Tiger Woods at the British Open: a new, different era?

I couldn't disagree more about Hoylake.

The course didn't take the driver out of everyone else's hands. I saw bomber Ernie Els use driver a few times. Chris DiMarco used it all the time.

Tiger just made a strategic choice. He also proved he is the most complete player the game has ever known. That includes his mind.

I wonder what Phil Mickelson would be thinking with a 2 shot lead on the 18th hole with OB on the right?

The real story, though, was Tiger's humanity. That was as good a moment as we have seen in some time.

Cheers!

Scott, I agree with Tim on this one. Hoylake, while it reminds us of how golf got its beginnings, is not a true test for today's best players. It has no water hazards, no trees, skimpy to no rough, easy greens, and is relatively flat. All the par fives were reachable in two for all the players regardless of what club was used on the tee. I don't recall ever seeing so many birdies and eagles in a major championship. Naturally, the lowest score won, but with such simple closing holes, Woods didn't have to risk much to hold Chris safe. One of the announcers ventured that maybe Woods will use the no-driver strategy in future events in the US. No way. That strategy worked at Royal Liverpool, but it would flop on a course like Medinah or Pinehurst. A pro golfer could never spot his opponents 50-75 yards off the tee on those layouts and expect to compete. Woods undoubtedly know this and will go back to his conventional game at the PGA championship.

Does Alex play golf? Of course it's a true test for today's best players. My guess is, if it's not a RTJ, Senior course, Alex won't like it. I bet Alex loves to shoot 110 and brag about all the balls he hit in the water, in the sand and trees, and OB or among the condos.

What Tiger is, is a chameleon. You won't see the same strategy at Medinah or Pinehurst, as they would never get dry enough to run a four-iron 260, or a two-iron 300. If you find yourself on a burned-out course, go for the long-running iron off the tee and have a blast. Just don't try to spin it into the greens. They won't be as receptive as the ones at Hoylake.

Ron Mon, As the second paragraph of your post reveals, you and I are in complete agreement about why Woods and some others went to the no-driver, iron-only game. Why then did you throw in the invective in your first paragraph? Incidentally, I have a 14 handicap. I play maybe 20-25 times a year. I am past 60 years of age so that's not all that bad. That comment you made about hitting in the water and the trees was revealing. The guys at Hoylake didn't have to worry about those two things. The PGA pros were not tested at all at Hoylake. The best player still won, and the next best were predictable.

I think you miss the point of Hoylake. Was it a really hard test, in the mould of Winged Foot? No. But did it show who was the best player? Yes. It gave us a better champion than Winged Foot. Ogilivy was more of a survivor than a champion, however well he played.

Hoylake isn't the hardest course ever. But that doesn't mean it isn't a test. Heck, the -19 of Woods at St. Andrews still stands, it was not broken at Hoylake. Are we to take all courses shorter than Augusta as not worthy of a test of the world's best?

I sit here and shake my head while I read what Alex and Frasier have to say. Hoylake was not a hard test? Did you even listen to what Tiger and Chris had to say about the course and todays conditions???

Tiger said you couldn't hit a sand wedge into some of the greens and keep it on!! Mr. 14 handicapper who plays 20 to 25 times a year.

No rough? Receptive greens? What were you watching. Tigers only bogey today came when he landed a long iron at the front of the green on 12 and it ran off the back! The pros would rather play the over-wetted receptive fairways and greens than hard brown fairways where you watch your ball rolls endlessly only to be swallowed by te valley of death . . . the pot-bunker.

Folks! don't get bent out of shape with these guys comments. They clearly don't know what they are talking about.

Over and out!

They set up a course where the best player had a chance to win the tournament.....and all of you are still bitching....seriously get a life...youre the same kind of people who complane when michelson lost the us open to goosen when the course played hard and anyone could win.

Fair enough, Hoylake is by no means one of the harder courses on the Open rota (in fact, it may, with St. Andrews, be the easiest) - however, it is a lot harder than many of the PGA Tour courses we see week to week.

