I'm surprised there are so relatively few traditional-minded readers at Golf Digest, where a poll currently suggests over 61% of readers think golf should be in the Olympics. Now, I think a good argument could be made that it would have been good to add golf to the Olympics many decades ago, but now there is no way Olympic golf can or should displace the most important events in the sport. Some have suggested that the Olympics could be the pinnacle of a career by making Olympic golf amateur-only, but I can't imagine any golfer who's good enough to turn pro will remain an amateur indefinitely for the sake of the Olympics. Even if it were to become the most anticipated test for amateurs, no amateur tournament would attract as much attention as the top pro events.
I suppose someone might make a case that Olympic golf would not be anything close to the pinnacle of the sport and that it should still be done (whether they support allowing pros to play or not). But expect it to be much less touted than most Olympic events if it involves amateurs, and for many top players to skip it if pros are allowed -- especially if it requires otherwise unnecessary transcontinental travel. Then it will be a joke.
One thing I'll add: I can't believe how many people are suggesting that the reason to add it is so that governments will invest in developing Olympic-quality golfers all over the world. As if government has any business spending taxpayer money to develop great athletes. Since when have people in the free world thought that Soviet or Communist Chinese athletic programs are something to be emulated?
Monday, August 11, 2008
Friday, August 1, 2008
Which Is the Best Major?
Tom Sheely at Golf Digest expresses the conventional wisdom, I think -- that the Masters produces the best winners, and the U.S. Open the worst.
I think the most reasonable objection -- which is what the USGA would have probably given before it started to give way of late -- is that the U.S. Open is a sort of "minority of one". In other words, if other tournaments conformed to the expectations of the USGA, then strong U.S. Open players would win lots of other tournaments, and thus would be ranked higher. Being a "minority of one" does not imply that the one is wrong and the majority are right. In particular, if majors are supposed to be different from other tournaments, the one that insists on raising standards of difficulty to the highest possible level ought to be recognized as the standard-setter. It's much like how if we wanted to identify the single greatest high school math genius in the world, we would use a test that only contained very hard questions, not a test designed for average people.
Since being ranked highly in the world rankings requires wins in ordinary PGA Tour events, the majors that come closest to replicating the week-to-week conditions are likely to produce the highest-ranked winners. In particular, this tends to mean that the Masters, which traditionally provided lots of birdie opportunities while offering a fairly high degree of tolerance for wildness off the tee, was the most likely to produce a winner who had already made a name for himself in regular PGA Tour events.
The paradox (hinted at but not explicitly pointed out by Bob Carney) is that if a major championship organizer wants "name" winners, it pays to make the tournament reward the same things that are rewarded in regular tour events. The typical line that the tougher the conditions, the better the winner, can only hold in a qualified sense. Insofar as "better" is determined by a standard such as the Official World Golf Rankings, a major will produce "better" champions by conforming to the standard that is already being set by the events that contribute the bulk of the OWGR points. A "nonconformist" tournament will offer an alternative standard that values different qualities, but will produce lower-ranked winners just because it is using a different standard than the one used to rank the players.
It is a bit like the old joke about the Englishman who went to France and was impressed at how smart the French were, because there even five-year-olds could speak French. Alternatively, he could have thought the French were dumb, just because hardly any could speak English (at least back in the day). In this case, he would be applying an inappropriate standard either way. Whether one speaks French or English does not indicate higher or lower intelligence. In other cases, though, there's an accepted standard, and failing to conform to the accepted standard is seen as obstinacy at best, and antisocial behavior at worst. To use an extreme example, one is not equally well accepted whether one wears clothes, or goes around naked in public.
If a golfer can "speak U.S. Open" but can't "speak regular PGA Tour", he is not going to be ranked high. "Speaking U.S. Open" has required, above all, very straight hitting and conservative play -- and hasn't rewarded the ability to hit great recovery shots, which have been practically impossible.
Basically what seems to be changing now is that the U.S. Open is realizing how difficult it is to be a "minority of one". In the past, it might have hoped to set a new standard that it could coax the PGA and R&A to adopt, if not other tournaments as well. That way, the USGA would have been a standard-setter, and tournaments that didn't reward what the USGA rewarded would lose prestige. Failing that, the USGA seems to be accepting that there is already a different standard, and that going against it serves only to lower the prestige of the U.S. Open.
The USGA seems to be coming to accept that its attempt to change the standard was largely misguided because it is increasingly clear that the players with the skill set conventionally preferred by USGA setups are not, in fact, the best players. There is a fairly good consensus as to who the best players actually are, and too many U.S. Open winners have not been on the list. Thus the U.S. Open is gradually being pulled back into conformity. Ironically, the Masters seems to be taking an almost opposite trajectory, which may come into question if the champions are similar to those of the last two years. (Interestingly, Augusta seems to be favoring long hitters less now that the course has been lengthened.)
I think the most reasonable objection -- which is what the USGA would have probably given before it started to give way of late -- is that the U.S. Open is a sort of "minority of one". In other words, if other tournaments conformed to the expectations of the USGA, then strong U.S. Open players would win lots of other tournaments, and thus would be ranked higher. Being a "minority of one" does not imply that the one is wrong and the majority are right. In particular, if majors are supposed to be different from other tournaments, the one that insists on raising standards of difficulty to the highest possible level ought to be recognized as the standard-setter. It's much like how if we wanted to identify the single greatest high school math genius in the world, we would use a test that only contained very hard questions, not a test designed for average people.
Since being ranked highly in the world rankings requires wins in ordinary PGA Tour events, the majors that come closest to replicating the week-to-week conditions are likely to produce the highest-ranked winners. In particular, this tends to mean that the Masters, which traditionally provided lots of birdie opportunities while offering a fairly high degree of tolerance for wildness off the tee, was the most likely to produce a winner who had already made a name for himself in regular PGA Tour events.
The paradox (hinted at but not explicitly pointed out by Bob Carney) is that if a major championship organizer wants "name" winners, it pays to make the tournament reward the same things that are rewarded in regular tour events. The typical line that the tougher the conditions, the better the winner, can only hold in a qualified sense. Insofar as "better" is determined by a standard such as the Official World Golf Rankings, a major will produce "better" champions by conforming to the standard that is already being set by the events that contribute the bulk of the OWGR points. A "nonconformist" tournament will offer an alternative standard that values different qualities, but will produce lower-ranked winners just because it is using a different standard than the one used to rank the players.
It is a bit like the old joke about the Englishman who went to France and was impressed at how smart the French were, because there even five-year-olds could speak French. Alternatively, he could have thought the French were dumb, just because hardly any could speak English (at least back in the day). In this case, he would be applying an inappropriate standard either way. Whether one speaks French or English does not indicate higher or lower intelligence. In other cases, though, there's an accepted standard, and failing to conform to the accepted standard is seen as obstinacy at best, and antisocial behavior at worst. To use an extreme example, one is not equally well accepted whether one wears clothes, or goes around naked in public.
If a golfer can "speak U.S. Open" but can't "speak regular PGA Tour", he is not going to be ranked high. "Speaking U.S. Open" has required, above all, very straight hitting and conservative play -- and hasn't rewarded the ability to hit great recovery shots, which have been practically impossible.
Basically what seems to be changing now is that the U.S. Open is realizing how difficult it is to be a "minority of one". In the past, it might have hoped to set a new standard that it could coax the PGA and R&A to adopt, if not other tournaments as well. That way, the USGA would have been a standard-setter, and tournaments that didn't reward what the USGA rewarded would lose prestige. Failing that, the USGA seems to be accepting that there is already a different standard, and that going against it serves only to lower the prestige of the U.S. Open.
The USGA seems to be coming to accept that its attempt to change the standard was largely misguided because it is increasingly clear that the players with the skill set conventionally preferred by USGA setups are not, in fact, the best players. There is a fairly good consensus as to who the best players actually are, and too many U.S. Open winners have not been on the list. Thus the U.S. Open is gradually being pulled back into conformity. Ironically, the Masters seems to be taking an almost opposite trajectory, which may come into question if the champions are similar to those of the last two years. (Interestingly, Augusta seems to be favoring long hitters less now that the course has been lengthened.)
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Who's No. 3 in the World?
ESPN.com writers debate this question. Please don't tell me Padraig Harrington doesn't deserve the place over the likes of Adam Scott, who hasn't finished closer than six shots from the winner in a major in his career; or Ernie Els, who simply isn't his old self and shouldn't even be in the top 10 these days; or Sergio Garcia, who has had umpteen chances to win a major and hasn't got it done. Someone who has won two majors in the last two years obviously has to rank ahead of these folks.
