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

[Anthony Gray]

  Take Steve Williams off the bag and put Garland Fluff Bayley on it.

  Anthony

[John Kirk]

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).

Peter,

I agree with this.

Some courses seem to have a tendency to bunch players into a tight group of scores.  But U.S. Open style conditions, with narrow fairways and long rough, spread out the field.  British Open conditions, with less rough, bunch the field, unless there's lots of wind.

I also think some courses suit Tiger better, but it's hard to pin down the reason.  St. Andrews and Pebble Beach are good for Tiger; Carnoustie and Oakmont don't seem to work for him.

Based on the last thought, perhaps the best way to Tiger-proof a course is to make it extremely difficult for everyone.

[Jeff_Brauer]

You could put a padlock on the gate and give everyone but Tiger the combination......

I side with the why stop Tiger crowd. Who would want to Tiger proof?  Augusta and any course holding a major in the next ten years might. Tour stops wouldn't because its only effect would be to make him less likely to play.

Going back to my "Those days are over" thread, there was a lot of dissension about making courses too easy, which isn't possible for 95% of the golfers.  There was also a thread about defending par at the green, which is related to Pat's thesis, and I was going to start a thread about it, but will mention it here.

Why "defend par" at the green?  The call for this comes from some of the same voices that praise strategy and "risk/reward".  My question is, if the putts are so hard that there is no reward for either strategy or hitting close with skill, where is the risk/reward we seemingly cherish?  Isn't it somewhat inherent that if a hole is played well, there is a reasonable chance of birdie?  And if a player hits a dozen great approach shots, is there a problem with him making a bunch of those putts and converting those good shots into birdies?

As a corollary, it seems the same voices that want to stop top players and keep their scores near par are also the ones that say that "par is irrelevant."  Somehow, it doesn't seem you can have it both ways.

[Kalen Braley]

Theres only 2 things you have to do to Tiger proof it.

1)  Shorten it so everyone can reach all the greens in regulation and par 5's in two.
2)  Grow the rough to 6+ inches to make him pay for his wildness off the tee which is probably his only weakness.

Do those two things and his winning % would probably cut in half.

[K. Krahenbuhl]

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.

Tiger might never lose a tournament if they did that.

[Tom Birkert]

I think the only solution would be to make the courses unfair or easy.

When a course is unfair (see Carnoustie in '99) then it brings luck into the equation which reduces the skill element.

When a course is too easy it means that lesser players who get hot can go on a birdie blitz and it effectively reduces his superiority over the competition.

He only tends to play in the events which are on the harder courses as it is, and he wins 30% of the time.

[Mark Bourgeois]

I'm with Tom B on this.

On a side note, golf and major league baseball fans alike are closet fascists.

The best times are when one player or team dominates for long stretches.

[Richard Choi]

I would say making putting surfaces more difficult has nothing to do with "Tiger Proofing".

I believe "Tiger Proofing" is not just about getting the scores higher, it is about not having him hit wedges into par 5's or driving a medium-length par 4's. That is what ticked off Hootie.

Think of it this way. If tiger posts 15 under at Masters by hitting 3 shots into every par 5 green and hitting mostly mid-irons into par 4's would they have made the changes that they have?

I don't think so...

[Jim Tang]

Probably an impossible thing to do.  I think lengthening a course plays into his hands and eliminates half the field from contention.

Tiger has all the shots, however, without question, the one area he struggles most with is his driver in terms of accuracy.  I think you would need to keep the rough thick, similar to what they had last week at Bay Hill and narrow fairways.

I would also eliminate a par 5 or two since Tiger just KILLS the par 5's in a tournament.  Or, as mentioned earlier, you could have par 5's that dogleg enough to not allow him to go at greens in two.  Not much fun to watch for the viewing public, but a good way to keep Tiger from making eagles.  Think the Colonial or Harbortown.

I am not a Tiger fan by any means.  However, the guy is the best player in the world.  Whatever changes you make to a course will certainly impact Tiger, however, those changes will also impact the rest of the field.  Since Tiger has the most talent and ability, the changes made impact his game less significantly than the rest of the field.  He'll always have an advantage, no matter what you do to the course.

This isn't the NBA where you can trade for a big body to match up with a rival's big man in the post, or the NFL where you draft an end to rush your opponent's pro bowl quarterback.  The only person who can stop Tiger, it would seem at this point, is Tiger.

[Matt Waterbury]

I think, even with courses set up as "easy" or to reward "luck", Tiger will still win more than his fair share.

If he gets to start from the same teeing ground, end at the same hole, and use the same equipment as everyone else, he will be "the best". Whether that means he wins 50% of 15% of the time, he will still win more than anyone else.

Cheerio,
Matt

[Tom Huckaby]

PAGING GEORGE PAZIN:

Mucci is now solidly in my camp on this long-fought issue (strange bedfellows indeed).  And many others come over to see the light....

Heavily contoured, fast greens are an EQUALIZER, not a separator, for the simple reason that it means NO ONE is making any putts.

Come on man, it's comforting over here in the light.....

 

[Ian_L]

Tom, does the NCGA decrease slope ratings when they see heavily contoured greens?  If nobody's making the 15-footers, you can bet that weaker players are three-putting from that distance.  Better putters read greens better and judge distances better, so why would contoured greens favor weaker players?

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom, does the NCGA decrease slope ratings when they see heavily contoured greens?  If nobody's making the 15-footers, you can bet that weaker players are three-putting from that distance.  Better putters read greens better and judge distances better, so why would contoured greens favor weaker players?

