Does the awesome leaderboard vaildate the changes?

[Paul Richards]

Jeff:

Good point about the limited fields almost certainly causing
a "great leaderboard", but, on the other hand, looking at the
guys who were within 5 or 6 of the lead going into Sunday,
you couldn't help but be excited.

Too bad it fizzeled!

[Matt_Ward]

When I hear the words "awesome leaderboard" I don't find it to be the case when you compare the amount of major championships on display Sunday afternoon.

To wit ...

Phil Mickelson (no majors thus far)
Ernie Els (two but the last won was '97)
Vijas Singh (two)
David Duval (1 but missed the cut this year)
Davis Love III (1 but after 1st round did nothing)

The only young contemporary with at least two majors is John Daly. I don't want to hear that so and som won the Hope or the Buick or other minor events. What happens at the majors counts.

Compare this to what Jack faced and his competitors ...

Gary Player (9)
Arnold Palmer (7)
Tom Watson (
Lee Trevino (6)
Hale Trwin (3)
Raymond Floyd (3)

The above names were able to make a statement at times even against the Bear. All I hear from these pretenders is more "spin" and "blather" about mud on the ball or other such excuses. The bottom line is when it counts the most who is doing the really heavy lifting.

Give Tiger his due no doubt but the last guy I saw push him was Bob May ... that's right Bob May! When you win six majors out of the last ten you deserve plenty of credit but the so-called big names he is playing against aren't as of yet really pushing him. I'm taking the Missouri approach -- until they show me please let's just refrain from using the word "awesome."

[Paul Richards]

Matt:

You are so correct.  Bob May WAS the last to push Tiger.

But, looking at that leaderboard going into Sunday's round,
I thought at LEAST one of the Goosen (defending Open
champ), Singh (2 majors), Mickelson, Olazabal (2 Masters),
Els (2 Opens), Garcia (almost 'pushed' Tiger at that PGA at
Medinah) group could give Tiger the run that never
materialized!

[TEPaul]

Matt:

For chrissakes, if you're going to make analogies and accurate comparisons why don't you use some comparable stats and records?

You've got the grand total career major wins up there of guys who have been long gone compared to others who are young or in the middle of their careers. How about at least giving some of these guys a chance to finish their careers if you want to use those kinds of comparisons? Some golfers come into the meat of their careers at different ages anyway! How old was Hogan when he really started to rack them up?
 
Why don't you put some comparisons up there when Nicklaus was 26 years old if you want an interesting and useful comparison?

[Tom_Egan]

Matt --

As an add-on to Tom Paul's last post, with Tiger winning 6 out of the last 10 majors, there aren't many majors out and about.  To take your argument to its logical conclusion, if Tiger had won EVERY ONE of the last 60 majors (15 years), there likely wouldn't be ANY quality players (major winners) facing him at the end.

Re-think.

[Wayne_Freedman]

Oh no, here we go, again.

Certainly you jest with us, Mr. M., in your recent choices of modifiers.

Impressive?
Definitely.

Top notch?
Without a doubt.

But awesome?
Surf's up, dude.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Wayne
If its not too much trouble perhaps you could also help edit my posts, God knows I could use it. Many times I have difficulty writing in complete sentences, not to metion my questionable choice of words and horific spelling. In fact I think we could all use your editorial expertise. That could be your contribution to the site, instead of sharing your architectral know how, you could follow each thread, making corrections, improving the sentence structure and choice of words. Not only would GCA be the best source of architectural discussions - but thanks to you - the most beautifully written site on the internet.

[Paul Richards]

Tom:

And perhaps GCA can become like a Masters' telecast -
squeeky-clean, with no negatives anywhere.

Yeah, that sounds just great.

Just remember, there's only ONE side to a story ...

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

Fair point about comparing a player's all-time record versus that of players still in their careers, however, when are these guys going to win?

Each of them always has excuses or in the case of Phil is in denial about what he's not been able to do -- how about scoring in the 60's in the final round at Augusta when the title's on the line?

