Tiger will not win another major

[tristanhilton85]

Originally Posted by makaveli

How about discussing this question first: "Will Tiger win another PGA tournament?"

Then we can discuss about majors IMHO...

How about this... Tiger will win another PGA event and he will also win another major...  He might not be the dominant force that he once was but he is still a hell of a golfer and will win again.

[makaveli]

Pretty easy post to write after the 2011 Australian Open ;)

(imho)

p.s. happy to see Tiger contending again, even if this was a weak field

Originally Posted by tristanhilton85

How about this... Tiger will win another PGA event and he will also win another major...  He might not be the dominant force that he once was but he is still a hell of a golfer and will win again.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by makaveli

p.s. happy to see Tiger contending again, even if this was a weak field

Chalmers, Senden, Day, Ogilvy, Baddeley, O'Hern, Scott, Watney, Watson, Couples, Haas, Johnson, Allenby.

Have  a little respect, mate.

[gpt104]

Agree - not a weak field at all

[Harmonious]

There were some very good players in the field, but the depth of the field was pretty shallow.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

There were some very good players in the field, but the depth of the field was pretty shallow.

Agreed. Similar to the tournament Sergio won a couple of weeks ago! ;-)

[iacas]

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

Agreed. Similar to the tournament Sergio won a couple of weeks ago! ;-)

Bit stronger than that, I think. Let's not be silly now... ;-)

[tristanhilton85]

Originally Posted by makaveli

Pretty easy post to write after the 2011 Australian Open ;)

(imho)

p.s. happy to see Tiger contending again, even if this was a weak field

Honestly, I actually paid no attention to the Australian Open; I was way too busy with work and other things and never took a look... I would have said what I said weeks ago. The fact is that Tiger is a hell of a golfer and it would be silly to think that he doesn't have any wins left in him.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by bunkerputt

If Tiger goes on to be #1 again and wins another major, I will be extremely impressed.  The guy's done amazing things for sure in the past....but youth has a way of doing that.  Your brain and body loses it's plasticity as you get older, so it gets more and more difficult to remold and reshape it.  Throw a new swing into the mix there and it seems like an untimely recipe for disaster.  Hopefully he's practicing a lot of putting right now...

I'm still trying to figure out what plasticity is...

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

I'm still trying to figure out what plasticity is...

I think elasticity (the opposite of plasticity) is the right word.  That's what we all lose over time, the ability to bounce back after being under stress.

[makaveli]

Originally Posted by Shorty

Chalmers, Senden, Day, Ogilvy, Baddeley, O'Hern, Scott, Watney, Watson, Couples, Haas, Johnson, Allenby.

Have  a little respect, mate.

Originally Posted by iacas

Bit stronger than that, I think. Let's not be silly now... ;-)

I dunno, we can now go on and see who wins between Tiger fans and Sergio fans and see if you valuate more the Valderrama win of the Spaniard or the Australian performance of Mr. Tont but more or less I think after the PGA Champ these fields are the same, of course there are a lot of ways to valuate the field but I think you get my point! (imho)

Of course sometimes people can be biased and cheer for their guy but I am neither American, nor Spaniard so to me (imho) the two fields were pretty much the same level

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by makaveli

of course there are a lot of ways to valuate the field but I think you get my point! (imho)

Of course sometimes people can be biased and cheer for their guy but I am neither American, nor Spaniard so to me (imho) the two fields were pretty much the same level

I was going to add up the average world ranking for each field but was unable to find a leaderboad for the Australian Open with the world rankings of each player. The Andalucía Masters world rankings are on the European Tour website and it would have been a quick calculation.

I agree that there were more top 50 players at the Australian Open, but overall I reckon the average world ranking for the 156 players or so at the Andalucía Masters was lower.

That would be one way of calculating the field, but I'm sure there are others.

[deasy55]

The winner in Australia got 42 World Ranking points and the winner of the Andalucia Masters got 38, so there was very little difference overall. I'd say the fact that the Australian Open had 3 of the worlds top 10 would have helped that somewhat. Interestingly the winner of the Singapore Open got 46 points, suggesting that that was the biggest event last week. Which, looking at the fields, I would have to agree with.

Originally Posted by The_Pharaoh

I was going to add up the average world ranking for each field but was unable to find a leaderboad for the Australian Open with the world rankings of each player. The Andalucía Masters world rankings are on the European Tour website and it would have been a quick calculation.

I agree that there were more top 50 players at the Australian Open, but overall I reckon the average world ranking for the 156 players or so at the Andalucía Masters was lower.

That would be one way of calculating the field, but I'm sure there are others.

[Righty to Lefty]

It's hard to win a club championship let alone ANY  PGA or Euro Tour event.  Alot of these so called "weak" fields have player's shooting low numbers on tough courses. Just cause we've never heard of alot of the people doesn't mean that they can't shoot low numbers.  Now if we are saying that Tiger won a tourney at a local muni playing from the red tees with a total score of +8 then we can safely say that the field was probably pretty weak but give me a break about this weak field stuff when guys are throwin up 63 during the tourney.

[jamo]

It's hard to win a club championship let alone ANY  PGA or Euro Tour event.  Alot of these so called "weak" fields have player's shooting low numbers on tough courses. Just cause we've never heard of alot of the people doesn't mean that they can't shoot low numbers.  Now if we are saying that Tiger won a tourney at a local muni playing from the red tees with a total score of +8 then we can safely say that the field was probably pretty weak but give me a break about this weak field stuff when guys are throwin up 63 during the tourney.

Of course they can shoot low numbers, there's a reason they're pros, but there's also a reason they're not ranked higher, and that's because they don't have a track record of shooting low scores consistently.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by deasy55

The winner in Australia got 42 World Ranking points and the winner of the Andalucia Masters got 38, so there was very little difference overall. I'd say the fact that the Australian Open had 3 of the worlds top 10 would have helped that somewhat. Interestingly the winner of the Singapore Open got 46 points, suggesting that that was the biggest event last week. Which, looking at the fields, I would have to agree with.

Good info, deasy55. As I suspected, too many people wearing Tiger goggles on here! ;-)

[iacas]

World ranking points aren't always the best. I don't care much about it, but those who do can make a compelling case that some Asian tour events or some European Tour events award more points than they should due to some weird things like the home tour advantage and some other things.

For all I know that may have made the disparity in this case greater than what it appears to be. I'm just saying that relying solely on weighting of world ranking points isn't necessarily the best indication of field strength.

[The_Pharaoh]

Originally Posted by iacas

World ranking points aren't always the best. I don't care much about it, but those who do can make a compelling case that some Asian tour events or some European Tour events award more points than they should due to some weird things like the home tour advantage and some other things.

For all I know that may have made the disparity in this case greater than what it appears to be. I'm just saying that relying solely on weighting of world ranking points isn't necessarily the best indication of field strength.

I would agree with you and that's why I said it was only one way of doing it. I also thought about tournament wins or major championship wins, but I think that would be less fair and one or two people could really skew the results.