If the OWGR didn't have Harrington above Scott, Garcia, and Els (and I'm a bit surprised Harrington trails Mickelson by as much as he does), then I would have to say the ranking was not giving sufficient weight to wins over strong fields.
If the OWGR didn't have Harrington above Scott, Garcia, and Els (and I'm a bit surprised Harrington trails Mickelson by as much as he does), then I would have to say the ranking was not giving sufficient weight to wins over strong fields.
Monday, July 21, 2008
TV Coverage Continues to Deteriorate
In a world of incestuous media consolidation, I have to hand it to Golf Digest for being willing to publish criticisms of the TV coverage on their Editors' Blog. I have to agree that ABC's coverage was pretty bad. Reader Ron Field wrote, "On Saturday, with only 86 players playing, not enough golfers were shown." And Bill Ford added:
We are still getting coverage of only those golfers at the top of the leader board again. ... I've even gone so far as to time a 15 minute segment to see how much of a tournament we actually get to see and in that segment we saw 2 3/4 minutes of the actual tournament and this was only of the leaders.
Apparently those people who cover the golf tournaments feel they are more important than the players themselves. They should apply the philosophy of a quiet mouth as you do on the golf course. I don't see where we need 8 or 10 people covering a tournament when they are generally talking to each other and not actually reporting but when they are talking they're editorializing rather than reporting.
Hard to disagree much with that! Especially in those cases where a player goes out and posts a score early and then waits for the rest of the field to drop back, it sometimes happens that only a handful of shots by the winner get shown. There were times on Sunday at the Open that six or more players were in contention, but the overwhelming majority of the time was given to Harrington and Norman.
And don't even get me started with the coverage of regular (non-major) PGA Tour events, which often seems to degenerate into little more than an extended infomercial for the equipment makers. For example, you'll see a segment that's part of the telecast in which the benefits of hybrid clubs are touted. Then there will be a commercial for TaylorMade clubs. There is a kind of vicious circle here, I imagine, in which viewers don't watch the events with weak fields, so CBS becomes less worried about turning off the remaining viewers, who may actually be interested in knowing about the new equipment in detail, encouraging CBS to show more advertising disguised as coverage of the tournament, turning off more casual viewers, and so on.
I suppose the only cure is to raise the golf IQ of the casual viewer, who probably doesn't mind the singleminded focus on Greg Norman because he doesn't know who Ian Poulter, Henrik Stenson, or Anthony Kim is anyway. ABC's feeling of desperation was probably enhanced by the knowledge that casual viewers would not appreciate the impact of the weather conditions, and therefore would be shocked at the failure of the world's best players to hit targets and make birdies. (I wouldn't be surprised, or upset, if there is pressure on the people setting up the courses to increase par, just to make scores look a bit better.) Just as school is not geared toward the gifted child, TV coverage is rarely geared toward the knowledgeable viewer, unless the network has given up hope of attracting more casual viewers.
I hope to see NBC bid for the British Open if it gets a chance. At least they can make some improvements. One thing I tend to like about NBC is that they handle the flashbacks to historic moments well. During the Masters, CBS tends to harp on a handful of moments such as Nicklaus in '86 or Tiger's chip-in on the 16th in '05. (To be fair, I don't know to what extent Augusta National determines how Masters history is portrayed, but whoever is responsible, it's annoying.)
Friday, July 18, 2008
Choi Surprises
I wasn't out of my mind when I suggested that K.J. Choi hadn't done anything lately. His last top-10 was the Accenture Match Play in February. Sometimes championships wind up being won by people who weren't hot coming in, like Trevor Immelman in this year's Masters. I would tend to say, therefore, that I had no way to know Choi would put up two rounds like he has. However, now that he has, are we to guess he'll fold because of his lack of success recently? I would lean toward "no". He is pretty solid at capitalizing on opportunities when he gets them, so there's nothing wrong with him being the bookmakers' favorite at the moment.
Birkdale Is Plenty Long!
Just a quick observation: It seems like a lot of people have suggested that Royal Birkdale is "short" at 7,173 yards. As far as I can tell, this is plenty long given the conditions that are typical in the British Open. Cool weather, especially when combined with rain, means the ball goes shorter, as well as more crooked, and there's little roll on the fairways. People suggested during the first round that it was impossible for most to reach the 436-yard 11th and 439-yard 16th in two. Those are just considered average-length par-4's these days. Making them unreachable for today's very long-hitting players requires not just a 30-mph headwind, but cold and rain too.
If you really want a course to play short, it has to be dry and hot. Compare Southern Hills last year, where a large number of players were reaching the 653-yard fifth hole in two, albeit with little wind. I imagine there were players who hit two or three drivers a round on that course. At Birkdale in this week's conditions? No one would think of playing that way.
If you really want a course to play short, it has to be dry and hot. Compare Southern Hills last year, where a large number of players were reaching the 653-yard fifth hole in two, albeit with little wind. I imagine there were players who hit two or three drivers a round on that course. At Birkdale in this week's conditions? No one would think of playing that way.
Putting Your Money on Norman?
25% of ESPN.com voters say Greg Norman is going to win the British Open? Those are some die-hard Norman fans!
This is a guy who won less than 25% of his opportunities in the major championships during his prime. Who really thinks he's got two more rounds in him sufficient to win?
Oddsmakers put Norman at 26:1 after two rounds. That's about a 4% chance, which is more like it.
This is a guy who won less than 25% of his opportunities in the major championships during his prime. Who really thinks he's got two more rounds in him sufficient to win?
Oddsmakers put Norman at 26:1 after two rounds. That's about a 4% chance, which is more like it.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
British Open Picks
Just a few comments regarding picks for the British Open:
I'll start with a bit of analysis of ESPN.com's picks.
As usual, too much credit is being given to Ernie Els, who has never displayed the same form since his 2005 injury as he did before. I'm starting to forget what the good Ernie Els even looked like. I would give him less than a 50-50 chance of ever winning another major. The incessant talk about the new psychologist he has every few months, should be disconcerting to those tempted to pick him. He has still not contended for a title down to the final holes, at least on the U.S. tour, since he won in Florida in March.
I am not as hostile to the Sergio Garcia pick as usual, especially since Tiger is not in the field. I usually recommend against picking frequent chokers as first-time winners, figuring that by the time I am finally correct, I will have already been sorry too many times. However, all the stars seem to be lined up right for Garcia.
I am starting to view Justin Rose as belonging more in the "choker" category; he has had lots of chances and not come through. How many chokes does a guy need before we say, "I'm not picking him until he's won one"? I wish I had a more scientific numerical value for that number, but Rose is getting close to it.
The recent hype surrounding Anthony Kim strikes me as a bit much, though the odds given for him are longer than they could be. Winning Tiger's tournament was not all that impressive an accomplishment, given that 8 of the top 10 in the world were absent. He has still not won an event with Tiger in the field, though he wouldn't have to this time around. He is still likely to be the youngest major champion since Tiger when he breaks through, but his lack of links experience makes it unlikely he will do so this week.
Phil Mickelson has always had a weak record on links, and it's looking increasingly likely that he will end his career having won only two different majors. If there is a British Open venue that favors him, it's probably not Birkdale, which seems to be one of the most difficult venues, especially with the penal rough that's grown up this year. Can he be accurate enough to win? I rather doubt it.
Can it really be said that Jim Furyk has been "playing well lately"? He's slipped from third in the world at some time last summer, to 12th now, with only one top-10 in his last six starts. The course does seem to favor him, and he's had some good results in Britain, though.
Lee Westwood seems to be on the list of players who doesn't come through when it counts. His record at majors is much weaker than one might expect, and when he has been in contention, like at this year's U.S. Open, he hasn't capitalized. I'm not in a hurry to assume that Europeans are suddenly going to start winning a lot of majors.
Graeme McDowell and Robert Karlsson don't sound like bad sleeper picks (Kim and Rose can't accurately be called sleepers). My only reservation is that Europeans have still not measured up very well in the majors, even the high-profile ones. But maybe it will take a lower-profile one to break the trend.
I am going to start a new rule for picks: Don't pick anyone who won his first major within the last two years, unless he was very much overdue for it (e.g. Mickelson when he won the 2004 Masters). It takes at least that long for most players to adjust to being major champions and get their motivation back up sufficiently to win another. Even Tiger didn't win another major for more than two years (1999 PGA) after his initial win at the 1997 Masters. Even if Padraig Harrington were not injured, I wouldn't pick him. Same goes even more strongly for 2007 winners Zach Johnson and Angel Cabrera, and not nearly as strongly, but still surely, for Trevor Immelman. On the other hand, Geoff Ogilvy's two-year window has expired, and don't look, but he's up to No. 3 in the world. Is that an accident? I don't think so.