When people say look at all of the majors that Tiger has won the same can be said of the same obstacle that the Trevino's, Watson's, et al faced with the Golden Bear. They did beat Jack -- not all the time no doubt, but they were able to raise their games and do it. When these guys see Tiger they fold like an envelope.

This cast of characters we call "awesome" today has not done that. Let's stop with the alibi's, the whining about how could Tiger is and show everyone what kind of game you have on Sunday when it counts in a major against the top dude. He, like any other golfer, can be beaten. Thus far -- this "awesome" leaderboard does not match the word implies. I live in NJ but I'm taking the Missouri approach on this one.

[redanman]

Validation............

Hmmmmmmm

The Masters has the most concentrated field in Golf, the leader Board will reflect that all the time.

C'mon.......Fess up, y'all..........

Who here made it through Sunday's snoooooze fest without napping?  Not me. It will also be a while before I watch that tape, too.  

[John_Conley]

Shivas:

Give me a break.  When only one player in the field can shoot better than 70 on the final day, I think the course set up is hard.  HARD HARD HARD.  An inferior field shot several scores in the low 60s at the event in Louisiana, so I think looking at absolute score in absence of consideration for venue or conditions is ridiculous.

Els hits it to about 3' on #9 and saw it roll back off the green and partway down the hill.  A birdie would have taken him to -4.  

If it is so easy to shoot 66-67-68, don't you think someone would have done it?  (Save Maruyama.  Like Neal Lancaster's TWO 29s in the U.S. Open, his 67 may have been aided by being out of contention.)

"all they had to do" - Puh-leaze.  You seem to have no respect for the profession of a touring golfer.  It is hard to shoot 78, much less 68.

Goosen said the only accessible hole all day was #15 and couldn't get his ballstriking dialed in.  Mickelson correctly pointed out that he shot the same score as the winner and couldn't make up the four shots because he was too far back.

When I watched, I don't remember seeing Els, Mickelson, and Goosen TRYING to lose to Tiger.  They were game, but didn't quite have enough game.  Mickelson offset his 3 birdies on the front with bogies - a confirmation that Tiger is in another world when it comes to distance control on his approaches (Mickelson seems to hit long too often, a much more costly mistake in the Majors).  

Els darned near got it to -4 at the turn, but eventually his aggressive play got the better of him on #9 and #13.  (Note to Shiv... this is WHY guys don't make a habit of playing real aggressive for 72 holes at Augusta.  It eventually catches up to those who do.)  

Goosen played approaches to places that weren't position A, B, of C on some greens.  (Nobody comments on the seemingly good TOUR pros who shoot two rounds in the mid-70s and go home.  I reckon it is because they keep hitting the large greens in the wrong zones.)

All you have to do next time you play is hit 15 greens, save par on the 3 you miss, roll 27 putts (you can add one for every field shot you save by hitting a par 5 in two or driving a par 4) for 6 birdies, and you'll shoot 66.  Now go do it.  You will get a better understanding of how hard it is to win a Major should you find it more difficult to score on grass than in your mind while smoking grass.

[Matt_Ward]

John C:

With all due respect -- send in your application as the PR man for Mickelson, Duval, Singh, Els and all the rest. Wonderful spin but I'm not buying it.

Think of that glorious head-to-head between Watson and Nicklaus at Turnberry. Does any of the contenders that Tiger faces have the gumption of the man from Kansas City?

You say it was hard ... puhleeeeze ... I have my hankies out. What about all that tour talk about THESE GUYS ARE GOOD?How about sucking it up and making it happen on the big day ... once and for all. The main contenders to Tiger want the respect and admiration of all of the golfing world but it's time to back up all their talk with some titles ... Tiger notwithstanding.

I love to watch Phil and his spin session with Peter Kostis. Lefty is in the world of denial ... he keeps saying he was pleased WITH 3RD !!! I can guarantee you that Watson was never pleased with such a finish and would have dug much deeper than these pretenders did on Sunday afternoon at Augusta.

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

I happen to like Phil Mickelson and hope sooner or later he will break through, but you are exactly right.  He is no Tom Watson.

I don't want to mention names, but when you talk with the IMG brass they will candidly tell you that nobody really comes close to Tiger in terms of the desire and commitment to win.

