I'm not sure Tiger is the favourite - not because he isn't the best golfer in the field (he is), but because when fairways get that narrow, when strategic thinking and preferred angles lose much of their meaning/relevance, when putting becomes mostly about speed control, and when little imagination (just execution) is required for green-side chips, a golfer like Tiger Woods loses much of his advantage over the rest of the field. It's not that the course/course set up will hurt Tiger or that he'll drop back to the pack, it's that the set-up will help a lot of golfers and a (large) pack to compete and get closer to him than they normally might (or should, talent wise). What this does to the old mantra about 'identifying the best golfer' is to flip it totally upside down, which I guess shouldn't be surprising given that a whole lot has changed in the game since the USGA first fell in love many years ago with the narrow fairways-high rough-hard/fast greens approach to testing the world's best players. To me, the irony of people like David Fay proudly taking credit for getting the Open back to Merion is that, far from highlighting the crucial role that classic design/architecture played for so many decades in determing true champions and great courses, this choice of venues actually redefines all the key concepts, i.e. classic design/architecture, true champions, and great courses. (Of course, as Terry suggests, this will not stop most of the media from spouting those very same terms/platitudes.) Most unfortunately, I think, it redefines those concepts while also engaging in a bit of sleight-of-hand and misdirection -- with Fay suggesting that the Merion US Open will be a 'referendum on length', when actually it is a referendum on the USGA's traditional goals and set-up approach.
Peter
Peter:
I think this is mostly......wrong.
I don't know whether Tiger should be considered the favorite at Merion, given how it will be set up. But Tiger's proved one thing during his career, and it's that he can win majors under almost any kind of set up:
-- Ultra hard: Arguably all three of his US Open wins, which have seen all of one other player in those fields
combined break par;
-- Ultra easy: PGA, Valhalla, 2000; PGA, Medinah, 2006;
-- Ultra fast and firm (which narrows fairways arguably just as much as high, pinched rough): Open Championship, Hoylake, 2006;
-- Ultra conducive to driver after driver off the tee: Masters, 1997 certainly, and probably 2001 and 2002 as well.
I think folks tend to over-estimate whether a particular major set-up impacts the odds of a specific player.
I think folks tend to under-estimate whether a particular course, regardless of its set-up, fits a particular player's game and -- with a nod to another current thread -- fits his eye (the "horses for courses" theory). It's hard to look at Jack's record at Augusta, Pebble Beach and Baltusrol -- and Tiger's record at Augusta, TOC, and Medinah -- and not think those courses have a special appeal to those players.
I think folks tend to over-estimate how reliable players are in majors, and under-estimate how fickle the game is generally, and particularly so in majors. Jack Fleck, Orville Moody, George Archer, Shaun Micheel, Rich Beem, Todd Hamilton, and a lot of others provide testament to the game's nature.