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

[Ian_L]

Thanks, AG for a simpler explanation.

Tougher greens penalize off-line and off-speed putts more than flat greens.  Whom does this favor?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Patrick,
I don't think it would thwart his greatness in any way. Highly contoured greens will always favor the best putters, especially over a four round event.

[Adam Russell]

I think the key is SLOW greens that have a variety of contour. Most tour courses go big tiers or small ripples. Mix it. Tiger hates anything rolling less than 11. See Dove Mountain.

Also, if you really wanted to Tiger-proof, build a Harbour Town with no rough and don't let the caddies walk it to gain information. That's a big deal that no one talks about. I think there also has to be as many situations tee to green where there is a number of clubs (more than four) to hit. Give pros doubt and choices, they'll screw it up...

[A.G._Crockett]

Patrick,
I don't think it would thwart his greatness in any way. Highly contoured greens will always favor the best putters, especially over a four round event.

Of course they do, and so the only answer that makes any sense whatsoever would be to make the course as easy as possible.  Short, wide-open, large flat greens.  If it becomes a birdiefest, then anybody might catch fire and win.  Do ANYTHING to make the course more difficult, be it tee to green or on the greens, and you start eliminating pretenders.  

[Pete Lavallee]

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

Mike,

If you don't think Tiger's dominance isn't all about distance, which translates to par 5 performance, ask yourself how he'd fare if he hit it as far as Zach Johnson.

[Neil_Crafter]

Jim K
Agree wholeheartedly with you. Highly contoured and difficult greens will separate the great putters from the good and the average. This latter group will be three putting rather than two putting if the greens are very difficult, whereas the great putters are nearly always ones with brilliant distance control and they three putt very rarely. Just my view based on quite a few years of tournament golf.

[Patrick_Mucci]

How can you use Oakmont as an example of Tiger Proofing when he came in second there?

Because, I believe that he never made a putt over 8 feet in 72 holes.

By that logic, Pinehurst #2 is even more Tiger Proofed because he didn't win the two Opens he played there.

It's got nothing to do, directly, with his finish, it's got to do with his ability to make less than 100 % of his putts from 10 feet and in.

And, his ability to get the ball inside 10 feet on highly contoured greens.

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.

WFW's greens might be considered contoured or highly contoured by some.

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.

You don't get it.
TIGER is the BEST PUTTER the tour has ever known.
He makes almost ALL of the putts he has to make.
Haven't you been watching TV for the last decade ?

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.

TIGER has nerves of steel, an iron will, which the others lack.
He makes the shots and PUTTS he has to, to win.
But, those putts become exponentially more difficult if substantive contour is introduced.

[JESII]

Pat,

As to that very last sentence...and they do for everyone else as well...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

As to that very last sentence...and they do for everyone else as well...

That's correct, but, TIGER won't be making 15 of 15 from 10 feet, which is his forte.

He'll come back toward the pack in that department, thus, the Tiger proofing will have been effective.

[Ian_L]

I still don't understand why Tiger's stats will suffer more than everyone else's.  Is there any real proof of this?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Ian,
What Pat fails to take into consideration is that by days three and four, while Tiger is merrily rolling along making all his two putts, the rest of the field is going to be channeling the psyche of Scott Hoch.     

[A.G._Crockett]

I still don't understand why Tiger's stats will suffer more than everyone else's.  Is there any real proof of this?

Of course there is no proof.  That's what makes this website tick.

[herrstein]

I have always regarded the term "Tiger proof" as meaning "keep the long players from winning."
Tiger is no longer the longest so the meaning has changed.
BUT- if you want to equalize the length factor (I.E. take the advantage away from the big hitters) you ensure that the drive landing area from 270- 330 is into a slope. The steeper the more effect (note I did not say better). The ultimate would be to erect a wall (on 6 foot stilts, so you could hit under it) that no one could hit over at 270. Then they would all hit from there, except the REALLY short hitters (who would be out of luck).
Lookout has a lot of drives into the slope that have some of the desired effect.
Tiger's advantage is that he's better than everyone else. You cannot defend that.
I play in a member-guest at LMGC that became the property of the best player in the club. Anyone could invite anyone (amateur) to play. This guy could beat anyone on his home course, LMGC, no matter who the partner was (including some great amateur players, who were fun to watch and play with).
The tournament chair decided to add a handicap minimum limit, so this poor +3 had to take a 10 handicapper to meet the limit of 7. The stated reason for this change (which ruined the tournament, IMHO), was "to keep that G--D-- Corey from winning every year."
He carried that sack of potatoes 10 handicapper to the championship, of course, and won anyway.
You cannot keep the best player from winning in a well constructed game.

