Short course = fluke winners ???? any proofs

[Philippe Binette]

this comes from the olympic thread, I ask those questions:

- can somebody can present an example of playing a short course has led to fluke winner ?
- who would you think would win at a PGA tour event on a 6400 yards course ?

[Jason Topp]

Interesting question.  My belief is that anyone can win on a shorter course but a longer course eliminates certain players or at least makes it extremely difficult for them to win.

Zach Johnson and Justin Leonard are two examples of tour players that get their wins on short courses but rarely win elsewhere.   My guess is that they can make up for their relative lack of length on short courses but cannot do so on longer venues.  I would also guess that other shorter players exist that could compete on a 6400 yard course but cannot make it to the pga tour.

These lists of past champions on shorter courses show that longer players can win but some shorter hitters win much more frequently than they have in their careers generally:

Colonial:
2011   David Toms
2010   Zach Johnson
2009   Steve Stricker
2008   Phil Mickelson
2007   Rory Sabbatini
2006   Tim Herron
2005   Kenny Perry
2004   Steve Flesch
2003   Kenny Perry
2002   Nick Price
               

Sony
2011   Mark Wilson
         
2010   Ryan Palmer
         
2009   Zach Johnson
         
2008   K. J. Choi
         
2007   Paul Goydos
         
2006   David Toms
         
2005   Vijay Singh
         
2004   Ernie Els
         
2003   Ernie Els
         
2002   Jerry Kelly
         
2001   Brad Faxon
         
2000   Paul Azinger
         
1999   Jeff Sluman
         

San Antonio
                     
                     
2009   Zach Johnson
               
2008   Zach Johnson
               
2007   Justin Leonard
               
2006   Eric Axley
               
2005   Robert Gamez
               
2004   Bart Bryant
               
2003   Tommy Armour III
               
2002   Loren Roberts
               

2001   Justin Leonard
               

2000   Justin Leonard
               

Bob Hope

2011   Jhonattan Vegas
            
2010   Bill Haas
            
2009   Pat Perez
            

2008   D. J. Trahan
            
2007   Charley Hoffman
            
2006   Chad Campbell
            
2005   Justin Leonard
            
2004   Phil Mickelson
            
2003   Mike Weir
            
2002   Phil Mickelson
            
2001   Joe Durant
            
2000   Jesper Parnevik
            

Harbor Town:
2011   Brandt Snedeker
            

2010   Jim Furyk
            
2009   Brian Gay
            
2008   Boo Weekley
            
2007   Boo Weekley
            
2006   Aaron Baddeley
            

2005   Peter Lonard
            
2004   Stewart Cink
            
2003   Davis Love III
            

2002   Justin Leonard
            
2001   José Cóceres
            

2000   Stewart Cink
            

[Philippe Binette]

TPC sawgrass is a short course... not a lot of fluke winners there (only Craig Perks comes to mind)

[Jim Nugent]

Zach Johnson and Justin Leonard are two examples of tour players that get their wins on short courses but rarely win elsewhere.   
               

While that may generally be true of Zach, he also won the Masters when the weather was awful, making ANGC a much longer slog than usual. 

[Philippe Binette]

Royal Lytham is actually the shortest major championship course and Merion was really short back in the days, as far as I'm concerned, not a lot of fluke winners there

[Jason Topp]

Zach Johnson and Justin Leonard are two examples of tour players that get their wins on short courses but rarely win elsewhere.   
               

While that may generally be true of Zach, he also won the Masters when the weather was awful, making ANGC a much longer slog than usual. 

True Jim but he also made a ton of birdies on par 5's while laying up every time.  He overcame a tremendous disadvantage.  Doing that regularly is asking a lot.

[Jim Nugent]

Jason, the weather may have leveled the playing field.  IIRC, few players could hit the par 5's in two that week.  So the bad conditions took away the advantage long hitters usually have there. 

[Mike_Clayton]

Phillippe,

It's not the PGA Tour but every course in Australia is short by 7300 plus standards (most tournament courses are around 7000 yards) and the best players generally win our big events.
Woods and Appleby have won the last two Masters and Scott and Ogilvy the last two Opens.
All four courses - Kingston Heath, Victoria,NSW and The Lakes are around or under 7000 yards.
If you played then at 6400 the same guys would still win - but Peter Senior would be right with them!