As for the rest of the world top 15:
Adam Scott (#4) is still not ready. He has still not been any closer than six shots from the winner in a major. That is too little experience to expect a breakthrough.
Stewart Cink (#6) has still not overcome the choking, despite one low-profile win this year. Anytime the media dress someone up as a "feel-good story", as they frequently do with Cink, that's usually a sign the guy is a sucker pick. He has had some sort of disappointment that is probably haunting him -- demons that the media would love to see him exorcise. That doesn't mean the "feel-good story" is likely to happen.
Steve Stricker (#8) hadn't done much this year until very recently, but now he has to start thinking he should have won a major in his career. Maybe last year demonstrates he has finally figured out links golf. A win for him would be similar to Mark O'Meara in 1998 on the same course -- a guy who didn't win a major until very late in his career. Maybe he is a decent pick without a lot of hype surrounding him. If a guy like this is going to win, why not now?
Vijay Singh (#10): What has he done lately? Basically nothing since before the Masters. I am surprised he is still ranked so high. Nothing would tempt me to pick him.
K.J. Choi (#11): Same as for Singh.
This week is about as wide open as it gets, though. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone ranked below 50th in the world winning.
I'll start with a bit of analysis of ESPN.com's picks.
As usual, too much credit is being given to Ernie Els, who has never displayed the same form since his 2005 injury as he did before. I'm starting to forget what the good Ernie Els even looked like. I would give him less than a 50-50 chance of ever winning another major. The incessant talk about the new psychologist he has every few months, should be disconcerting to those tempted to pick him. He has still not contended for a title down to the final holes, at least on the U.S. tour, since he won in Florida in March.
I am not as hostile to the Sergio Garcia pick as usual, especially since Tiger is not in the field. I usually recommend against picking frequent chokers as first-time winners, figuring that by the time I am finally correct, I will have already been sorry too many times. However, all the stars seem to be lined up right for Garcia.
I am starting to view Justin Rose as belonging more in the "choker" category; he has had lots of chances and not come through. How many chokes does a guy need before we say, "I'm not picking him until he's won one"? I wish I had a more scientific numerical value for that number, but Rose is getting close to it.
The recent hype surrounding Anthony Kim strikes me as a bit much, though the odds given for him are longer than they could be. Winning Tiger's tournament was not all that impressive an accomplishment, given that 8 of the top 10 in the world were absent. He has still not won an event with Tiger in the field, though he wouldn't have to this time around. He is still likely to be the youngest major champion since Tiger when he breaks through, but his lack of links experience makes it unlikely he will do so this week.
Phil Mickelson has always had a weak record on links, and it's looking increasingly likely that he will end his career having won only two different majors. If there is a British Open venue that favors him, it's probably not Birkdale, which seems to be one of the most difficult venues, especially with the penal rough that's grown up this year. Can he be accurate enough to win? I rather doubt it.
Can it really be said that Jim Furyk has been "playing well lately"? He's slipped from third in the world at some time last summer, to 12th now, with only one top-10 in his last six starts. The course does seem to favor him, and he's had some good results in Britain, though.
Lee Westwood seems to be on the list of players who doesn't come through when it counts. His record at majors is much weaker than one might expect, and when he has been in contention, like at this year's U.S. Open, he hasn't capitalized. I'm not in a hurry to assume that Europeans are suddenly going to start winning a lot of majors.
Graeme McDowell and Robert Karlsson don't sound like bad sleeper picks (Kim and Rose can't accurately be called sleepers). My only reservation is that Europeans have still not measured up very well in the majors, even the high-profile ones. But maybe it will take a lower-profile one to break the trend.
I am going to start a new rule for picks: Don't pick anyone who won his first major within the last two years, unless he was very much overdue for it (e.g. Mickelson when he won the 2004 Masters). It takes at least that long for most players to adjust to being major champions and get their motivation back up sufficiently to win another. Even Tiger didn't win another major for more than two years (1999 PGA) after his initial win at the 1997 Masters. Even if Padraig Harrington were not injured, I wouldn't pick him. Same goes even more strongly for 2007 winners Zach Johnson and Angel Cabrera, and not nearly as strongly, but still surely, for Trevor Immelman. On the other hand, Geoff Ogilvy's two-year window has expired, and don't look, but he's up to No. 3 in the world. Is that an accident? I don't think so.
As for the rest of the world top 15:
Adam Scott (#4) is still not ready. He has still not been any closer than six shots from the winner in a major. That is too little experience to expect a breakthrough.
Stewart Cink (#6) has still not overcome the choking, despite one low-profile win this year. Anytime the media dress someone up as a "feel-good story", as they frequently do with Cink, that's usually a sign the guy is a sucker pick. He has had some sort of disappointment that is probably haunting him -- demons that the media would love to see him exorcise. That doesn't mean the "feel-good story" is likely to happen.
Steve Stricker (#8) hadn't done much this year until very recently, but now he has to start thinking he should have won a major in his career. Maybe last year demonstrates he has finally figured out links golf. A win for him would be similar to Mark O'Meara in 1998 on the same course -- a guy who didn't win a major until very late in his career. Maybe he is a decent pick without a lot of hype surrounding him. If a guy like this is going to win, why not now?
Vijay Singh (#10): What has he done lately? Basically nothing since before the Masters. I am surprised he is still ranked so high. Nothing would tempt me to pick him.
K.J. Choi (#11): Same as for Singh.
This week is about as wide open as it gets, though. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone ranked below 50th in the world winning.
Lay Off Kenny Perry!
Kenny Perry is bewildered by all the attention given to his decision to skip the British Open. I am too. It doesn't seem so strange for him to say, "I had lots of chances to win a major, and I didn't, so now I am just going to do my best to win what I can," does it? I have to wonder why the golf media care so much. Is there anyone who is going to say, "Well, even without Tiger, I would have watched the British Open if Kenny Perry was playing, but he's not, so forget it"?
Gene Wojciechowski defends Perry's decision here. I should add that links golf is a different game in many ways, and Perry isn't the only player who has ever skipped it because he couldn't figure out how to do well at it. It's either something you put considerable effort into mastering, or might as well not embarrass yourself at!
One of the most off-base criticisms is, "Well, he could win the money title and the FedEx Cup if he played at Birkdale." Certainly he probably wants to maximize his chances of achieving these feats, which don't require him to win a major. He would probably have to finish something like second alone at the British Open to surpass the money he could get by winning in Milwaukee. Put that way, his decision sounds rational to me. If the golf media don't like it, they'll have to figure out some way to rig the incentives differently.
Gene Wojciechowski defends Perry's decision here. I should add that links golf is a different game in many ways, and Perry isn't the only player who has ever skipped it because he couldn't figure out how to do well at it. It's either something you put considerable effort into mastering, or might as well not embarrass yourself at!
One of the most off-base criticisms is, "Well, he could win the money title and the FedEx Cup if he played at Birkdale." Certainly he probably wants to maximize his chances of achieving these feats, which don't require him to win a major. He would probably have to finish something like second alone at the British Open to surpass the money he could get by winning in Milwaukee. Put that way, his decision sounds rational to me. If the golf media don't like it, they'll have to figure out some way to rig the incentives differently.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Asterisk?
Enough already of the talk about how this year's British Open and PGA should have an "asterisk" because Tiger Woods isn't playing. By the same logic, every major between about 1987 and 1996 should have an "asterisk", since that was a very weak era for the Tour (probably at least as weak as today without Tiger). We understand that, say, Nick Faldo wasn't as great a player as his total of six majors (all in the period 1987-1996) would have implied. Today's players must feel they deserve a handful of chances to beef up their totals during a time of weakened fields.
I would actually not be surprised if the two remaining majors this year are won by total no-names anyway. The likes of Phil Mickelson don't need good competition to choke.
I would actually not be surprised if the two remaining majors this year are won by total no-names anyway. The likes of Phil Mickelson don't need good competition to choke.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Why Tiger Woods Doesn't NEED To Start His Own Tour
Articles like this, proposing that Tiger Woods start his own tour, misunderstand the nature of power in golf. The possibility of Woods doing what the article asserts, guarantees that the PGA Tour will bend over backwards to accommodate Woods at every turn, so any rules that Woods finds especially burdensome will certainly be discarded. (For that matter, the interests of most top players tend to line up fairly closely with Tiger's, so any attempt by the PGA Tour to impose rules contrary to their desires will lead to a fairly general outcry.) The season has already been shortened, something that had to be done once it became clear no one wanted to show up for a single high-profile event in November, so far separated from the main part of the season. The 15-event minimum would surely disappear if Tiger expressed any real dissatisfaction with it. There are probably many other players who don't like it either, especially those who like to play a rather substantial schedule of European Tour events.