As an aside, I'm starting to watch young Adam Scott.  He is slowly crepping up there without much fan fare.

[John_Conley]

Matt:

A decade ago there was a clamor for a dominant player.  Now he's here and the sentiment is that nobody else is any good.

I'm just calling it like I see it.

When Watson and Nicklaus shot rounds of 65 and 66, it wasn't like the rest of the field struggled to break par.

Would you have been happier if Mickelson said, "Peter, I'm disappointed I lost and attribute it to my lack of precise distance control on iron shots."  He knows it and I know it.  If he articulated it for the masses then everyone would know it.

Somehow methinks that that response would have left you equally unhappy.

How come as soon as someone is great, everyone else is inferior?  I've gone through this debate earlier about basketball with other people.  As soon as someone lost (nevermind the fact it was to a better or equal team), they were treated like they weren't any good in the first place.

ONE and ONLY ONE person could win the Masters.  The truest Champion did.  No one else possesses either his skill or his mettle, possibly both.

Tiger won.  Mickelson, Els, and Goosen didn't.  Nothing more.  If you see a pattern, like Norman not winning when in contention, there's a story.  His was a seemingly impossible combination of others holing out shots at miraculous times and his inability to play well in nearly all the others - which defies logic, that these could be mutually exclusive.

Mickelson's pattern has been that he's in contention almost all the time, and NO ONE other than Tiger can say that right now.  He loses because mistakes ultimately trip him up, which would be unforgivable if he weren't in contention BECAUSE of that style of play.  At least he had the gumption to call out his peers for their poor play in the presence of Tiger, something he really can't be faulted for.

If you think his 71 on Sunday was poor play, you and anyone foolish enough to agree need to review the scores.  Just because it sounds high doesn't mean it was.

67- shigeki
70- jimenez, scott, leonard
71- tiger, phil, JMO, harrington, faxon, monty, love, mcginley, stadler, toms
72- faldo, kelly, clarke, allenby, parnevik, couples, watson

45 players teed it up on Sunday and four beat Mickelson.  The same four that beat Tiger.

Sorry to confuse you with the facts.

[Darrin]

John Conley:

You wrote: "Tiger won. Nothing more. If you see a pattern...there's a story."  

Er...you don't see a pattern?  I see a very definitive pattern.  Listen to what some of the pros like Davis Love and Phil Mickelson say, and you'll hear that they see a pattern too.

By the way you also said that when Nicklaus and Watson shot their 65's and 66's at Turnberry that "it wasn't like the rest of the field struggled to break par."    Tom and Jack lapped the field by more than 10 strokes.  3rd place finisher Hubert Green was -1.  That's what made the whole thing so special.  Just trying to confuse you with the facts.

[Matt_Ward]

John:

While on the subject of f-a-c-t-s consider these:

Mickelson has zero, nada, goose eggs in the majors department. How about a good deal more candor like he offered when Tiger won last year? Phil came clean last year by saying he could not make the kind of mistakes he made against the likes of Tiger.

That's what I'd like to see and hear -- not some babbling about how he was happy with his game and 3rd place, blah, blah, blah. I never heard from the grand competitors to Nicklaus (i.e. Watson, Trevino, Player) that they were OK with 3rd! John, I don't appreciate anyone in sports speaking to me as an enthusiastic fan and thinking I'm some sort of idiot who will swallow just about anything they dish.

John -- the mantra on Weiskopf, Norman and Mickelson is that yes, they always seem to contend but just as always fail to seize the moment. I have to wonder, as many others do, if they have the mental strength to take on someone like Tiger who just keeps his poise better than anyone in the game.

Lets not forget the kind of mental erros that Phil almost always seems to make (John, remind the tape on Bay Hill -- about the 16th hole with the deft choice on trying to reach the green!). Phil doesn't alter his game to fit the hole or situation -- it's always just one way. When it doesn't work Phil starts the spin cycle to obfuscate the fact that he's in denial about his lacking clear thinking and sound execution in the big time situation. Yes, I give him credit for telling the rest of his peers that essentially they are gutless and simply melt in Tiger's stare but what is Phil doing when the big lights are on him?