[Philippe Binette]

You're right Mike,

courses are also playing short in Australia due to the firm and fast conditions... could we say great architecture, no matter what the length is, lead to great winners.

[Matt Kardash]

could we say great architecture, no matter what the length is, lead to great winners.

I don't beleieve in this concept. I don't believe great architecture leads to great winners. It's actually a pet peeve of mine when I hear people trying to make this link.

[Tom Kelly]

could we say great architecture, no matter what the length is, lead to great winners.

I don't beleieve in this concept. I don't believe great architecture leads to great winners. It's actually a pet peeve of mine when I hear people trying to make this link.

Do you agree that for architecture to be called great it must be a great test of golf among other things?

If it is a great test, no matter what the length of the course surely the person who wins must have passed that test by the greatest margin and therefore be a worthy/great winner?

[Matt Kardash]

could we say great architecture, no matter what the length is, lead to great winners.

I don't beleieve in this concept. I don't believe great architecture leads to great winners. It's actually a pet peeve of mine when I hear people trying to make this link.

Do you agree that for architecture to be called great it must be a great test of golf among other things?

If it is a great test, no matter what the length of the course surely the person who wins must have passed that test by the greatest margin and therefore be a worthy/great winner?

I meant it more in terms of how some people think the best players in the world at the time rise to the top on the best courses. I don't think that is true.

[Tom Kelly]

could we say great architecture, no matter what the length is, lead to great winners.

I don't beleieve in this concept. I don't believe great architecture leads to great winners. It's actually a pet peeve of mine when I hear people trying to make this link.

Do you agree that for architecture to be called great it must be a great test of golf among other things?

If it is a great test, no matter what the length of the course surely the person who wins must have passed that test by the greatest margin and therefore be a worthy/great winner?

I meant it more in terms of how some people think the best players in the world at the time rise to the top on the best courses. I don't think that is true.

If the winner is "worthy/great" for a particular tournament surely it is more likely that the winner will more often than not be one of the so called "best players in the world"?

Are these so called best players in the world really the best or just the players who suit the courses which tournaments are played at the best? Would more shorter hitters win more regulary if shorter courses were used and then they would become who we perceive as the best in the world?

Do we really care if these "fluke winners" have their 15 minutes of fame? I believe Bob Rotella says something along the lines of any players hot streak is not a fluke but them showing their true potential as a golfer. Their true potential may be better than most of the best in the world, but unfortunately for them they can't tap into that potential as often as they would like. If this is the case is their win a fluke? I am rambling now....

The more I think about it the more interesting it becomes!

Every course will throw up the odd "fluke winner" as people call it, but I personally believe great architecture is more often than not going to bring the best out in every player and therefore it is likely that the best will rise to the top.

I don't believe this always happens on the overly long penal golf courses that we often see on tour in recent years.

[Joel_Stewart]

Scott Simpson in the 1987 US Open at Olympic comes to mind.

[Mike_Clayton]

I am not sure what relevance this has but only one player has ever won on the three best courses professional golf goes to with any regularity.
Seve at Augusta,Royal Melbourne Composite and St Andrews.

[John_Conley]

Scott Simpson in the 1987 US Open at Olympic comes to mind.

I don't think a fluke winner would reach the playoff four years later.  He has a game that is a particularly good fit for the U.S. Open.  Nine top tens in Majors, seven Tour wins.  You make it sound like Orville Moody.

When I read the thread I thought Tina Tombs Purtzer. Or Laurie Merten.  Or Hilary Homeyer Lunke.

[Mike_Clayton]

Does Orville Moody get a bad rap?
He spend years in Korea and then came back and won The US Open. He was by all accounts blighted by the putter but the few times I saw him play I thought he was one of the best ball strikers I had seen with a very orthodox and solid swing.
Lee Trevino was a big fan - and predicted his win at Champions.

[John_Conley]

Mike, we're off point here.  I just threw out Moody's name as a guy that had a Major and was bereft a bunch of other titles.  Simpson won a considerable amount and had a solid half-decade where he was in the mix at the U.S. Open.

[Mike_Clayton]

John,

Scott Simpson was a terrific player.
I understand your point and it's a good one - it is just that I thought Orville Moody was a wonderful player and it is a pity is his legacy was one Open and not much else.