The fact that the top handful of players might as well own the PGA Tour is evident, too, from the drug testing. Plenty of players are moaning and groaning about the introduction of drug testing. Tiger? He's already been tested, even though he's out for the season. Tiger knows that toleration of banned substances could only help a mediocre player gain undeserved success, so he's on board. It might be more appropriate, in fact, to say that Tim Finchem is on board with Tiger's preferred policy. Finchem is just a puppet ruler.
The fact that the top handful of players might as well own the PGA Tour is evident, too, from the drug testing. Plenty of players are moaning and groaning about the introduction of drug testing. Tiger? He's already been tested, even though he's out for the season. Tiger knows that toleration of banned substances could only help a mediocre player gain undeserved success, so he's on board. It might be more appropriate, in fact, to say that Tim Finchem is on board with Tiger's preferred policy. Finchem is just a puppet ruler.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Hypersensitivity Run Amok
I can't believe the ethnic "insensitivity" Johnny Miller is being asked to apologize for. I could see the Kelly Tilghman case, and when I heard Bobby Clampett call Wenchong Liang a "Chinaman" on the Masters telecast, I knew he was going to be asked to apologize. But here Miller is being asked to apologize for a subtext that someone noticed in his words, which most fans certainly did not take in that way:
It would be sick if the forced apology was just a joke, but it's dead serious. The diversicrats are everywhere, even in golf!
Miller said [Rocco] Mediate "looks like the guy who cleans Tiger's swimming pool." He also said, "Guys with the name 'Rocco' don't get on the trophy, do they?"
It would be sick if the forced apology was just a joke, but it's dead serious. The diversicrats are everywhere, even in golf!
Monday, June 16, 2008
U.S. Open Comments
Just a few comments about the U.S. Open:
I hope Monday's playoff has convinced a few that the 18-hole playoff is a worthwhile idea, although there's obviously strong pressure in the MSM to give in to the will of the TV networks to shorten it. Is there anyone who would have wanted to miss this playoff? At least let us see something like what we saw this year once every 5 years or so. Hopefully this will go down as the contest that saved the 18-hole playoff format in the U.S. Open.
I haven't seen a lot of footage of old golf tournaments in their entirety, but surely Nicklaus-Palmer playoffs were a lot more exciting than today's media would have us believe. Everyone loves two guys going head-to-head, especially if everyone has an opinion of one of them.
I also hope (in vain) that some people will start to realize how much we don't need a "Tiger vs. Phil" showdown. The reason we don't have such showdowns is that Phil melts down before they even get started. Phil knocked himself out of this tournament on Friday, which we can expect to see more of if the grouping of him and Tiger becomes a regular habit in the majors. If Tiger is remotely on his game, Phil always crumbles. From a mental standpoint, Phil winds up being far below guys like Rocco Mediate and Bob May, who have challenged Tiger to the end, as well as other relative no-names who have beaten Tiger, such as Rich Beem, Zach Johnson, and Angel Cabrera. I will take more tournaments like the one we just saw.
Phil won't ever win the U.S. Open. I'll give him another PGA and maybe another Masters, but that will be all. He is too accustomed to the role of "lovable loser".
I hope Monday's playoff has convinced a few that the 18-hole playoff is a worthwhile idea, although there's obviously strong pressure in the MSM to give in to the will of the TV networks to shorten it. Is there anyone who would have wanted to miss this playoff? At least let us see something like what we saw this year once every 5 years or so. Hopefully this will go down as the contest that saved the 18-hole playoff format in the U.S. Open.
I haven't seen a lot of footage of old golf tournaments in their entirety, but surely Nicklaus-Palmer playoffs were a lot more exciting than today's media would have us believe. Everyone loves two guys going head-to-head, especially if everyone has an opinion of one of them.
I also hope (in vain) that some people will start to realize how much we don't need a "Tiger vs. Phil" showdown. The reason we don't have such showdowns is that Phil melts down before they even get started. Phil knocked himself out of this tournament on Friday, which we can expect to see more of if the grouping of him and Tiger becomes a regular habit in the majors. If Tiger is remotely on his game, Phil always crumbles. From a mental standpoint, Phil winds up being far below guys like Rocco Mediate and Bob May, who have challenged Tiger to the end, as well as other relative no-names who have beaten Tiger, such as Rich Beem, Zach Johnson, and Angel Cabrera. I will take more tournaments like the one we just saw.
Phil won't ever win the U.S. Open. I'll give him another PGA and maybe another Masters, but that will be all. He is too accustomed to the role of "lovable loser".
Friday, April 18, 2008
Masters Talk Off Base
Jason Sobel is right: this talk about the Masters being totally changed is not right. Some years, the weather is going to be like it has the last two years on Sunday, and the scoring will be high.
This article shows the average score over the last 12 years:
2008: 73.79
2007: 75.88
2006: 73.95
2005: 73.87
2004: 73.97
2003: 74.65
2002: 73.45
2001: 72.49
2000: 74.00
1999: 73.98
1998: 74.07
1997: 74.31
OK, can you tell from these statistics which years (even approximately) the course changes took place? No, of course you can't. (The answer is 1999 and 2002; a few smaller ones were made for 2006.) The norm throughout the period is an average of about half a stroke either side of 74, with 2001 and 2007 as outliers.
And Phil Mickelson shot 31 on the back nine to win in 2004, after most of the changes had already been made. There is really no evidence that it is "impossible" to shoot a great score on the back nine on Sunday. It doesn't happen every year, and never did. Conversely, players have blown the Masters with double and triple bogeys on the last nine many times over the years. How about Greg Norman's double-bogey on 12 in 1996? I don't remember Norman's earlier missed chances to win, but surely 1996 was not the only year he made a crucial big number.
All the added length has done (and not all holes were played from the farthest back tees this year) is make it so players are hitting about the same clubs into many holes as they did in the 1980's, when guys were still hitting wooden drivers. Would players rather be trying to hit the new 530-yard 15th in two with today's clubs, or the old 500-yard 15th with a wooden driver and old-fashioned irons? What about the new 510-yard 13th with today's technology vs. the old 485-yard 13th with the older technology?
Mickelson's point about the seventh hole, whose character has been completely changed, is well-taken, but overall, there's not much to the criticisms. Tiger Woods knew he could have gotten into a playoff with a mere 33 on the back nine -- and three more makeable putts would have done the job. He didn't complain.
This article shows the average score over the last 12 years:
2008: 73.79
2007: 75.88
2006: 73.95
2005: 73.87
2004: 73.97
2003: 74.65
2002: 73.45
2001: 72.49
2000: 74.00
1999: 73.98
1998: 74.07
1997: 74.31
OK, can you tell from these statistics which years (even approximately) the course changes took place? No, of course you can't. (The answer is 1999 and 2002; a few smaller ones were made for 2006.) The norm throughout the period is an average of about half a stroke either side of 74, with 2001 and 2007 as outliers.
And Phil Mickelson shot 31 on the back nine to win in 2004, after most of the changes had already been made. There is really no evidence that it is "impossible" to shoot a great score on the back nine on Sunday. It doesn't happen every year, and never did. Conversely, players have blown the Masters with double and triple bogeys on the last nine many times over the years. How about Greg Norman's double-bogey on 12 in 1996? I don't remember Norman's earlier missed chances to win, but surely 1996 was not the only year he made a crucial big number.
All the added length has done (and not all holes were played from the farthest back tees this year) is make it so players are hitting about the same clubs into many holes as they did in the 1980's, when guys were still hitting wooden drivers. Would players rather be trying to hit the new 530-yard 15th in two with today's clubs, or the old 500-yard 15th with a wooden driver and old-fashioned irons? What about the new 510-yard 13th with today's technology vs. the old 485-yard 13th with the older technology?
Mickelson's point about the seventh hole, whose character has been completely changed, is well-taken, but overall, there's not much to the criticisms. Tiger Woods knew he could have gotten into a playoff with a mere 33 on the back nine -- and three more makeable putts would have done the job. He didn't complain.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Enough of the Tiger Inevitability Talk!