On the other hand, I have to stop and wonder why The R&A reintroduced Hoylake back into the Open rota, because although it is a very high quality course, a more difficult course should've been selected.

My reasoning for this argument is that Hoylake is now used for such tournaments as The Boys' Championship (ran by The R&A), so doesn't seem entirely worthy of holding another Open until its length is increased.

Military-Golfer, Why is it that guys like you can't just disagree without tossing in some snide remarks? I'm deliberatly trying to avoid such things. Why don't you give it a try? Any time the course record score can be broken or tied about ten times in a tournament, the course is obviously playing very easy. Fellows, before anyone goes off on a ranting history lesson, I KNOW that golf got it start on seaside links courses, and I realize that tradition must be upheld. And I also realize that the British, or the Welsh, the Scottish, or the English if you prefer,are not about to give up on their traditions. Golf was invented in Britain, Scotland to be precise. But like so many things that came from Britain and the European continent, golf and the courses that it is played on were refined and improved immeasurably in the US and to a large extent, Canada. Besides the relative difficulty of the courses, how could any reasonable person compare the dry, baked, flat, waterless, treeless hard-pan of Royal Liverpool to American course like Augusta National, Muirfield Village, Pinehurst, Or Glen Abbey?

Hoylake is a solid test. You know how you can tell that? No surprises on the leaderboard - the cream rises to the top. Weather dictated that scores would be lower. Drought and record heat killed the rough that the R&A set up or scores would've gone higher. If you take the wind away from links courses, ALL of them are vulnerable to low scoring from the best in the world.

Shanks, Your analysis makes some sense, but golf cah be very fickle and unpredictable. If your analogy about the "cream rising to the top" proves that Hoylake was a true test for the best, then some of the recent courses on which the Open was contested must not have been much of a test. I give you Paul Lawrie, Todd Hamilton, and Ben Curtis. All three are good, journeyman pros, but hardly the "cream." Or were the courses on which they won not true tests?

Alex, Royal St. George's and Royal Lytham are two VERY difficult courses - as difficult as any two American courses you care to name. And Carnoustie is probably THE most difficult golf course in the world.

So Alex, although I usually agree with what you say, please don't talk with the attitude that links golf is outdated and that Americans now find it too easy.

Dear Alex, without throwing insults at you I am happy to find out that you actually know that there were never any trees or water hazards on the links courses. And I don't think they will start a plantation project any time soon. If you ever have the chance to go to Ireland and/or Scotland, enjoy the courses, the landscape and the feeling of hitting your first drive on the tee at St-Andrews, you will come back a more complete golfer and a different man. Try breaking 90 (or 100 ?) on these courses, then come back and tell me they were "too easy". I have been at The Masters, I love traditional courses such as Pinehurst, Riviera or Winged Foot. They are also the best in the world by any standard. But why not open up and enjoy the best of two worlds ? Golf is one of the few sports that offer the priviledge of being played in so many different arenas and surrounding.

This golf soldier admits getting a little worked up and has taken a deap breath.

All I am standing for is that I disagree with the notion that the course was easy. The course rewarded creativity and ball striking. It rewarded well hit target shots and penalized the "bombing it down there" and dealing with the consequences that may arise attitude that many US golfers have adopted. Chris DiMarco hit a lot of 3 woods too. How many times did you see Sergio hit a wedge from the rough and Tiger hit a 3 or 4 iron from 200+ yards, and Sergio putted first on the green.

For those complaining of the lack of bad weather. I strongly believe that it brings too much luck into the game. Say the weather turned ugly after 2:00 pm and the last 4 or 5 groups got the brunt of it. Hitting dbls and triples. So an Adam Scott or Ben Crane who went out earlier winds up winning. Would that be your idea of the ultimate Open where the best golfer of the day won. I do admit luck is part of the game but too much would take away from it. When Ben Curtis won the open, he was hands down the best golfer of the day. The fact that you are a journey-man golfer doesn't mean you can never have that perfect game by your standards.