Ian:  That is not what I contend.  MY contention is that heavily contoured greens do not FAVOR weaker putters at the extremes; they rather just serve as an equalizer when the differences are not extreme to begin with.

See the Tiger/Cabrera/Oakmont example.

TH

[Jim Franklin]

I would think if you slowed down the greens it would bring everyone closer to Tiger.

[David_Madison]

How can you use Oakmont as an example of Tiger Proofing when he came in second there? By that logic, Pinehurst #2 is even more Tiger Proofed because he didn't win the two Opens he played there. Or Winged Foot where he missed the cut. The tougher the conditions, the more imagination required, and the greater control of one's approach shots to get to the right spots on the greens, the greater the odds that he'll succeed.

Perhaps the best way to Tiger Proof a course is to make it soft and easy with a massive birdie fest that anyone at that level could go low-score crazy. At the very least you bring a lot more players into the mix and MAYBE decrease the odds of Tiger being the very lowest scorer among a big group of crazy low scores.

[JMEvensky]

Tom, does the NCGA decrease slope ratings when they see heavily contoured greens?  If nobody's making the 15-footers, you can bet that weaker players are three-putting from that distance.  Better putters read greens better and judge distances better, so why would contoured greens favor weaker players?

Ian:  That is not what I contend.  MY contention is that heavily contoured greens do not FAVOR weaker putters at the extremes; they rather just serve as an equalizer when the differences are not extreme to begin with.

See the Tiger/Cabrera/Oakmont example.

TH

I agree that more contour lessens the good putter's advantage.

Go at it the other way.

I think the better putter would have the higher advantage on flat greens.

[Tom Huckaby]

JME:  bless you - another who sees the light.

My friend George has considered me insane for these contentions for several years....

TH

[JMEvensky]

JME:  bless you - another who sees the light.

My friend George has considered me insane for these contentions for several years....

TH

IMO,it seems self evident.

A bad putter will make few,if any,20 footers-irrespective of contour.That's why they're bad putters.A good putter will,it seems,make more 20 footers on flat greens than greens with some break.So,I figure if the bad putter can't make fewer than the 0 he's already making,then anything(contour) which causes the good putter to make fewer,only lessens the divide.

[Tom Huckaby]

It's always seemed self-evident to me too, JME.

Others don't get it.  Oh well.

[Steve_Roths]

The Open Championships seem to keep everyone in the field.  They are not overly long and do not require two irons carried over lakes.

There are usually multiple angles of attack at Open courses so it doesn't dictate who the course would suit better.  This is important because you could have a short game guru on his A game that would be neutralized by a Bethpage but could be in the hunt at a Royal Troon.

[Mike Wagner]

i think the title of this thread is misleading.  it should really be "If you really wanted to do your best to equlize the best golfer in the field against everyone else....."

Short of simply not letting him in the field, there is no way tot Tiger PROOF anything.  I don't know if anyone here will argue that he is the best at just about every facet of the game - and most all, knowing how to win. 

The fast contoured greens don't stack up - he owns most the records at Augusta...

[Pete Lavallee]

The real answer is to neutralize Tiger's advantage on the par 5's; make them so short that everyone reaches or so long that only the longest can get home and have to use their 3 woods to do it. Riviera is the perfect example, everyone can reach 1 and 11; only the longest can get home on 17 and using 3 woods they often get into trouble rather than birdie territory. Tiger's lack of wins here proves my point quite nicely. By the way, their greens are niether flat nor overly undulating.

[Mike Wagner]

Par is irrelevant.  Do what you want to the par 5's and he will still figure out how to be the best.

[Ian_L]

Tom, does the NCGA decrease slope ratings when they see heavily contoured greens?  If nobody's making the 15-footers, you can bet that weaker players are three-putting from that distance.  Better putters read greens better and judge distances better, so why would contoured greens favor weaker players?

Ian:  That is not what I contend.  MY contention is that heavily contoured greens do not FAVOR weaker putters at the extremes; they rather just serve as an equalizer when the differences are not extreme to begin with.

See the Tiger/Cabrera/Oakmont example.

TH

Gotcha, I didn't know you were talking about small differences in putting skill.

Still, I'm not sure you can come to a good conclusion by just theorizing about it, and I definitely disagree with the notion that this is obvious.  If every putt made on the course were between 15 and 20 feet, then I would agree that contours are an equalizer.

However, differences in putting skill will be accentuated from 3-6 feet, since the better putter will not miss much more than usual, while the not-so-great putter will have more difficulty. 

Also, from 40+ feet, the better putter will not three-putt too much more, while the weaker putter will likely do so most of the time.


In short, I think it depends on the golfers (and the difference in skill level), the number of short, medium, and long putts they are expected to have on a certain course, and the extent of the contours. 

Your thoughts, Tom?

[A.G._Crockett]

JME:  bless you - another who sees the light.

My friend George has considered me insane for these contentions for several years....

TH

Always glad to see this pop back up!

Here, once again, is my response:
     a. Ben Crenshaw is a great putter, and I am not
     b. Ben Crenshaw is a better putter than I am
     c. the tougher the greens, the less difference there is between us
     d. IF we could find greens that were tough enough, I would become
         as good a putter as Ben Crenshaw is!
     e. by extension, if we can find IMPOSSIBLE greens, I would be a BETTER
         putter than Crenshaw!

This is SO cool!  And so dopey...

(By the way, guys, there is nothing in all of sports that I know of that works this way.)

Flat greens don't favor the better putter.  They favor turds like me.  Why do you think Crenshaw only won the Masters among the four majors, but won two of those?  Answer: because he is a putting freak, and the tougher the greens, the more he gets to exploit his freakish ability.