They always talk about how lack of "respect" seems to motivate Tiger Woods. We've all heard about Rory Sabbatini, Stephen Ames, and some even say Ian Poulter belongs in this category. But you would think that lack of respect ought to motivate other players too. But no one ever talks about other players that way. No one said last year, "Zach Johnson was clearly motivated by all the people who said he couldn't win." Ditto for Angel Cabrera. Only Tiger is said to be fired up by lack of "respect". This is a clear media double standard that annoys me more and more the more I notice it. (I suppose the flimsy justification is that the other players deserve the total lack of respect, not having won anything of importance.)
I'm not usually that anti-Tiger, but the type of talk that says Tiger is still the favorite going into the final round trailing by six shots really ought to motivate the guys ahead of him. For example, this and this. Plus headlines that suggest that Tiger made a "charge" by shaving exactly one stroke off a seven-stroke deficit during the third round of the Masters. True, he passed Phil Mickelson. But I'm not prepared to say that we should expect to see all four players ahead of him collapse. It could happen, or Tiger could shoot a very low round and pass them anyway. However, Tiger would not be six shots behind if he were playing at his best. And even Tiger can't win when he's playing way below his potential.
I can't help thinking that so many MSM sportswriters have invested themselves so heavily in the prediction that 2008 will be the year Tiger wins the Grand Slam, that they can't ever think of him as a long-shot -- even once he's played himself into such a position.
I'm not usually that anti-Tiger, but the type of talk that says Tiger is still the favorite going into the final round trailing by six shots really ought to motivate the guys ahead of him. For example, this and this. Plus headlines that suggest that Tiger made a "charge" by shaving exactly one stroke off a seven-stroke deficit during the third round of the Masters. True, he passed Phil Mickelson. But I'm not prepared to say that we should expect to see all four players ahead of him collapse. It could happen, or Tiger could shoot a very low round and pass them anyway. However, Tiger would not be six shots behind if he were playing at his best. And even Tiger can't win when he's playing way below his potential.
I can't help thinking that so many MSM sportswriters have invested themselves so heavily in the prediction that 2008 will be the year Tiger wins the Grand Slam, that they can't ever think of him as a long-shot -- even once he's played himself into such a position.
Friday, March 7, 2008
One Cheap Win Does Not Make Ernie Els "Back"
For the sane golf observer, this should be obvious. (Any win in an event with Tiger Woods absent, of course, being a "cheap win".) But the media are out to convince you otherwise. If you're playing fantasy golf or the like, don't be swayed. Certainly don't pick Els to win a major until:
- He has had a season comparable to what used to be considered a good season for Ernie Els. Once a player has a bad stretch, people tend to lower the bar for what constitutes success -- while still expecting things like major championship wins, solely on the pretext that the player has won them before. (Back when he was really a totally different player.)
- People have stopped talking about his psychologist. As long as golf writers are telling you how much Els is benefiting from his psychologist, you have to ask, "If his mental game is at all sound, why does he even need the psychologist?"
- Again, he has something other than a "cheap win" -- i.e. Tiger is in the field.
Absent these things happening, you should consider Els as washed-up as anyone else whose main career achievements are many years in the past. Even if he is not as old as the others.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Asian Ethnocentrism Not Going Away
Plans are to launch a new golf tour in Southeast Asia which will only be open to residents of Southeast Asian countries. Despite the ethnocentrism inherent in this concept, the global corporation Mercedes-Benz is glad to sponsor the tour. Vijay Singh expects to play more in Asia despite the low level of competition on the Asian Tour. Meanwhile, the LPGA has rightly rejected quotas designed to keep it more American.
All this just goes to show that expecting Asian countries to stop being "protectionist" and ethnocentric is a vain hope. Universalism is not an Asian value. In sports we expect the best to get the trophy, but in ordinary life we can't help but try to tilt the playing field in our favor when the rest of the world is bent on tilting the playing field in their favor, no matter what.
All this just goes to show that expecting Asian countries to stop being "protectionist" and ethnocentric is a vain hope. Universalism is not an Asian value. In sports we expect the best to get the trophy, but in ordinary life we can't help but try to tilt the playing field in our favor when the rest of the world is bent on tilting the playing field in their favor, no matter what.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
No Heat on Tiger?
I'm not a big believer in pro-Tiger bias -- he deserves most of the applause he gets. But this week Bob Harig writes at ESPN.com, "It is difficult to imagine [Tiger] Woods ever ducking a challenge. ... [Riviera] might not be his favorite, it might not suit him, but you can bet that has nothing to do with his absence." Give me a break!
Later on Harig has second thoughts:
"Woods has made no secret in the past that the greens at several courses used for West Coast events are not to his liking. That is among the reasons we don't see him at the season-opening Mercedes and definitely why he skips Pebble Beach. The greens get considerably better at next week's Match Play Championship near Tucson, Ariz., and get smoother and faster as he plays the Florida events leading up to the Masters.
And let's face it, that is his concern. There are no more treacherous putting surfaces than those at Augusta National, and putting on bumpy, slow surfaces -- as is usually the case during winter in California -- does not help."
OK, so you say Tiger doesn't make his decisions where to play based on what the course is like, but actually he does?
Tiger Woods has the right not to play in every tournament. Fine. But that doesn't mean the media should be giving him a free pass for deciding to repeatedly skip courses where he has a history of not winning. It may be smart from the perspective of trying to win the greatest number of tournaments and the most money. But the media shouldn't go along with declaring that the tournaments that Tiger anoints (by showing up) are great tournaments (and great courses), whereas the other ones are inferior. They should make him feel some pressure to go out and do all the things that he has not done -- including win on courses that he may not feel are the most favorable to him. Instead, Tiger gets the special treatment of having courses that suit him regarded more highly (because he's won there often) whereas courses that don't suit him are mediocre. Why not say instead that courses that tend to foil Tiger are especially great courses?
For that matter, I hope Tiger will feel challenged at some point to spend at least one year playing a lot of events, and seeing if he can keep up a comparable winning percentage. For that matter, Byron Nelson's record of 18 wins in a season gets little attention as one that Tiger ought to care about. Maybe once he has broken Jack Nicklaus's 18 majors and Sam Snead's 82 total wins (and possibly Nelson's 11 consecutive wins), someone will start asking him why he doesn't seem to care about the Nelson record. (For that matter, Tiger's most wins in a year -- nine -- is no better than Vijay Singh's.) If Nelson didn't have to win regularly to eat well, he still played like it! I think he was one who said that Tiger might become "not very hungry" to win at some point because he'd make so much money. Maybe his prediction wasn't so far off.
Later on Harig has second thoughts:
"Woods has made no secret in the past that the greens at several courses used for West Coast events are not to his liking. That is among the reasons we don't see him at the season-opening Mercedes and definitely why he skips Pebble Beach. The greens get considerably better at next week's Match Play Championship near Tucson, Ariz., and get smoother and faster as he plays the Florida events leading up to the Masters.
And let's face it, that is his concern. There are no more treacherous putting surfaces than those at Augusta National, and putting on bumpy, slow surfaces -- as is usually the case during winter in California -- does not help."
OK, so you say Tiger doesn't make his decisions where to play based on what the course is like, but actually he does?
Tiger Woods has the right not to play in every tournament. Fine. But that doesn't mean the media should be giving him a free pass for deciding to repeatedly skip courses where he has a history of not winning. It may be smart from the perspective of trying to win the greatest number of tournaments and the most money. But the media shouldn't go along with declaring that the tournaments that Tiger anoints (by showing up) are great tournaments (and great courses), whereas the other ones are inferior. They should make him feel some pressure to go out and do all the things that he has not done -- including win on courses that he may not feel are the most favorable to him. Instead, Tiger gets the special treatment of having courses that suit him regarded more highly (because he's won there often) whereas courses that don't suit him are mediocre. Why not say instead that courses that tend to foil Tiger are especially great courses?
For that matter, I hope Tiger will feel challenged at some point to spend at least one year playing a lot of events, and seeing if he can keep up a comparable winning percentage. For that matter, Byron Nelson's record of 18 wins in a season gets little attention as one that Tiger ought to care about. Maybe once he has broken Jack Nicklaus's 18 majors and Sam Snead's 82 total wins (and possibly Nelson's 11 consecutive wins), someone will start asking him why he doesn't seem to care about the Nelson record. (For that matter, Tiger's most wins in a year -- nine -- is no better than Vijay Singh's.) If Nelson didn't have to win regularly to eat well, he still played like it! I think he was one who said that Tiger might become "not very hungry" to win at some point because he'd make so much money. Maybe his prediction wasn't so far off.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
What Will Become of the Fall Series?