Whatever the bloggers say about any course that's brought up to PGA tournament standards, it will never be easy for any of you amateurs. Even if you say that you've played Pinehurst, Augusta, or any of the great courses, the conditions that you play are a far cry from what the pros play. Water hazards on a links course unless you count the creeks or adjacent ocean which a hacker may find cannot be compared to those man made lakes on the groomed US courses because that's not what links golf is about. (Well Vander Velde found a water hazard and maybe he's really a hacker, afterall). The deep funny bunkers more than make up for the lack of water hazards.

Judging from some of the inane statements, are you guys serious golfers?

Add 30,000 spectators plus, difficult pin placements, whatever other conditons (dry and fast greens or narrow fairways, deep roughs, funny bunkers), and any other element that makes it a PGA quality course (links or otherwise) and try shooting par or even below par for four rounds and then, declare the course easy.

Try doing it week in week out, season after season, major after major and when you can win 10 majors and be the number one in the world, then declare the course easy.

Does Tiger declare any course easy? even if he's won by double digits?

David, I didn't imply that the courses you mentioned weren't true tests, they are. Much tougher than Hoylake,in my opinion. My question to Shanks was "why didn't the cream rise to the top" in many other opens. jaypee, I've played one time each in Scotland at Troon, and in Ireland in County Mayo. (The name of the course escapes me) I could not have had a more enjoyable time on eIther occasion. Remember, I'm an oldtimer who loves tradition. That's what I liked about Woods' play on the weekend. It was CONSERVATIVE!:-)

tasha, you are the only one comparing rank amateurs to pros. Everyone with any common sense at all realizes the truth in all that you have said. Being a diplomat, Tiger would never publicly denigrate any course one way or the other. Privately, it might be a different story.

"
All I am standing for is that I disagree with the notion that the course was easy. The course rewarded creativity and ball striking. It rewarded well hit target shots and penalized the "bombing it down there" and dealing with the consequences that may arise attitude that many US golfers have adopted. Chris DiMarco hit a lot of 3 woods too. How many times did you see Sergio hit a wedge from the rough and Tiger hit a 3 or 4 iron from 200+ yards, and Sergio putted first on the green."

I agree, it wasn't easy as such, but it wasn't massively hard for the pros. For the average golfer, it would be horrible. But for the pros it was one of the easier courses on the Open rota, but that doesn't mean it should not be there.

The fact is, Alex, I don't see your problem. In your view, you would want to build a golf course that no one could break 100 on. Would that be good? No. Would it be a test? Probably. Just because the course was not the hardest of all time doesn't mean it's easy.

Sorry, I pressed send without finishing off:

doesn't mean it's easy or not worthy of holding a major championship.

No, Frasier, that would not be my idea at all. A good, tough test, in my opinon, would be one where par is an excellent score and 1 to 5 under par would challenge for the win. Just as some of the desert and Florida courses that get taken apart annually by the big boys are not true, tough tests, Hoylake and St. Andrew's are and will continue to be pieces of cake for the touring pros. Lengthening won't do much to toughen up these layouts. The guys will just use one more club to reach all the par five's in two. The average score for 18 at Hoylake was slightly over four strokes. The only thing wrong with that is that 18 is a par FIVE. Same goes for 16. The closing holes in a major traditionally have been the most demanding. At Hoylake they were the most docile.

Alex: Michelle...Michelle!...Michelle!!

MW: Can't you see that I am playing with my Barbi Dolls!

Alex: Michelle, did you watch Tiger on Sunday?

MW: Tiger who?

Alex: Well, Tiger Woods, the number 1 player in the world.

MW: No, I didn't have time to watch someone that wasn't as good as me when they were 16 years old. After all, I am a "golf phenom" you know.

Alex: Well, Michelle, since he is considered the greatest closer in golfing history, I thought you may have wanted to learn how to win on a Sunday afternoon.