When you refer to Nicklaus / Watson at '77 BO keep in mind that they were the only two players under par and the next closest player was Hubert Green -- I believe eight shots further back. I'll never forget what Nicklaus said afterwards about Watson, "I could not shake him." It's about time some of these leadfoots started putting the heat on Tiger with some solid play and have him say the same thing. Yes, John Augusta played tough on Sunday but I'm not ever going to buy the fact that the tournament was not there for the taking if any of them had played world championship golf -- you know, these guys are really good stuff you always hear from PGA Tour mktg / pr?

These "pretenders" to Tiger are so buffaloed now they are afraid to be paired with and to be placed squarely in the caulderon of the battle -- ask Retief "I am shell-shocked" Goosen."

John, when you say Phil was in an "impossible situation" I just chuckle at that. How about not bogeying the 3rd and 4th holes after getting out of the gate with two birdies?

Are we to get more spin as Phil almost always does. Phil's got plenty of talent and is clearly beyond nearly all that are playing today -- if he wants to beat Tiger it's time for some honest introspection.

[John_Conley]

Matt:

When did I say Phil was in an impossible situation?

His inability to keep bogies from occuring stems from his lack of distance control on iron approaches.  At a normal TOUR stop, not an issue.  More landing area for approaches around the hole than Augusta gives.

You keep saying "These Guys are Good".  That is a PGA TOUR marketing slogan.  This is not a PGA TOUR event.  It is a club event, and they don't have the same interest in seeing the players look infallible.

Candor?  Mickelson said he was pleased to get out of the gate with birdies, but unable to apply pressure because he offset them with bogies.  Candor?  He said (correctly, as we learned later) that he'd have to come out with guns blazing to catch Goosen and Tiger - because "those guys won't back up."  You won't be happy until he wins.  I'm just pointing out WHY (inability to execute iron shots with precision, something Tiger doesn't seem to share) he didn't and saying that some criticisms are overblown.

Daly won and told all the naysayers, "I did it my way."  Then he won the British and said, "I came back my way."  No majors for Mickelson?  Then he dies a tragic figure.  One?  Everyone shuts up like they did for Couples and have for Duval and O'Meara (the King of the Bs!).

Of all the competitors in the 1999 U.S. Open, the only one that could beat him canned 20 footers three holes in a row to finish and died a month later.  Fate was cruel in this case, obviously for Payne Stewart - but also for Phil.  What if he DIDN'T make those putts?  Stewart still would have left us as a two-time Major winner and you could stop Phil-bashing.

Does it make Phil LESS of a player that somebody else stole his title with an unlikely run of putts?  To you it does, to me it doesn't.

SHIV:

Re-read your post.  You can get away with a pulled drive at most courses and save a 5.  You can hit it a few feet past a landing zone and still make par, or even birdie.  You can't do that when the course set-up is so hard.  Watch Mickelson at a normal TOUR stop and he'll still be flying it over flags.  This wasn't anything new.  (Also, remember Duval telling the media he "had no idea" that he could have flown it over #16 last year.)

TO ALL:

If Tiger Woods had never been born, some of these guys would be your revered champions.  If Jack Nicklaus had never been born, Tom Weiskopf would be a legend.

The line between being mentally inept, which seems to describe the collective opinion of Mickelson, and brilliant is very thin.

FINALLY:

I didn't win the Masters (again) this year because of my lack of length, propensity to spray tee shots, lack of precision iron play, and inconsistency on speedy greens.  Forget that I'm an inferior player, you can continue to label me a choke-artist.  REMINDER #1,746...Tiger is a little bit better than the other guys.

[Teddy Roosevelt]

Like I said:  "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."

There are a lot of cold, timid souls in this discussion group.

[Dan Kelly]

Speaking of timid souls: Care to identify yourself, Teddy?

Or do you prefer to lob your grenades anonymously?

[Dan Kelly]

And let me add:

The world needs Teddy Roosevelts (who at least had the courage to make that statement under his own name).

