Aug
13
Even after 13th major, Tiger Woods' 63 at PGA still not one of the greatest rounds ever
Tiger Woods essentially won his 13th major off one round - his 63 on Friday in vacation forsaken Tulsa. It’s the kind of round that Ernie Els and the incredible shrinking crybaby Sergio Garcia could never throw at Tiger in a tournament that matters.
Which still does not make it one of the greatest rounds ever.
From the moment Tiger shot that 63, it was destined to be forever overhyped. Because he’s Tiger, the best golfer of all time, better than Jack Nicklaus already. What’s already being forgotten - and surely will go completely unmentioned within two years - is that Tiger’s 63 came on a par 70.
A 63 is always great, but it’s not always a 63. There is a huge difference between a 63 on a par 72 in a major and a 63 on a par 70 in a major. No one’s saying it deserves a Roger Maris asterisk, but there needs to be much more acknowledgement of this reality.
I hate to say this - because Johnny Miller will surely mention it himself during every tournament he ever broadcasts from here to eternity - but Tiger’s 63 is not worthy of being in the same breath as Johnny Miller’s 63 at Oakmont. Sure Miller’s 63 was on a par 71 itself, but that’s still better than a par 70, much better considering it also came in the final round.
When Tiger’s putt on the final hole of that 63 did everything but drop, cosmic golf justice was served. That round - as impressive as it was - didn’t deserve to go down as the greatest. In time, Woods himself will realize this.
That 63 isn’t going to be the round we remember forever from Tiger Woods. And that’s how it should be.
Remember to check out the front of WorldGolf.com later today, for the latest in Tim McDonald’s live, exclusive reporting from the PGA Championship.
| « Woody Austin channels Rory Sabbatini: Why such Tiger Woods morons? | Niagara-on-the-Lake one of the best nine hole golf courses in the world » |
20 comments
Is this your feeble attempt at trying to prove you're head is not stuck up ETW's rump?
2007-08-13 @ 07:24
Comment from: Alex [Visitor] 
Rick,
Your posts have a certain theme.
They are always about someone's head being in a particularly unnatural place.
Why?
Your posts have a certain theme.
They are always about someone's head being in a particularly unnatural place.
Why?
2007-08-13 @ 08:01
Comment from: One-Putt [Visitor]
Let's see..........Tiger shot a 63
Second round of a Major Championship
Temperatures over 100 degrees
Narrow fairways
Doglegs on nearly every hole
Hard and fast greens
More trees on the course than dot the landscape of South Dakota
Yep it was a great round by anyone
Miller would have needed a chainsaw in the bag to card a 63
Second round of a Major Championship
Temperatures over 100 degrees
Narrow fairways
Doglegs on nearly every hole
Hard and fast greens
More trees on the course than dot the landscape of South Dakota
Yep it was a great round by anyone
Miller would have needed a chainsaw in the bag to card a 63
2007-08-13 @ 09:06
Comment from: Jeff [Visitor]
Hey Rick.... Writing this blog proves one thing, Chris has
his head up his own Rump.
Complaining about a guy shooting a" 63" of a Major.
Do you just hate TW or are you just too stupid to walk
and chew gum at the same time?
Well.....At least we know now to take your blogs with the
respect they deserve." What an Idiot"
his head up his own Rump.
Complaining about a guy shooting a" 63" of a Major.
Do you just hate TW or are you just too stupid to walk
and chew gum at the same time?
Well.....At least we know now to take your blogs with the
respect they deserve." What an Idiot"
2007-08-13 @ 09:37
Comment from: Jack [Visitor]
Chris... I can understand you saying that the 63 was not the best round of golf ever but to say that that it wasn't one of the best is totally ridiculous. Are you trying to prove you lack of ability to be a fair minded observer of the sport? Perhaps that was you intention, if so,you have done so.
IT WAS A MAJOR, Numbskull !!!!!
IT WAS A MAJOR, Numbskull !!!!!
2007-08-13 @ 10:49
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Actually, I can lend this a bit more perspective. I realized myself that it was a par 70 layout; however, the overall yardage must be taken into consideration, as that is a major factor. A long course can have two fewer par fives and some VERY long par fours, in which case it may be no easier than a course of the same length that has two more par fives. After all, it's not what they're labeled, but what you shoot.