MW: What do you mean by "closer"...you mean closest to the pin?? Besides, I am a awesome golfer who only plays to have fun, not to win any tournaments. Really Alex, you just don't have a clue about who I am and what my goals are...get a life!

Alex: Gulp...uh...good luck Michelle.

"No, Frasier, that would not be my idea at all. A good, tough test, in my opinon, would be one where par is an excellent score and 1 to 5 under par would challenge for the win. Just as some of the desert and Florida courses that get taken apart annually by the big boys are not true, tough tests, Hoylake and St. Andrew's are and will continue to be pieces of cake for the touring pros. Lengthening won't do much to toughen up these layouts. The guys will just use one more club to reach all the par five's in two. The average score for 18 at Hoylake was slightly over four strokes. The only thing wrong with that is that 18 is a par FIVE. Same goes for 16. The closing holes in a major traditionally have been the most demanding. At Hoylake they were the most docile."

But does that make the golf course not worthy? Tiger scored -18 at Augusta in 1997. Is that not a test of golf?

Frasier, As you should well know, but apparently do not know,is that after the 1997 debacle by Mr.Woods at Augusta, the course was "Tiger-proofed" and has withstood the challenge of Tiger, Phil, Yijay and others ever since.

"Frasier, As you should well know, but apparently do not know,is that after the 1997 debacle by Mr.Woods at Augusta, the course was "Tiger-proofed" and has withstood the challenge of Tiger, Phil, Yijay and others ever since. "

Yijay?

Anyway, I do realise that. But the winning score is still regulary -5/-6. Not Winged Foot is it? And it didn't hold Tiger and Dimarco in 2005 did it? -12 was the winning total.

What I don't understand is why the golf course has to hard. What does it do? Test the golfers? Possibly. But mostly hard golf courses breed forgettable championships. Occassionally, they don't. But often they do. The US Open at Winged Foot will be remembered for what? Tiger missing the cut probably. What will the Open championship at Hoylake be remembered for.

I don't see the obession with "testing the golfers". I think it is better to see the great golfers of my generation play against each other, rather than battle kneee high rough, unfair greens and winds of 50 mph. It makes the golf more exciting. I don't get joy out of a golfer hitting a double bogey. I want to see pars, birdies, and occassionally eagles, with bogeys thrown in. This is why watch the golf; it is surely the golfers against each other, not some hackfest where the person who doesn't double the last hole wins.

What is wrong with seeing birdies, and eagles? You say it doesn't challenge the players, but that's nonsense. It challenges them in a different way. Instead of attempting not to double bogey they have to attempt to birdie. It makes a more exciting test of golf, as well as still a test. Golf isn't a test only against par. If you shoot a 56 and the other guy shoots a 55 you don't win. That's the challenge.

Ask me if I want to watch the US Open at Winged Foot or the Open at Hoylake, and I would choose the Open without question. It was better for so many reasons.

Why does that make Hoylake a bad choice? What is the problem with seeing some low scoring? I just don't see the issue.

Frasier, "the course has to hard"? Tit for tat, old man. It has been decreed that typo's don't count on these blogs. As I previously stated, the finishing holes at Hoylake were just too easy for a major. The top five finishers AVERAGED 4.2 strokes per hole on 16 and 18, two par five's. In Arizona in February, that sort of thing would have been expected. In July at the Open, it was unexpected. The closing holes in a major should offer more of a test.

"As I previously stated, the finishing holes at Hoylake were just too easy for a major. The top five finishers AVERAGED 4.2 strokes per hole on 16 and 18, two par five's. In Arizona in February, that sort of thing would have been expected. In July at the Open, it was unexpected. The closing holes in a major should offer more of a test."

Why though? I see them as a chance for someone to come from behind and make eagle, birdie, or perhaps eagle, eagle. That would be exiciting. Which watching people double bogey is not.