[Jim Nugent]

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.

Tiger has played the par 5's fine at Riviera.  His problem there has been his putting.  It sucked.  PGATour.com ran a detailed analysis of this a few years ago. 

I still don't understand why Tiger's stats will suffer more than everyone else's.  Is there any real proof of this?

 

Anecdotal, but still pretty suggestive.  At Oakmont, everyone's putting stats went way up.  IIRC average putts per round were about 1.5 or 2 higher than the average on tour.  Tiger especially had troubles on the greens.  That third round he hit 17 greens, shot 69, with 35 putts.  He missed a number of shortish putts he normally makes.  The winner, Cabrera, said the greens were so hard, they took away his usual putting disadvantage. 

He also putted terribly at Pinehurst.  He hit way, way more greens than the winner.  But he also was 2nd to last in the putting stats. 

I have always regarded the term "Tiger proof" as meaning "keep the long players from winning."

I take it as meaning keeping Tiger from winning.  Have always been plenty of long hitters.   Some won, most did not.  How did you keep this unmatched phenom from winning every other tournament he entered?   

Also, if you really wanted to Tiger-proof, build a Harbour Town with no rough and don't let the caddies walk it to gain information. That's a big deal that no one talks about. I think there also has to be as many situations tee to green where there is a number of clubs (more than four) to hit. Give pros doubt and choices, they'll screw it up...

I bet that would play even more into Tiger's hands.  Anything that requires more thought, ingenuity and intuition gives him more strokes over the field.  Hoylake is one example.

Or Winged Foot where he missed the cut. 

  He was an emotional wreck, because his father died shortly before that.  He had not played a hole of competitive golf for two months. 



 

[Rich Goodale]

 The winner, Cabrera, said the greens were so hard, they took away his usual putting disadvantage. 

Excellent post Jim.  What I have highlighted above supports what I have said on here for ages, that highly contoured greens favor the less skilled putters/players.

Rich

[David_Madison]

How can you use Oakmont as an example of Tiger Proofing when he came in second there?

Because, I believe that he never made a putt over 8 feet in 72 holes.

By that logic, Pinehurst #2 is even more Tiger Proofed because he didn't win the two Opens he played there.

It's got nothing to do, directly, with his finish, it's got to do with his ability to make less than 100 % of his putts from 10 feet and in.

And, his ability to get the ball inside 10 feet on highly contoured greens.

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.

WFW's greens might be considered contoured or highly contoured by some.

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.

You don't get it.
TIGER is the BEST PUTTER the tour has ever known.
He makes almost ALL of the putts he has to make.
Haven't you been watching TV for the last decade ?

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.

TIGER has nerves of steel, an iron will, which the others lack.
He makes the shots and PUTTS he has to, to win.
But, those putts become exponentially more difficult if substantive contour is introduced.

Patrick,

Of course I watch Tiger play and know that he's the best putter under pressure ever. He's also the best thinker, the best course manager, and the best at having all of his game and skills in play when everyone else has lost at least some of theirs under pressure. Under challenging ball striking conditions he hits the most greens. When everyone is missing greens he has the best, most varied and imaginative short game.

I still maintain that a wide open birdie slugfest keeps the most possible players in the game and takes Tiger's winning percentage down from the 35% range maybe to 20%. And the conditions that get you there are wide driving areas that keep everyone going at the greens, a course that's not too long and with not many half-par par 4's, non-penal rough (hacking out leaves more up and down opportunities that Tiger will win with), big greens that keep everyone's GIR up and take away his short game advantage, and overall conditions that encourage lots of birdies in hopes of multiple players getting on a roll and therefore less tight. He'll still win his share of these royal rumbles, but likely fewer than with a thinned out field created by tough conditions.

[David_Tepper]

I disagree with the notion that highly contoured greens reduce the advantage of the better putters.

If one presumes that AGNC has the most highly contoured greens that the professionals play on a regular basis, the successes of Crenshaw, Seve and Olazabal (and of course Tiger) at the Masters indicates that the most skilled putters tend to flourish on the most contoured greens.

Success putting on highly contoured greens can be judged by avoiding 3-putts rather than holing a lot of 20'-25' putts. Anyone who gets thru 4 rounds at the Masters with just a handful (or less) of 3-putts tends to finish well up the leaderboard.   

[David Ober]

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.

