[Craig Van Egmond]

It could happen this week...

http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/pga/news?slug=ap-golfnotes&prov=ap&type=lgns

[Craig Sweet]

My memory is bad..has Sergio won anything since Tiger dropped out?

[Craig Van Egmond]

"But he missed the next eight months following knee surgery, and while Garcia has only won twice since then, the Spaniard has been runner-up four times, including two FedEx Cup playoff events and the PGA Championship."

[JSlonis]

He won on the European tour twice last year.  He's only had 2 top 10 finishes in his last 8 Major's.  The world ranking system is very flawed.

For anybody that knows just the slightest thing about golf, they know enough to understand that there is only 1 player who is clearly the #1 player in the world and the rest aren't even close.

Outside of Tiger's major victories, he's won 15 of the World Golf Championships!  The next closest is Olgilvy who has won 3 WGC events.

[Craig Van Egmond]

JSlonis,

Of course its flawed, we've known that since the Greg Norman days. Besides Sergio ain't going to do squat, does anybody believe Tiger is going to finish 27th or worse at Doral?

The gap between Tiger and the rest is huge whether or not the rankings reflect that.

[Greg Chambers]

I think the real story is that Tiger took off eight months, and is so far out in front of the others that they couldn't even catch him.  And Sergio has how many majors?  Oh, right, none.  That there should disqualify a person from being #1 in the world.

[JSlonis]

The media just needs another story to tell.  Nobody in their right mind would ever think Sergio is #1 in the world ahead of Tiger...probably not even Sergio himself.

[Scott Warren]

Defensive much?

The fact remains that Tiger took eight months off golf and his lead obviously narrowed. No one, certainly not Sergio, I'm sure, is deluding themselves that if he wins this week and Tiger is 27th or worse then he is a better golfer than Tiger.

What did you want them to do, put rankings on holf while Tiger was injured?

Sergio has been consistantly there or therabout for the past few years. Granted, he hasn't won a major, but there are another 40-odd weeks a year when golf is played.

And without wanting to swing a 4x2 at a hornet's nest, would Tiger's WGC record be so imposing if - as the name suggests - they actually held thre of the four events somewhere other than the USA occasionally?

Perhaps, but jeez it'd be intersting to find out.

[Eric Smith]

This blurb from Jeff Rude's column:

"Believe it or not, the winners of five of the past six majors have made only one PGA Tour cut since Aug. 10. One made cut in seven months."

[Niall C]

This blurb from Jeff Rude's column:

"Believe it or not, the winners of five of the past six majors have made only one PGA Tour cut since Aug. 10. One made cut in seven months."

From memory, Padraig won 3 of them and he plays mostly in Europe. Lets also allow a couple of months for the off season, so I'm not sure what this statement is really trying to say.

[John Moore II]

Defensive much?

The fact remains that Tiger took eight months off golf and his lead obviously narrowed. No one, certainly not Sergio, I'm sure, is deluding themselves that if he wins this week and Tiger is 27th or worse then he is a better golfer than Tiger.

What did you want them to do, put rankings on holf while Tiger was injured?

Sergio has been consistantly there or therabout for the past few years. Granted, he hasn't won a major, but there are another 40-odd weeks a year when golf is played.

And without wanting to swing a 4x2 at a hornet's nest, would Tiger's WGC record be so imposing if - as the name suggests - they actually held thre of the four events somewhere other than the USA occasionally?

They have held the events outside the US. Tiger won the CA Championship in 1999, 2002 and 2006 at Valderrama (Spain), Mount Joliet (Ireland), and The Grove (England) respectively. Tiger also won the World Cup (When it was considered a World Golf Championship event) in 2000 with David Duval when it was held in Argentina.  It just happens that Firestone fits his game like a glove and he wins there all the time. Any other questions?

Perhaps, but jeez it'd be intersting to find out.

[Scott Warren]

Did you read my comment properly before you reached for the red font?

Three of the four each year, on average, were held in his backyard. Now there are only three WGC tournaments - all in the USA this year. Tell me that doesn't benefit American golfers?

If they're going to call it the WORLD Golf Championship, I don't think it's asking too much to hold the events evenly in all parts of the golfing world with some regularity.

From wikipedia:

From 2000 to 2006 most years two or three of the four events were staged in the United States and one or two were staged elsewhere. All three of the individual World Golf Championships events will be played in the United States from 2007, which has attracted criticism from some golfers, including Tiger Woods and Ernie Els, and in the media outside the United States. PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem has responded by insisting that playing in the U.S is best for golf as more money can be made there than elsewhere. [1] and have stated that they would like to add a new WGC individual event in China.