A more valid point is this: All astute golf fans know that the US Open presents the toughest conditions in the world -- with S&M rough -- while the PGA probably offers the easiest layout of any major. As one of the commentators said at the start of the event, "They let you play golf [at Southern Hills]"; in other words, the conditions were such where you could hit the ball off-line and recover. This is the REAL reason why you can't compare Woods' 63 at Southern Hills to Millers' at Oakmont.
Really, and I've said this before, the PGA is just laid out much like a tough regular tour event.
A more valid point is this: All astute golf fans know that the US Open presents the toughest conditions in the world -- with S&M rough -- while the PGA probably offers the easiest layout of any major. As one of the commentators said at the start of the event, "They let you play golf [at Southern Hills]"; in other words, the conditions were such where you could hit the ball off-line and recover. This is the REAL reason why you can't compare Woods' 63 at Southern Hills to Millers' at Oakmont.
Really, and I've said this before, the PGA is just laid out much like a tough regular tour event.
2007-08-13 @ 11:11
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
To buttress what I just said, a 63 has been shot 23 times in majors. If all the majors were of equal difficulty, you might expect a 63 to have been shot 25 percent of the time at each event (I realize that there is such thing as sample variance, but I think the numbers are still significant); yet, 10 of those 63s (or 45.5 percent) were, not surprisingly, shot at the PGA. Less than half that number (4) were shot at the US Open. Seven were shot at the British, and, interestingly, only two were shot at the Masters.
Thus, I think it's safe to say that Woods' round was not one of the 13 best since 13 63s were shot at the majors with tougher conditions.
Of course, if you want to talk about one of the best rounds EVER, you have to consider the 59s and other lower scores that were shot. Therefore, there's little doubt in my mind that Woods' 63 wasn't even in the top 20.
Thus, I think it's safe to say that Woods' round was not one of the 13 best since 13 63s were shot at the majors with tougher conditions.
Of course, if you want to talk about one of the best rounds EVER, you have to consider the 59s and other lower scores that were shot. Therefore, there's little doubt in my mind that Woods' 63 wasn't even in the top 20.
2007-08-13 @ 11:25
Alex, this post was a continuation of my remark about him having his head up Tiger's arse. A number of people were all over Chris for doing nothing but spending his life swooning over Tiger so I figured this was a direct attempt to extract his noggin from ETW's bum.
2007-08-13 @ 13:21
Comment from: Alex [Visitor]
Rick,
Still on that same kick, are you?
You're not one of those, are you?
Still on that same kick, are you?
You're not one of those, are you?
2007-08-13 @ 14:45
Question 1: Does Smails' use of the word "buttress" correlate to Alex and Rick's fixation with the posterior?
Question 2: Does the fact that Roger Maris hit 61 homers in less at-bats than the Babe needed for 60 matter?
Question 3: Was your round at Niagara On The Lake the best round ever? I still feel slighted.
Question 2: Does the fact that Roger Maris hit 61 homers in less at-bats than the Babe needed for 60 matter?
Question 3: Was your round at Niagara On The Lake the best round ever? I still feel slighted.
2007-08-13 @ 15:05
Comment from: 2under [Visitor]
We can also say that Miller's 63 should be qualified, based on the receptivity of the greens.
Miller will try to tell you different, but watch the footage.
Miller will try to tell you different, but watch the footage.
2007-08-14 @ 05:41
Comment from: merrin [Visitor]
Tiger's 63 was a great round in a major because he actually won. A lot of people can shoot a low number when there's no pressure on them to win, when they're far back, when it's the last day & they're not in earshot of the lead.
But to shoot a low number, then follow it up with consistent enough play to WIN the championship actually elevates that round to me.
Im not comparing it to anyone else's 63, just saying that it was stil a great round of golf.
But to shoot a low number, then follow it up with consistent enough play to WIN the championship actually elevates that round to me.
Im not comparing it to anyone else's 63, just saying that it was stil a great round of golf.
2007-08-14 @ 19:20
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
merrin,
No one said it wasn't a great round of golf, for it certainly was. It's just that it wasn't one of the greatest.