My prediction is that with top players increasingly choosing to play events in Asia this time of year, the Tour will bow to necessity and endorse those events, though without attaching FedEx Cup points to them. The other events will either go out of business, be relegated to the Nationwide Tour, or at the very least end up with less money at stake, somewhat similar to the alternative events that occur the same weeks as the World Golf Championships and the British Open.
I can guarantee that the Fall Series events will in no way come to acquire FedEx Cup points. The top players have spoken, and have decided that they want the season to last no more than nine months. (I can't blame them -- most team sports don't even have that long a season.) The events beyond that time have been permitted to exist only on the condition that they carry no perks that the top players would be bothered to pass up. The only perks they carry, that tempt other players, are at the most basic level keeping one's Tour card, and above that, invites to majors and other restricted-field tournaments.
That said, I'm a little surprised that very many top players (American ones, at least) are playing at all this time of year. All I can think is that their sponsors insist that they play these Asian tournaments, so the tournaments are worth a lot more money to them in fact than they are on paper. Phil Mickelson explained his presence in Singapore with some platitudes about wanting to take his family around the world and show them the world, but it's hard to believe that his motive is so high-minded. There's presumably a lot of pressure for top players to show their faces in Asia to appease a growing market for golf products.
I can guarantee that the Fall Series events will in no way come to acquire FedEx Cup points. The top players have spoken, and have decided that they want the season to last no more than nine months. (I can't blame them -- most team sports don't even have that long a season.) The events beyond that time have been permitted to exist only on the condition that they carry no perks that the top players would be bothered to pass up. The only perks they carry, that tempt other players, are at the most basic level keeping one's Tour card, and above that, invites to majors and other restricted-field tournaments.
That said, I'm a little surprised that very many top players (American ones, at least) are playing at all this time of year. All I can think is that their sponsors insist that they play these Asian tournaments, so the tournaments are worth a lot more money to them in fact than they are on paper. Phil Mickelson explained his presence in Singapore with some platitudes about wanting to take his family around the world and show them the world, but it's hard to believe that his motive is so high-minded. There's presumably a lot of pressure for top players to show their faces in Asia to appease a growing market for golf products.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Statistics Lie Again
At The Golf Blog, Mulligan makes the same old tired argument that Tiger is a wilder driver than he used to be, citing a fall-off in his driving accuracy percentage. As usual, it would seem that the statistics lie. Tiger has never been near the top in driving accuracy, which although it isn't the strength of his game, is nowhere near as big a weakness as people pretend it is. I'd imagine the driving accuracy numbers are down for most players, and I'd explain the statistical difference thus:
First, more courses are getting set up like major-championship courses these days, with narrow, tightly mown fairways that make it much harder to hit a high percentage of fairways. Many players commented this year that they felt like they'd played six or seven majors. Tiger doesn't even play a large percentage of the easy courses, which particularly costs him statistically in the driving accuracy stat.
Second, I think it's becoming apparent that the tougher courses don't reward defensive play, especially off the tee, as much as players might once have thought. Many have remarked on how players are now hitting fewer irons off the tee, believing that it's more important to make birdies than to avoid making bogeys. Tiger probably understands better these days that he has to play his game, rather than choosing to imitate a straighter, more defensive player like Jim Furyk or Steve Stricker. He knows he's terrific at recovery shots, so he can afford to be more aggressive than most players. At one point he was playing fairly defensively and hitting more irons off the tee, but he doesn't do that as much now. (Part of Tiger's problem for the early part of this year, especially in the U.S. Open, appeared to be that he was putting defensively, as if he was not giving himself a chance to make putts because he was obsessed with never three-putting.)
There might be a little bit to this "Tiger is wild" business. But only a little bit.
First, more courses are getting set up like major-championship courses these days, with narrow, tightly mown fairways that make it much harder to hit a high percentage of fairways. Many players commented this year that they felt like they'd played six or seven majors. Tiger doesn't even play a large percentage of the easy courses, which particularly costs him statistically in the driving accuracy stat.
Second, I think it's becoming apparent that the tougher courses don't reward defensive play, especially off the tee, as much as players might once have thought. Many have remarked on how players are now hitting fewer irons off the tee, believing that it's more important to make birdies than to avoid making bogeys. Tiger probably understands better these days that he has to play his game, rather than choosing to imitate a straighter, more defensive player like Jim Furyk or Steve Stricker. He knows he's terrific at recovery shots, so he can afford to be more aggressive than most players. At one point he was playing fairly defensively and hitting more irons off the tee, but he doesn't do that as much now. (Part of Tiger's problem for the early part of this year, especially in the U.S. Open, appeared to be that he was putting defensively, as if he was not giving himself a chance to make putts because he was obsessed with never three-putting.)
There might be a little bit to this "Tiger is wild" business. But only a little bit.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Europe the Underdog? Not Hardly!
According to a poll, only 28% of ESPN.com readers currently think Europe will win the 2008 Ryder Cup. What? Do these people actually know anything about the history of the Ryder Cup?
I should note that the U.S. won this year's Presidents Cup mainly because a large share of the International Team barely showed up. Adam Scott won only his singles match, and so did K.J. Choi, who'd had a good year. Rory Sabbatini and Trevor Immelman won nothing. The overrated Nick O'Hern, much hyped by the media for his Tiger-killing prowess, won only one match. The only International player who exceeded expectations was Mike Weir. The Americans didn't play badly, but they did have several matches handed to them.
The performance in this year's Presidents Cup is not a solid argument that the Americans will turn things around in the Ryder Cup next year. Meanwhile, Europe is almost sure to have as strong a team as ever. They deserve to be heavy favorites.
I should note that the U.S. won this year's Presidents Cup mainly because a large share of the International Team barely showed up. Adam Scott won only his singles match, and so did K.J. Choi, who'd had a good year. Rory Sabbatini and Trevor Immelman won nothing. The overrated Nick O'Hern, much hyped by the media for his Tiger-killing prowess, won only one match. The only International player who exceeded expectations was Mike Weir. The Americans didn't play badly, but they did have several matches handed to them.
The performance in this year's Presidents Cup is not a solid argument that the Americans will turn things around in the Ryder Cup next year. Meanwhile, Europe is almost sure to have as strong a team as ever. They deserve to be heavy favorites.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Exciting Golf This Weekend
It's looking like the match play event this weekend at Wentworth should be quite interesting, which will make it frustrating that I probably won't be able to watch it. I imagine it's on the Golf Channel, which for some reason isn't included in the cable package available around here.
It seems like the 36-hole-per-match format is about the only way to determine who's really playing the best for the week of the tournament. Unfortunately, this event has still been unable to attract the top American players; otherwise it might be able to trump the WGC match play event in prestige. Between the format, the exclusivity, and the quality of course, it would seem that the Euro Tour has figured out match play much better than its American rival.
It seems like the 36-hole-per-match format is about the only way to determine who's really playing the best for the week of the tournament. Unfortunately, this event has still been unable to attract the top American players; otherwise it might be able to trump the WGC match play event in prestige. Between the format, the exclusivity, and the quality of course, it would seem that the Euro Tour has figured out match play much better than its American rival.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Sore Losers?
It really reflects badly on the International Team to see that they've been complaining about the alleged unfairness of the Presidents Cup venues. Apparently several lashed out after this year's Cup, disappointed that it was being played in Canada. Sure, the crowds were not especially partial to the International Team, except for Mike Weir. However, they still had the opportunity to set up the course as they liked, attempting to minimize the impact of having a lot of wild drivers on the squad.
For once I feel like I'm taking the side of the American media, which didn't complain about the course setup, but have very fairly complained about the way that the 1998 Presidents Cup was played in December, right during the middle of the off-season. That seems unfair to the fans who want to see all the players at their best, even though it might help the Internationals' chances of winning. Yet Adam Scott said, "The Americans need to get outside their comfort zone for us to do well. We need not be afraid of sending [the Presidents Cup] down south, because that is an advantage for us." Doesn't that sound like a vote of no confidence in the team's ability to win on talent alone? Furthermore, doesn't it show a great lack of faith that the Internationals will be able to win on the road in 2009?
The Internationals need to stop making excuses and just play better. Who knows, maybe the Australian media are just egging on folks like Scott, who played very poorly in this year's Cup. Scott certainly won't win over many American fans by talking this way, however. The great thing about golf, though, is that sore losers can usually expect to lose more in the future!