This is the only way to "Tiger-Proof" a course in my opinion. When courses are set up for birdiefests, it simply becomes a contest to see who can stick their wedges closes and who can make the most 8 - 15 foot putts. If Tiger had played the Bob Hope every year for the last 10 years, I doubt he wins more than 3 or 4 because EVERYONE in the field is capable of winning that week, which is not so on the toughest courses under the toughest conditions, in my opinion.

[Philippe Binette]

Make the course LONGER = advantage Tiger

The way Tiger is putting, almost perfect from inside 5 feet, there's not much you can do...

What you need to do is to make thecourse most open to a variety of players so a player can get hot and beat Tiger, Shorter, firmer and wider course puts everybody in the ball game...


Look at the 2002 US Open, there was basically 12 players in the field the way the course was setup, the rest of the players couldn't play the golf course.

[Mike Wagner]

Pete,

I am saying PRECISELY that Tiger's dominance is NOT all about distance.  You ask how he'd fare if he hit it as far as Zach Johnson.  Odds are, he'd win just as much.

The thing to understand is that he figures out HOW to win whatever the circumstances.  He won at Hoylake by hitting driver, what, twice?

Here's a little tidbit that really made me undersetand how good the guy is:  I was caddying for a good friend of mine on tour and we were playing a practice round with Lee Janzen and a couple others.  They would as at varying moments, "who do you think is the best at this shot?" This happened a few times - from a flop type shot to a 260 cut fairway wood.  The same response came every time as they joked - "well, besides you know know who...I'd say _____"

Tiger's distance is not irrelevant, but it is not as relevant as some think.  He would win with a  3 wood if he had to...period. 

He is the BEST at just about every facet of the game - and yes, he IS the best putter....period.  The whole "Tiger proofing" thing is not possible - you simply make it MORE difficult for MORE players to compete.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I know that no one will change their opinion, myself included, but I say if you give a player with average putting skills the same putts as Tiger, the avg. putter will do far worse if he's on highly contoured greens than if he's on flat ones.
Add up the difference over 72 holes and the putter with the mad skills(Tiger) will walk away with fewer putts (and the largest prize) every time.

3 foot putts with 1 foot of break, for par, will sooner-than-later turn the average player's putting stroke into a herky jerky twitching wave.

[Doug Siebert]

Jim,

No one is talking about Tiger versus the average putter, they are talking about Tiger versus the average TOUR putter.  What you say about the average putter would be equally true if you compared this average putter to the worst putter on tour.

My home course has some greens with some pretty severe slopes (mostly back to front)  When they are running fast its almost comical to watch average putters putting them.  They know when a putt has a big break and can aim taking that into account somewhat well when the greens are running at a moderate pace.  When they are faster they always underestimate what happens to the ball when it slows down to nearly a crawl and keeps crawling for another 15 feet.  They have no concept of putting 'defensively'.

Comparing these guys to tour players is ridiculous.  They could have long game skills that make Moe Norman look like he was a wild hitter, hit it longer than Bubba Watson, have Mickelson's short game and but with their skills on the green couldn't even qualify for the Nationwide.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Doug,
I was talking about the average putter on Tour(i.e., the reference to prize money), but I can see how what I wrote I may have been misunderstood.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Just a couple of fun facts from 2007, Tiger's last full season:

-Tiger was number 1 in lowest scoring on par 5s and par 4s. He dropped to 4th (whoop-dee-do) on par 3s. There are few players of any import even close to him in these categories.
-In the 1,080 holes he played he was under par 23.43% of the time, 1st place in that category.
-He was #2 in eagles per hole.
-He was 8th in  bird/eagle conversions
-His final round scoring average(he was 1st) was 3/4 of a stroke lower than 2nd place and one full stroke lower than the guy who placed 7th.
-His 3rd round scoring average( (he was 2nd) was one full stroke better than the guy who placed 7th.   
-He was 1st in GIR, 1st in number of putts per GIR, and 48th in number of putts per round.

It's delusional    to believe that Tiger wouldn't remain head and shoulders above his opponents even on highly contoured greens.



 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

We both know that I'm delusional, but, Tiger's putting is rather remarkable.
Especially when you examine the statistics from inside 5, 8 and 10 feet.

If those greens were more contoured, I think his advantage would diminish.

What's also interesting is how the field seems to fold, or part the water and let him waltz in for a victory.

This fellow had a five shot lead and shoots over par the last round.

On 16 he pull chunks it left into the water.

Gift after gift has been bestowed upon Tiger in the last round/s.

Is it the pressure others feel, fate or his destiny ?