No one said it wasn't a great round of golf, for it certainly was. It's just that it wasn't one of the greatest.
2007-08-15 @ 00:36
Someone's going to have to give some credentials before they can say that wasn't one of the greatest rounds. You're in a major, fast greens, fairways as narrow as bowling alleys....
Are rounds like this common for you?
A single digit handicapper like myself would do well to break 100 there. 63 is amazing enough by itself but when you are talking about doing it in a Major... that's one of the greatest rounds.
Are rounds like this common for you?
A single digit handicapper like myself would do well to break 100 there. 63 is amazing enough by itself but when you are talking about doing it in a Major... that's one of the greatest rounds.
2007-08-15 @ 13:09
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Rick,
You should read my analysis of a few days ago; I used hard facts to demonstrate that it was not, in fact, one of the "greatest rounds." That is, unless you would include at least 30 rounds in that category.
You should read my analysis of a few days ago; I used hard facts to demonstrate that it was not, in fact, one of the "greatest rounds." That is, unless you would include at least 30 rounds in that category.
2007-08-15 @ 14:28
Comment from: Rick Montenegro [Visitor]
Oh, I read it.
If we go with 150 golfers (80 after the cut) and 4 majors per year over the last 40 years alone..... 150x2x4x40 + 80x2x4x40= 72,000 rounds of golf.
That means 99.97% of the rounds have been higher (with 23 rounds at 63).
If being in the top 3 hundreths of one percent doesn't get you kudos I don't know what would.
Fortunately, the "great round" tag is mostly subjective so we can all feel free to have differing opinions.
If we go with 150 golfers (80 after the cut) and 4 majors per year over the last 40 years alone..... 150x2x4x40 + 80x2x4x40= 72,000 rounds of golf.
That means 99.97% of the rounds have been higher (with 23 rounds at 63).
If being in the top 3 hundreths of one percent doesn't get you kudos I don't know what would.
Fortunately, the "great round" tag is mostly subjective so we can all feel free to have differing opinions.
2007-08-15 @ 17:15
Comment from: Joe Cool [Visitor]
Chris Critical,
Tell me dude...when was the last time you shot 63? on a putt, putt?
Tell me dude...when was the last time you shot 63? on a putt, putt?
2007-08-15 @ 18:28
Comment from: Judge Smails [Visitor]
Rick,
Yes, I was going to mention that it depends on what parameters you set for "greatest rounds." However, I'd venture to say that most people who would brand it as such aren't placing it in the context of the 72,000 rounds of the last four decades; rather, I think their frame of reference is defined by the stellar rounds that stand out in people's minds.
Again, there's a difference between a "great" round and one of the "greatest" ones.
Yes, I was going to mention that it depends on what parameters you set for "greatest rounds." However, I'd venture to say that most people who would brand it as such aren't placing it in the context of the 72,000 rounds of the last four decades; rather, I think their frame of reference is defined by the stellar rounds that stand out in people's minds.
Again, there's a difference between a "great" round and one of the "greatest" ones.
2007-08-16 @ 01:35
Ok, we'll just call it one of the "greater rounds" of golf we've all seen.
2007-08-16 @ 07:20
Comment from: Frasier [Visitor]
To be honest the argument is moot anyway, because there is no way any two of the 63s can be compared - they are all either on different courses or in different eras. I would say it was one of the greatest rounds I have ever seen in golf, not only because Tiger was in contention and didn't shoot the round when he could not win the tournament. It was also in a major. That is pretty special. I would say, for example, Tiger's round was better than Bjorn's 63 at the PGA 2 years ago, and I saw that one live and on television, because he didn't win the championship.
All I am going to say is that I think it was one of the greatest I've seen. If you don't agree, that's fine, but it's all semantics anyway - we all agree it was an incredible round.
All I am going to say is that I think it was one of the greatest I've seen. If you don't agree, that's fine, but it's all semantics anyway - we all agree it was an incredible round.
2007-08-22 @ 20:03
Comment feed for this postComments are closed for this post.
The Accidental Golfer:
Kiel Christianson:
Jason Scott Deegan:
Golf with Shanks:
Recent comments