[tlavin]

This blurb from Jeff Rude's column:

"Believe it or not, the winners of five of the past six majors have made only one PGA Tour cut since Aug. 10. One made cut in seven months."

From memory, Padraig won 3 of them and he plays mostly in Europe. Lets also allow a couple of months for the off season, so I'm not sure what this statement is really trying to say.

Great point, Niall.  Padraig is really an exception to what Rude is trying to say.  The point here, I believe, is that nobody who won majors in Tiger's absence has done much in other Tour events during the same period.  Padraig is one giant asterisk to that observation, principally because of where he plays most of his golf.  That said, I find it very interesting that the people who win majors when Tiger doesn't win seem to have difficulty maintaining any kind of consistency.  Trevor Immelman is one example.  When he won the Masters, everybody was talking about him taking the next step.  Instead he seemed to get overwhelmed by the demands of being a major winner and he faded away.  (He may have had an injury as well, but I honestly don't recall.)  My only point in bringing this up is to remind everybody that one of the most amazing things about Tiger is his ability to handle being Tiger.  To handle the pressure, the expectations, the media demands, the crowd issues and the innumerable other things that make it really hard to be Tiger.  His level of focus on AND OFF THE COURSE is unmatched.

As for Sergio, he really is becoming a huge (I didn't say MAJOR) disappointment.  He's on the verge of being the golf version of a cautionary tale.

[Michael Blake]

Besides Sergio ain't going to do squat, does anybody believe Tiger is going to finish 27th or worse at Doral?

He's got some work to do as he's tied for 42nd with one hole remaining in round 1

[Craig Van Egmond]

And Sergio is tied for 41st. 

[George Pazin]

This blurb from Jeff Rude's column:

"Believe it or not, the winners of five of the past six majors have made only one PGA Tour cut since Aug. 10. One made cut in seven months."

From memory, Padraig won 3 of them and he plays mostly in Europe. Lets also allow a couple of months for the off season, so I'm not sure what this statement is really trying to say.

Great point, Niall.  Padraig is really an exception to what Rude is trying to say.

I think Rude was actually just trying to be clever, knowing that Paddy and Tiger haven't played much on the US tour the last 7 months.

The drop of Tiger does highlight flaws within the system, though I don't think they have much to do with Tiger and the #1 position. How Sergio ranks ahead of Ogilvy or Paddy is bizarre to me.

In the end, no one need worry. There is only one golfer on the planet who can deal with the sort of pressure Sergio is facing - and it's not him. No prizes for guessing who it is.

 

[John Moore II]

Did you read my comment properly before you reached for the red font?

Three of the four each year, on average, were held in his backyard. Now there are only three WGC tournaments - all in the USA this year. Tell me that doesn't benefit American golfers?

If they're going to call it the WORLD Golf Championship, I don't think it's asking too much to hold the events evenly in all parts of the golfing world with some regularity.

From wikipedia:

From 2000 to 2006 most years two or three of the four events were staged in the United States and one or two were staged elsewhere. All three of the individual World Golf Championships events will be played in the United States from 2007, which has attracted criticism from some golfers, including Tiger Woods and Ernie Els, and in the media outside the United States. PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem has responded by insisting that playing in the U.S is best for golf as more money can be made there than elsewhere. [1] and have stated that they would like to add a new WGC individual event in China.

I did read your comment fully before I pulled out the red. You said "occasionally." I pointed out that they did hold the tournaments overseas somewhat often until a few years ago. And that Tiger still won them. But don't you think there is a reason for them being held in America? I mean, the match play was a farce the year it was held in Australia, almost no one with recognition showed up. I don't know why they stopped moving the CA Championship around, perhaps they get more sponsor revenue, more tv revenue, better fields and any number of other things by having it in Miami.

And I am not sure how much it benefits the 'American' golfers, whatever that is supposed to mean anymore. I mean, look at the field for this Tavistock Cup thing. There are far more people in that event born overseas but living in America. A great number of these so called 'foreign' players live in Florida and America anyway. It doesn't matter where you play it. The best will attend and the best will win. For the record, IIRC, Tiger has a higher winning percentage in the CA events played overseas than he does the ones played domestically.

[Jim Nugent]

Three of the four each year, on average, were held in his backyard. Now there are only three WGC tournaments - all in the USA this year. Tell me that doesn't benefit American golfers?