You haven't answered my question on two counts:

Augusta's winning score is often less than your supposed "ideal" scoring is. Is that a poor test?

Secondly you have not replied about what the issue of scoring is in regards to challenge. It is surely a challenge of being the best golfer, i. e. one that beats the others with their play, not a golfer who played alright golf but didn't double bogey all that often. Double bogeys are boring, eagles are exiciting as far as I am concerned.

Frasier, I also like to see birdies and eagles: birdies when they are hard-earned, and eagles when they are rare. On 16 at one stretch on Saturday, I watched (on TV) five groups putt. Of the ten golfers, seven had birdies and there was one eagle. The ten players scored an average of 4.1 shots on the hole. You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. And my opinion is that 16 simply was not a legitimate par five. The same could be said for 18. Of course, the lowest score still won, but the question is, was it a real challenge for the world's best? My answer is that it was not. In 2005 at the Masters', Woods and DiMarco tied at -12. Both played exemplary golf. The next finisher was at -5. And -12 is a far cry from -18.

"
Frasier, I also like to see birdies and eagles: birdies when they are hard-earned, and eagles when they are rare. On 16 at one stretch on Saturday, I watched (on TV) five groups putt. Of the ten golfers, seven had birdies and there was one eagle. The ten players scored an average of 4.1 shots on the hole. You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine. And my opinion is that 16 simply was not a legitimate par five. The same could be said for 18. Of course, the lowest score still won, but the question is, was it a real challenge for the world's best?"

You miss my point. It was a challenge because the golfers are against each other. Not just against the course. That's the challenge of golf. Why does the course have to be massively hard? What does it prove? Hard courses often breed boring championships. Who will remember Winged Foot in 2006? Hardly anyone. Who will remember Hoylake in 2006? I dare say more people. It's the players against each other, not them against the course. You still haven't said why a hard course is somehow better; it's an illusion that they "test" the players more than an easier course. They test the players to get birdies and eagles, rather than testing them to par as such. You have to score a good round. So how is that not a test? I just don't understand your logic in saying that somehow a really hard course challenges the players more than an easier course. In a sense it's true. But in a better sense it is not, in that the players are against each other. That is what golf is about. Not watching someone hack it around to par and then winning. Generally that's boring. Just because a course doesn't challenge a player to par doesn't mean it isn't a good major championship venue. If it was Augusta would be off the list. As would St. Andrews.

"My answer is that it was not. In 2005 at the Masters', Woods and DiMarco tied at -12. Both played exemplary golf. The next finisher was at -5. And -12 is a far cry from -18. "

Far cry? It's six shots over four rounds. And you said the best test was a course where "par is excellent". That would be twelve shots off winning. Par wasn't excellent at all; merely adequete.

Frasier, You like an easy course because there are lots of birdies and eagles, my preference is for a tougher course where birdies are few and eagles are rare. Nothing wrong with either point of view. Just a difference of opinion. Your take that the players are vying against each other would have more substance if the event were match play. In medal play, or stroke play if you prefer, the golfers are trying to best the course more than their playing partners. Number of strokes wins the tournament, not number of holes better than an opponent. To show how easy the par fives were playing at Hoylake, Carl Pettersson played the par five's for the four rounds in 16 under par, an average of four, not five shots per hole. One Welsh golfer made two eagles and five birdies on the par fives on Thursday and Friday and still MISSED THE CUT! He was nine under par on the par five's in TWO rounds and didn't make it to the weekend. The course was simply no challenge for the big boys. Now, Frasier, if you like that sort of golf, have at it. You obviously are overjoyed with everything about Hoylake and the Open. As for me, I'd like something more rigorous, especially in a major.

"Your take that the players are vying against each other would have more substance if the event were match play."

Not really. It is all of them against each other, not just one player against another, thus it is a perfectly reasonable stance to have about strokeplay. The fact is the course is there to challenge them as well; as I say, instead of trying to make par they try to make birdies. The fact is that it isn't my take that they are playing against each other. It's a fact. If you shoot -20 and another player shoots -21, you lose. It's that simple.