The world also needs critics -- as TR would have acknowledged.

I will acknowledge, without apology, that I am much more Critic than Rough Rider -- and will say, critically (though meaning no disrespect to Teddy, who deserves great respect), that I have HATED that quotation of his ever since Captain Tom Watson used it (in combination with some amazingly chauvinistic, know-nothing line to the effect of "Everything Europe invented, we've perfected") to whip up his boys just prior to the Ryder Cup

Gag me.

[Matt_Ward]

John C:

Add these "ifs" to your list ...

If the queen had b*lls she'd be the king.

I don't live in the world of woulda, coulda, shoulda ... I go by what happened and what is.

TR:

Appreciate your march up San Juan hill -- don't believe these "pretenders" would have the same amount of guts and vigor to do the same. They are tooo busy spinning us about how much mud was on the ball or some "untimely" bounce.

I really enjoy how people rationalize failure ... the legacy of Phil Mickelson or any other supposed top player is not just simple to win one major (given his acknowledged immense talent) but to win several as past "real" greats have done. It's time for Phil and all these other "pretenders" to step it up on results instead of quickly falling into the tired old trap of spin and damage control.

P.S. John -- no one "stole" the '99 Open sir. It was won by a player who made the big shots when it counted. Phil's problem is that supporters of his quickly tape themselves to whatever excuse or rationality can be used.

I would like to see Phil really take it to Tiger and show what he can do but until he plans sounder course management and shows an ability to be more consistent at times he will continually be playing for seconds and thirds while Tiger walks away with another trophy. Most of these fellas chasing Tiger sound like beaten rivals and when you sound beaten you play beaten.

[Darrin]

Teddy:

Hahahahahaha!!!  Thanks, Prez...I think we all needed that laugh!!

Just the image of Mickelson or Goosen's faces "marred by dust and sweat and blood".  Ha!!

As I understand it, Teddy was quite the sportsman --  he probably would've been a huge admirer of Tiger Woods.  As for the other players, I suspect he would have prescribed a swift kick in the butt and a sharp "get 'em next time!".  

[David Kelly]

I agree that in some majors Mickelson has not played his best when it counted (last year's Master's) but I don't really think he can be criticized for that this year. His missed birdie putts on 11, 12, 13 and 17 on Sunday were by a combined total of about 1 inch.

I think it diminishes Tiger's accomplisments to keep saying that the other players are intimidated or are giving the tournaments away.  

[John_Conley]

Matt:

You think Mickelson is weak mentally and as good as Tiger.  You keep mentioning his talent level.

I think Mickelson is a fine player and the best of the rest, but not as polished as Tiger.  (I don't think anyone is, and I'm not even a Tiger fan.)

We disagree about a lot of things, but the above distinction goes a long way to capture the sentiment.

BTW:  If you have this to say about Mickelson, have you wondered what he'd say about your game?

Also, Tom Lehman's win at the British absolves him from his failure to "do it when it counts" in FOUR consecutive U.S. Open Sundays, my former Father's Day ritual.  Sometimes you go out and play and just don't win.

Tiger makes EVERYTHING in 2000 and won three Majors.  Last year he wasn't the winner for three in a row, but Duval got his and quieted HIS critics.

You say you don't play IFS and BUTS, yet you have to realize that players who didn't have to beat Nicklaus and Tiger are getting a free ride in any discussion about champion golfers.

[Rick Shefchik]

To get off Floppy's case for a minute, and look at another talented underachiever, what about Ernie?

Does anyone recall his post-round comments to Peter Kostis about his implosion on #13? I'm approximating here, of course:

"When I played practice rounds, I told myself it wasn't a three-wood at 13, but I got greedy and tried to hook a 3-wood around the corner."

Can you imagine Tiger Woods making a statement like that? We've seen Woods lose in all sorts of ways, but never because he tried to do something his pre-round planning told him should not be tried.

He's really so much like Nicklaus it's uncanny. He's about four shots up on the field before they ever tee off on Thursday, because he just won't give strokes back to the field with dumb decisions. Apparently his nearest competitors can't make the same mental committments.

Rick