If home court matters so much, why did American golfers win the vast majority of British Opens since 1994? 

[Scott Warren]

John: Plenty of European golfers are on record discussing the difficulties of moving to a new country to play on the US Tour.

Jim: if you spin stats the right way they can say whatever you want them to. Why'd you choose 1994?

This is a side note to the thread anyway. Of course it stands to reason that Tiger will win most WGC events, because he wins most of everything he enters, but I just think it'd be great to get some big events out there to different countries and different types of golf courses.

[Matt_Sullivan]

I think Jim chose 1994 because in the previous 10 years ('84 to '93) only one American won (Calcavecchia in 89)!

[Scott Warren]

I think you're right!

[Jim Nugent]

Jim: if you spin stats the right way they can say whatever you want them to. Why'd you choose 1994?

Well, then, start with 1960, the year Americans began coming back to the British Open.  They won over 50% of all events since then.  That's despite making up a small minority of the field.  

Looking back from there, from 1920 through 1933, American golfers won 12 of 14.  Then they mostly stopped playing the Open Championship for 27 years.  There were some exceptions.  Ben Hogan went there once and won.  Snead went there once in his prime and won.  

So when American golfers have played the British Open in any numbers, they have usually won.  Home court is not such an advantage.

I think Jim chose 1994 because in the previous 10 years ('84 to '93) only one American won (Calcavecchia in 89)!

And in the previous ten years they won 8 of 10.  To try to show that non-Americans have dominated this event, you really have to cherry pick, as you just did.    

[John Moore II]

John: Plenty of European golfers are on record discussing the difficulties of moving to a new country to play on the US Tour.

Indeed. I understand that. But why do they move here? Perhaps to make it easier for them to play for truck loads of cash every week rather than a fair amount less on the Euro Tour? Does it not then stand to reason if the money is higher on the American Tour than the European Tour, it would be easier to attract sponsors for the WGC events held in America rather than events held in Europe or Asia? And what are these events really other than big cash cows for the players to rake in some more money?

Jim: if you spin stats the right way they can say whatever you want them to. Why'd you choose 1994?

This is a side note to the thread anyway. Of course it stands to reason that Tiger will win most WGC events, because he wins most of everything he enters, but I just think it'd be great to get some big events out there to different countries and different types of golf courses.

I would love to see these tournaments held overseas. But like this week, the Nationwide Tour is playing in New Zealand. Its playing right now on TV as a tape delay I think. Do we really want one of the big events of the year to be shown tape delay because otherwise it would end at 2am EST?  How many people in America saw Team USA win the basketball gold medal at these past Olympics? Very few I'd say, the game ended at like 3am. Whats the lowest Neilsen rated major of the year? If I had to guess I'd say the British Open, not because its bad golf, but because the leaders start at about 8am on Sunday morning and are done by 1pm or so. Times like that don't get people to watch on TV. There is a reason times like 8pm are considered Prime Time. Thats what made this years US Open a highly watched event (Tiger helped I understand, but had he done the same thing at the British, the ratings would have been half as high) The events are in America because of money. More money for players, more money from sponsors, more money in general.

Jim: if you spin stats the right way they can say whatever you want them to. Why'd you choose 1994?

Well, then, start with 1960, the year Americans began coming back to the British Open.  They won over 50% of all events since then.  That's despite making up a small minority of the field.  

Looking back from there, from 1920 through 1933, American golfers won 12 of 14.  Then they mostly stopped playing the Open Championship for 27 years.  There were some exceptions.  Ben Hogan went there once and won.  Snead went there once in his prime and won.  

So when American golfers have played the British Open in any numbers, they have usually won.  Home court is not such an advantage.

I think Jim chose 1994 because in the previous 10 years ('84 to '93) only one American won (Calcavecchia in 89)!

And in the previous ten years they won 8 of 10.  To try to show that non-Americans have dominated this event, you really have to cherry pick, as you just did.    

Americans have won the event more than any nationality over the entire history of the event, except for the Scots. Of course, a Scot has only won 3 times since 1920.


I think we just miss the point. Tiger is the best. He will win at least 25% of the events he plays, regardless of where you play them.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Tiger is tied for 28th at the moment, 3 under, 8 shots back.  Sergio is 2 under.

[jeffwarne]

Tiger is tied for 28th at the moment, 3 under, 8 shots back.  Sergio is 2 under.

must see TV-Tiger and Sergio paired together on the weekend,battling it out for #1

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()