dantsteinman

Just knowing that one of the top five will probably not win this (even though Tiger won the last two), I picked KJ Choi. Don't ask me why other than I think he has the game to win a major and he has the temperament to play match play. I will say that it was hard not to pick one of the European Ryder Cuppers since they all seem to be so much better at this than the Americans.

Well, it was sunny and 70 in Northern Cal yesterday so I played hooky and played golf. It was just too nice and hadn't played since Christmas Day. A little soggy from all the January rain so I played lift, clean, and place which always helps. I shot the second best round I've ever shot - 73 - on my home course (Palo Alto Muni). Unfortunately, my index went up because it bumped the best round I've ever shot - 71 - off my card. Oh well. I shouldn't have bogeyed two out of the last three holes.

No standardization necessary. At least I don't think so. It won't be a perfect measurement because, as someone already pointed out, a golfer who finishes second in every tournament will almost definitely win in this stat but may not be the best player. What I think happens is that the higher purses are for the most prestigious events which brings out the best fields. So, this measurement kind of manages itself. Also, it might be better than a scoring avg. measurement because it is measuring golfers against others in the same field playing the same courses. The kind of things that would mess it up would be someone like Fred Funk skipping the British Open to play the PGA event and perhaps winning it. He should be punished for that as opposed to rewarded but, as I said, it won't be perfect. Just interesting.

I'm sure Stuart has the best "percent of purse" in 2005 as he's only played one tournament and won it. I believe he's still at home having a baby or taking care of the newborn. He was leaving right after the Mercedes to go be a Dad.

I've been thinking of a stat I think someone should keep that would be interesting - percent of purse. It's basically a measure of how much of the total purse a golfer has competed for have they won. It would be an equalizing stat for those who play vastly different tournament schedules (Tiger and Vijay). I read something the other day that said during Tiger's 2000 season, he won almost 13% of the total purses he competed for. They compared that to Vijay's number last year which was around 7% I think. Pretty interesting. Anyway, I wanted to hear what others think. I started to track it this year for Vijay, Tiger, Ernie, Phil, and Retief who I think are the five best players but I know I won't keep up with it. I'm not tracking him but I'm pretty sure Stuart Appleby is in first place so far. What do you think?