"Number of strokes wins the tournament, not number of holes better than an opponent. To show how easy the par fives were playing at Hoylake, Carl Pettersson played the par five's for the four rounds in 16 under par, an average of four, not five shots per hole. One Welsh golfer made two eagles and five birdies on the par fives on Thursday and Friday and still MISSED THE CUT! He was nine under par on the par five's in TWO rounds and didn't make it to the weekend. The course was simply no challenge for the big boys. Now, Frasier, if you like that sort of golf, have at it. You obviously are overjoyed with everything about Hoylake and the Open. As for me, I'd like something more rigorous, especially in a major."

Tiger was -13 under on the par fives at Augusta in 1997. You obviously aren't a fan of the Masters, then? You have not addressed my questions on Augusta. Is that not a good test of golf?

Another thing you haven't addressed is the statement I have made twice already; hard golf courses generally produce boring, uninteresting championships. Be honest, would you rather have watched the US Open at Winged Foot this year, or the Open at Hoylake? Hoylake was the better event, certainly in my view.

If everyone took your view to golf the only golf courses left would be those like Winged Foot and a few others. Augusta would have to go, as would St. Andrews. To be honest, I think these courses produce fantastic championships. That's just me of course.

Frasier, No, Augusta National would definitely not have to go. The committee did some further tweaking of the course for this year's Masters'. The result was that Phil could only go 7 under, and Woods and Retief only -4. But,if lows scores and easy birdies and several eagles per round are what float your boat, by all means, enjoy yourself. Frasier, I could never compete with you on length of posts. I'm out of here.

"
Frasier, No, Augusta National would definitely not have to go. The committee did some further tweaking of the course for this year's Masters'. The result was that Phil could only go 7 under, and Woods and Retief only -4. But,if lows scores and easy birdies and several eagles per round are what float your boat, by all means, enjoy yourself. Frasier, I could never compete with you on length of posts. I'm out of here. "

And yet for years it has consitantly had scores lower than your ideal score. In other words, your ideal scores don't count on American courses, only British ones. What about Pebble Beach and others? Would they go? And sorry if you felt offended in any way by my arguing, it's just I could not, and cannot, see this seeming obsession that every course has to be long, have deep rough, and have masses of water to make it worthy of holding major championships.

Frasier, No offense taken. And I have no obsession about golf courses. Maybe you just don't understand. So I will state it for the final time. You like golf with lots of birdies and eagles with no regard as to how easy or difficult the course is playing. That's your opinion and preference and there is nothing wrong with it. I, on the other hand , have more affinity towards a tougher course where birdies, eagles, and even pars are harder to come by. Nothing wrong with that either. Frasier, it's what is known as a DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. Enough already!

"Frasier, No offense taken. And I have no obsession about golf courses. Maybe you just don't understand. So I will state it for the final time. You like golf with lots of birdies and eagles with no regard as to how easy or difficult the course is playing. That's your opinion and preference and there is nothing wrong with it. I, on the other hand , have more affinity towards a tougher course where birdies, eagles, and even pars are harder to come by. Nothing wrong with that either. Frasier, it's what is known as a DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. Enough already!"

I am not saying that is not the case. What I am saying is that you are ignoring the American courses that this happens on, for example, Augusta, and berating Hoylake. So why are American courses treated differently? That's my question. You evidently don't enjoy the Masters if you like hard scoring courses. That's my point. I realise we have a difference of opinion, but I am asking whether your stance is the same for Augusta and Pebble Beach, or if this is only in relation to British courses. That's all.

Comment from: Alex [Visitor] · http://Alex
Military-Golfer, Why is it that guys like you can't just disagree without tossing in some snide remarks?


Muahahahahahaha... Good one Alex!!

That has to be the best joke you have ever posted...

Who said you really had no sense of humor?


ROFLMAO