For once I feel like I'm taking the side of the American media, which didn't complain about the course setup, but have very fairly complained about the way that the 1998 Presidents Cup was played in December, right during the middle of the off-season. That seems unfair to the fans who want to see all the players at their best, even though it might help the Internationals' chances of winning. Yet Adam Scott said, "The Americans need to get outside their comfort zone for us to do well. We need not be afraid of sending [the Presidents Cup] down south, because that is an advantage for us." Doesn't that sound like a vote of no confidence in the team's ability to win on talent alone? Furthermore, doesn't it show a great lack of faith that the Internationals will be able to win on the road in 2009?
The Internationals need to stop making excuses and just play better. Who knows, maybe the Australian media are just egging on folks like Scott, who played very poorly in this year's Cup. Scott certainly won't win over many American fans by talking this way, however. The great thing about golf, though, is that sore losers can usually expect to lose more in the future!
Monday, October 1, 2007
Presidents Cup Changes
There's been a lot of moaning and groaning in the media about how unexciting the Presidents Cup risked being, once the Americans had built the lead they had after Saturday's matches. Let me just speak briefly about the source of the problem and possible remedies.
The main problem is that since there are 22 doubles matches (foursomes and fourball combined) and only 12 singles matches, only slightly more than a third of the available points are decided on Sunday. This is a bit different from the Ryder Cup, in which there are only 16 doubles matches compared to the same 12 singles matches. Thus in the 1999 Ryder Cup, the Americans overcame a 10-6 deficit, which seemed like a big deficit, but still only required the Americans to win 8 1/2 of the available 12 points on Sunday. By contrast, the Internationals had fallen behind 14 1/2-7 1/2 before Sunday this year, and needed to win 10 of 12 points on Sunday.
There are two obvious ways to solve this problem: Either decrease the ratio of doubles to singles matches, or count each singles match more than each doubles match. The increased number of doubles matches is exciting, and I don't think the Presidents Cup would abandon that format, which is much fairer than allowing the teams to sit down their weak players until Sunday. Realistically, then, either more singles matches must be played (requiring some players to play two singles matches on Sunday), or each singles match must be counted more than each doubles match. Both solutions should be considered.
The other problem that tends to lead to lopsided matches is the way that the selection process allows for the inclusion of players who come into the matches far off their game. For example, Charles Howell III did practically nothing positive during the last six months of the season, and still qualified easily. For the International team, players like Retief Goosen and Trevor Immelman also qualified despite coming into the matches off their game. (Nick O'Hern proved a dud as a captain's pick, too.) To avoid this outcome, the teams should be selected with most of the weight coming on their performance during the main part of the season, beginning with the Masters. The Ryder Cup has already switched to a system that places less weight on achievements in the year before it's played, and the Presidents Cup should do likewise.
Still, the international competitions are by far the most interesting match play that's used in golf, and I wish the media wouldn't focus so much on the downside of having the Cup already decided. Just let us enjoy the matches!
The main problem is that since there are 22 doubles matches (foursomes and fourball combined) and only 12 singles matches, only slightly more than a third of the available points are decided on Sunday. This is a bit different from the Ryder Cup, in which there are only 16 doubles matches compared to the same 12 singles matches. Thus in the 1999 Ryder Cup, the Americans overcame a 10-6 deficit, which seemed like a big deficit, but still only required the Americans to win 8 1/2 of the available 12 points on Sunday. By contrast, the Internationals had fallen behind 14 1/2-7 1/2 before Sunday this year, and needed to win 10 of 12 points on Sunday.
There are two obvious ways to solve this problem: Either decrease the ratio of doubles to singles matches, or count each singles match more than each doubles match. The increased number of doubles matches is exciting, and I don't think the Presidents Cup would abandon that format, which is much fairer than allowing the teams to sit down their weak players until Sunday. Realistically, then, either more singles matches must be played (requiring some players to play two singles matches on Sunday), or each singles match must be counted more than each doubles match. Both solutions should be considered.
The other problem that tends to lead to lopsided matches is the way that the selection process allows for the inclusion of players who come into the matches far off their game. For example, Charles Howell III did practically nothing positive during the last six months of the season, and still qualified easily. For the International team, players like Retief Goosen and Trevor Immelman also qualified despite coming into the matches off their game. (Nick O'Hern proved a dud as a captain's pick, too.) To avoid this outcome, the teams should be selected with most of the weight coming on their performance during the main part of the season, beginning with the Masters. The Ryder Cup has already switched to a system that places less weight on achievements in the year before it's played, and the Presidents Cup should do likewise.
Still, the international competitions are by far the most interesting match play that's used in golf, and I wish the media wouldn't focus so much on the downside of having the Cup already decided. Just let us enjoy the matches!
A Question
Maybe I'll throw out a question to get a bit of interaction here.
Who are the most overrated and underrated players on tour, in your opinion? Explain your answer in the comments.
Who are the most overrated and underrated players on tour, in your opinion? Explain your answer in the comments.
Silly Season Upon Us
I'll try to think of a few things to post during the "silly season", but don't expect much. I also may have something to say about the Presidents Cup later this week. For my preliminary ideas on major championship picks for 2008, go back here. Nothing that's happened during the FedEx Cup or Presidents Cup has changed my opinion of which category players belong in. A small exception might be Phil Mickelson, who's on the verge of moving back to the "birdie" category, depending on what he does in the next few months. However, I'm still willing to predict that it's about time for Tiger Woods to win three majors in a season again in 2008. If I had to give my predictions right now: Augusta - Tiger; Torrey Pines - Tiger; Birkdale - Tiger; Oakland Hills - somebody you've barely heard of; Valhalla - the U.S. defeat will be all the more painful for being closer.
At any rate, I don't expect to miss having golf to watch for a little while. Enjoy your off-season.
At any rate, I don't expect to miss having golf to watch for a little while. Enjoy your off-season.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
A True Relic of Bygone Days
Here's a "tradition" that I wouldn't mind saying is just plain obsolete: Colt Knost, the U.S. Amateur champion, is being forced to forfeit invitations to next year's majors because he's going to turn pro. Why should one earn invitations to these tournaments only on the condition that one remains an amateur? That's especially true since Knost would have to put off turning pro for nearly a year after his win, if he were to take advantage of those invitations. Since we live in an age in which the best amateurs are invariably pros-to-be anyway, traditions which assume a high value on amateur status have to be called into question.
The U.S. Amateur title should confer an invitation to the majors, no questions asked. Isn't that fair?
The U.S. Amateur title should confer an invitation to the majors, no questions asked. Isn't that fair?
Friday, September 21, 2007
FedEx Cup: Don't Expect Many Changes
Doug Ferguson does a good job rounding up why most of the proposed changes to the FedEx Cup probably won't happen.
One thing he doesn't mention is that although many have suggested that the points be further increased for the Tour Championship, that would increase the incentive for the top players to skip one or more of the other playoff events. Although it turned out Tiger Woods could have skipped the Tour Championship this year and still won, the Tour doesn't want a situation where Tiger can skip the other three events and still win just by winning the Tour Championship. So don't expect the Tour Championship points to be increased by too much.
One thing he doesn't mention is that although many have suggested that the points be further increased for the Tour Championship, that would increase the incentive for the top players to skip one or more of the other playoff events. Although it turned out Tiger Woods could have skipped the Tour Championship this year and still won, the Tour doesn't want a situation where Tiger can skip the other three events and still win just by winning the Tour Championship. So don't expect the Tour Championship points to be increased by too much.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Savage's 2008 Presidents Cup Preview
This is going to be very limited, because I have to admit that due to whatever unhappy circumstances, I haven’t had a chance to watch any Ryder Cup or Presidents Cup since 1999. Thus I’ll restrict this to a bit of "Who’s Hot/Who’s Not".
Let’s look at the changes in world ranking over the last few months. Let me give the player rankings from June 10 (right before the U.S. Open) and compare them to the rankings that came out Sept. 16, after the Tour Championship (Source: Official World Golf Rankings site):
USA Woods 1 1 no change
USA Mickelson 2 2 no change
USA Furyk 3 3 no change
USA Johnson 13 15 down 2
USA Cink 18 23 down 5
USA Howell 20 34 down 14
USA Toms 21 26 down 5
USA Stricker 22 5 up 17
USA Verplank 28 24 up 4
USA Glover 56 60 down 4
USA Austin 81 32 up 49
USA Mahan >200 41 up ?
