as currently presented.  I suspect that if the tour played a full season on courses of this type, Tiger's win percentage would be substantially consistent with his historical average.

Ed

[Jim Nugent]

Oakmont is an example of Patrick's suggestion.  Tiger's 3rd round there was a case study.  Hit 17 greens, shot 1 under.  Missed all sorts of putts he normally would hole.  Cabrera made a comment to the effect that the greens neutralized putting's importance, and that is one reason he won. 

I think another way to make things hard for Tiger is to convince him to hit driver off the tee, and penalize him a lot when he misses.  ANGC has done that a bit more the past few years.  Not a very interesting course setup. 

[Robin Doodson]

The only way to stop Tiger (and why would you want to?) would be to follow the lead of Formula 1 and change the rules completely to give the less talented and capable a chance. Maybe they should make him play with an egg shaped ball or he can only play with 5 clubs (no putter).

It has been proved time and again that making courses tougher only makes it harder for everyone else. He is the best in every aspect of the game so whether the course is 6,000 yards or 10,000 yards he's still going to win.

For me i think we should just celebrate the fact that the best player keeps winning at the end of the day.

Robin

[Pat Burke]

IMO  You can't really Tiger proof anything
BUT, I would say look at a place like Colonial.
Most tee shots require shaping the ball, and unlike many tour
courses, the fairways are not only fairly narrow, but on the tee shots
requiring the ability to shape the ball, you have to shape it no matter how far you hit it.
Bombers can carry some corners or bunkers, but if the ball is moving just a little the wrong way
the tee shot will run into a lie that is very difficult to spin the ball out of
Problem is, Tiger tends to be better at curving the ball both ways than most players too.

[Rich Goodale]

Your are wrong here, Pat

Anything emphasizing shot making and/or the short game is going to play into Tiger's hands.

The best way to "Tiger Proof" a golf course is to make it LONNNNNNNG.  He'll be forced to hit driver on most holes and will bust a gut (or ACL or sacroiliac) trying to keep up with the really big hitters.

[Neil_Crafter]

Rich
I have felt for a long time that it would be better to shorten courses rather than lengthen them to counter him. The lengthening idea has been well and truly tried and Tiger knows that that eliminates a certain percentage of the field. So I would say SHORRRRRRRRRRRRRRTEN.

[Ian_L]

Make every hole between 40 and 90 yards?

[Neil_Crafter]

maybe not that short........

[Robin Doodson]

Why  do we want to "counter" him. What the hell has he ever done to us other than make the game more popular than ever therefore opening up opportunities for all of us. This attitude is borderline discrimination and if i was Tiger i would consider litigation. Unfortunately with his win/loss record i don't think we'd have much of a case.

Why don't we look at making courses Tiger friendly therefore growing the legend and growing the game.

robin

[Leo Barber]

Anyone that tries to supposedly "tiger proof" the course by lengthening is assisting him on his way to 19 majors - which by the way is not a bad thing.  Remember this is probably the most skilled and intelligent athlete the world has seen or will see in this generation across all sports and we should rejoice in this not try and stymie it by tricking things up?    To bring Tiger back to any field you simply need to dumb the course down - but why would you want to lower the test to the lowest common denominator?

[Doug Siebert]

Why do you want to Tiger proof anything?

The idea shouldn't be to make it harder for Tiger (while somehow not making it equally harder for others) but instead to provide a well rounded challenge of golfing skill.

I'd submit that one dimensional greens that are flat but fast challenge no one adequately.  When a course is like Bay Hill and even long putts have only a few inches or at most a couple feet of break despite being pretty fast, that's not challenging green reading or the art of determining your line in combination with your speed to hole the putt.

Some seem to be arguing that because everyone misses more putts on more difficult greens that it somehow reduces the required skill because "no one" is making putts.  One could make the same argument that the area around greens should be flat, mowed short and free of hazards because to do make it too challenging means "no one" is holing chips, thus chipping skill isn't adequately tested.

Think about it this way: how many people did you see three putt at Bay Hill on Sunday, when it wasn't just a choked short putt that should have been made (I saw the 5 putt, that was not due to a difficult putt...)  Compare that to Oakmont's greens, or ANGC's greens.  Sometimes the challenge is not in one putting, but insuring you don't three putt...

[A.G._Crockett]

There is no such golf course, and there is nothing to do to existing golf courses that would prevent the best from being the best.

I think that the easier the course, the less interesting it is to Tiger.  Do ANYTHING to make a course harder in ANY way, and he separates from the mere mortals.

[Tony Ristola]

Leave the courses alone, cut down on the ball and have the guys use 10-clubs.

Then we'd find out who the best golfers are.

.

[Rich Goodale]

Neil

I was just grasping at straws.  As AG says above, there probably is no way, given his demonstrably superior skill level at most taks, particularly "playing the game."

Ian

I think that the 3-year old Tiger (i.e. Mike Douglas Show vintage) could have whipped most of the tour at that time (~1981) on courses with holes ranging from 40-90 yards--including Watson and Seve.  It would have been: knock down 5-iron to 5 feet, putt; driver, chip in from 20 feet; 8-iron, up and down from bunker; etc. etc. etc.

Rich

[David_Tepper]

Of all the course that host majors, aren't AGNC and St. Andrews the courses with the most highly contoured greens? Given his success on those courses, it sure does not look like contoured greens negate his abilities to any significant extent.

[Anthony Gray]

  Hate to say it , but I don't think you can. He just has all the shots.

  Anthony

[Tim Bert]

Heavy rain and wind.
While I am sure someone can cite a tournament where he did well in these conditions in general it is harder to attack and dominate and I don't recall being overly impressed with his play in severe conditions. Unfortunately only mother nature can provide this type of defense.