Tim McDonald - Latest Comments on Tiger Woods at the British Open: a new, different era?

putt4par [Visitor] in response to: Tiger Woods at the British Open: a new, different era?

putt4par [Visitor] — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:35:42 +0000

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

Frasier [Visitor] in response to: Tiger Woods at the British Open: a new, different era?

Frasier [Visitor] — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 14:48:47 +0000

"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.

Alex [Visitor] in response to: Tiger Woods at the British Open: a new, different era?

Alex [Visitor] — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 03:54:00 +0000

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 [Visitor] in response to: Tiger Woods at the British Open: a new, different era?

Frasier [Visitor] — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:35:44 +0000

"
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.

Alex [Visitor] in response to: Tiger Woods at the British Open: a new, different era?

Alex [Visitor] — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:13:09 +0000

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 [Visitor] in response to: Tiger Woods at the British Open: a new, different era?

Frasier [Visitor] — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:35:36 +0000

"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.

Alex [Visitor] in response to: Tiger Woods at the British Open: a new, different era?

Alex [Visitor] — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:50:14 +0000

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.

Frasier [Visitor] in response to: Tiger Woods at the British Open: a new, different era?

Frasier [Visitor] — Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:22:50 +0000

"
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.