AUS Scott 4 6 down 2
RSA Els 5 4 up 1
FIJ Singh 7 12 down 5
AUS Ogilvy 8 11 down 3
RSA Goosen 10 17 down 7
RSA Sabbatini 14 9 up 5
RSA Immelman 15 18 down 3
KOR Choi 17 10 up 7
AUS O’Hern 23 35 down 12
AUS Appleby 26 33 down 7
ARG Cabrera 41 20 up 21
CAN Weir 51 45 up 6
So seven of the 12 players on the International Team have seen their rankings fall over the summer, and Els is the only accomplished Presidents Cup player among the other five. Out of the Americans, only Cink, Howell, and Glover have really been MIA over the summer. That fact gives the Americans a much better chance than one would have thought at the beginning of the summer.
The "Who’s Hot" list is topped by somebody you might know of… all right, Tiger Woods. It’s about time for him to play the same way in an international event that he plays the rest of the time. It’s hard to imagine he won’t.
Steve Stricker and Zach Johnson have both had career years, although unfortunately for Johnson, Royal Montreal is not in Georgia. It’s hard to really count Phil Mickelson on this list, despite his impressive win at Boston. He followed that by skipping Chicago and doing almost nothing in Atlanta, so it’s impossible to say that he’s guaranteed to come through with a good performance. It’s good that Hunter Mahan got on the team after a breakout year, although there’s never a guarantee he’ll sustain it. And Woody Austin may not do much in the Presidents Cup, but it’s not like he had a so-so year.
On the International Team, K.J. Choi probably has to still be counted the hottest player. He didn’t make as good a run at the FedEx Cup as people might have expected, but I’m sure he’d take the year he’s had. Rory Sabbatini has also cracked the top ten in the World Rankings with fairly consistent play. Ernie Els has shown signs of getting things back together, but was never a factor in the FedEx Cup race, as he should have been, so he can’t be counted on the "Who’s Hot" list.
The "Who’s Not" list has to be topped by Vijay Singh, who has run out of gas with his usual madness of playing 30+ tournaments a year. He was nowhere to be seen at the majors this year, and especially seemed to be losing it in August and September. His last decent showing was where he blew a final-round lead to Jim Furyk at the Canadian Open. Singh’s failure to beat the lesser lights of the game in dinky tournaments has to bring down his stock at this point in his career.
The biggest name other than Singh on that list would be Adam Scott. He hasn’t seriously contended since blowing the Memphis event on Sunday to Woody Austin. He’s prone to be very hot-and-cold, but I don’t see him breaking out of the "cold" zone all in one week. He finished with a 78 at the Tour Championship.
Stuart Appleby also performed terribly when he had chances to win this year, at the Masters and at Tiger’s event. He’s a perennial loser under pressure, so expect more of the same from him. Retief Goosen has also been slipping from the short list of elite players this year, so he needs to turn things around. Nick O’Hern has been nowhere to be seen all summer, allowing his world ranking to drop 12 places. And Mike Weir made the team only because the event was in Canada.
On the American team, Charles Howell III is the most obvious name on the "Who’s Not" list; it was amazing that he stayed high in the standings despite not doing anything positive during the main part of the season (from the Masters onward). Lucas Glover also backed into the field to an extent; again, he hasn’t contended for much of late. Brandt Snedeker has got to be wishing he’d won his first event just a bit sooner; it might have gotten him on the team in Glover’s place. Stewart Cink rather backed onto the team as well. Those are the weaknesses of the U.S. team, but they’re probably no worse than the more numerous ones of the International squad.
Let’s look at the changes in world ranking over the last few months. Let me give the player rankings from June 10 (right before the U.S. Open) and compare them to the rankings that came out Sept. 16, after the Tour Championship (Source: Official World Golf Rankings site):
USA Woods 1 1 no change
USA Mickelson 2 2 no change
USA Furyk 3 3 no change
USA Johnson 13 15 down 2
USA Cink 18 23 down 5
USA Howell 20 34 down 14
USA Toms 21 26 down 5
USA Stricker 22 5 up 17
USA Verplank 28 24 up 4
USA Glover 56 60 down 4
USA Austin 81 32 up 49
USA Mahan >200 41 up ?
AUS Scott 4 6 down 2
RSA Els 5 4 up 1
FIJ Singh 7 12 down 5
AUS Ogilvy 8 11 down 3
RSA Goosen 10 17 down 7
RSA Sabbatini 14 9 up 5
RSA Immelman 15 18 down 3
KOR Choi 17 10 up 7
AUS O’Hern 23 35 down 12
AUS Appleby 26 33 down 7
ARG Cabrera 41 20 up 21
CAN Weir 51 45 up 6
So seven of the 12 players on the International Team have seen their rankings fall over the summer, and Els is the only accomplished Presidents Cup player among the other five. Out of the Americans, only Cink, Howell, and Glover have really been MIA over the summer. That fact gives the Americans a much better chance than one would have thought at the beginning of the summer.
The "Who’s Hot" list is topped by somebody you might know of… all right, Tiger Woods. It’s about time for him to play the same way in an international event that he plays the rest of the time. It’s hard to imagine he won’t.
Steve Stricker and Zach Johnson have both had career years, although unfortunately for Johnson, Royal Montreal is not in Georgia. It’s hard to really count Phil Mickelson on this list, despite his impressive win at Boston. He followed that by skipping Chicago and doing almost nothing in Atlanta, so it’s impossible to say that he’s guaranteed to come through with a good performance. It’s good that Hunter Mahan got on the team after a breakout year, although there’s never a guarantee he’ll sustain it. And Woody Austin may not do much in the Presidents Cup, but it’s not like he had a so-so year.
On the International Team, K.J. Choi probably has to still be counted the hottest player. He didn’t make as good a run at the FedEx Cup as people might have expected, but I’m sure he’d take the year he’s had. Rory Sabbatini has also cracked the top ten in the World Rankings with fairly consistent play. Ernie Els has shown signs of getting things back together, but was never a factor in the FedEx Cup race, as he should have been, so he can’t be counted on the "Who’s Hot" list.
The "Who’s Not" list has to be topped by Vijay Singh, who has run out of gas with his usual madness of playing 30+ tournaments a year. He was nowhere to be seen at the majors this year, and especially seemed to be losing it in August and September. His last decent showing was where he blew a final-round lead to Jim Furyk at the Canadian Open. Singh’s failure to beat the lesser lights of the game in dinky tournaments has to bring down his stock at this point in his career.
The biggest name other than Singh on that list would be Adam Scott. He hasn’t seriously contended since blowing the Memphis event on Sunday to Woody Austin. He’s prone to be very hot-and-cold, but I don’t see him breaking out of the "cold" zone all in one week. He finished with a 78 at the Tour Championship.
Stuart Appleby also performed terribly when he had chances to win this year, at the Masters and at Tiger’s event. He’s a perennial loser under pressure, so expect more of the same from him. Retief Goosen has also been slipping from the short list of elite players this year, so he needs to turn things around. Nick O’Hern has been nowhere to be seen all summer, allowing his world ranking to drop 12 places. And Mike Weir made the team only because the event was in Canada.
On the American team, Charles Howell III is the most obvious name on the "Who’s Not" list; it was amazing that he stayed high in the standings despite not doing anything positive during the main part of the season (from the Masters onward). Lucas Glover also backed into the field to an extent; again, he hasn’t contended for much of late. Brandt Snedeker has got to be wishing he’d won his first event just a bit sooner; it might have gotten him on the team in Glover’s place. Stewart Cink rather backed onto the team as well. Those are the weaknesses of the U.S. team, but they’re probably no worse than the more numerous ones of the International squad.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Classic Steve Sailer Post
Steve Sailer has a great post today on what he suspects to be a politically correct euphemism:
"Just as there's a general factor of intelligence, coaches tend to talk as if there is a g factor in sports. In America today, they tend to call it "athleticism."Cross-posted at Brave New World Watch
The way the word is used can be a little surprising: e.g., eye-hand coordination is not considered part of athleticism. Quarterback Michael Vick has "athleticism" but Peyton Manning, despite his superior throwing ability, does not. Cornerbacks have lots of athleticism, but placekickers do not. Centerfielders have athleticism but third basemen do not. Willie May [sic] had athleticism, Brooks Robinson was good fielder [sic]. You might recall Brooks Robinson diving flat out over third base to spear a ferocious one-hopper, then scrambling to their [sic] feet to fire a throw to first base, but, well, that's just not athleticism.
Breaking it down, it appears that "athleticism" consists of footspeed, leaping ability, agility, ability to improvise unexpectedly (e.g., fake left, go right), ability to react, and hitting ability.
One interesting question is whether "athleticism" exists as a general factor much like g in IQ. I sometimes wonder if it's not just a euphemism for "black.""
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
