Is The Masters "easy" for Tiger Woods to win?

[Elvisliveson]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Those are pretty good.

But how is this for a series of finishes in a major:

3  2  T12  1  2  T2  6  1  T5  2  4  3  T3  T2  2  1 T2  T4.  18 years with only one finish out of the top 10 and 2 finishes out of the top 5.  That is Jack Nicklaus's record in the British Open from 1963 through 1980.   Pretty remarkable stuff and on a rota of courses.  Was the British Open too easy for Jack?

What about Arnold Palmer in the Masters between 1957 and 1967? T7,1,3,1,T2,1,T9,1,T2,T4,4 Pretty incredible.

[David Sims]

Hi all. New here. I'd say that any major is tough to win. But those who have posted stats on Arnold and Jack have posted some pretty darn impressive numbers. 2 just incredible players and 2 of the most respected to have ever played the game.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Elvisliveson

What about Arnold Palmer in the Masters between 1957 and 1967? T7,1,3,1,T2,1,T9,1,T2,T4,4 Pretty incredible.

This phenomenon is partly due to the sheer excellence of the players cited, but it also illustrates the term " horses for courses ". That many people don't understand that Tiger's performance in the 2010 and 2011 Masters didn't exactly prove he was "back" any more than Nicklaus' win at Augusta in 1986 or Watson's close second at Turnberry in 2009 signalled their return to a previous level of excellence, well then there really is no point participating in this discussion for me.

http://www.majorschampionships.com/masters/2011/news/horses-history-040311.cfm

http://scoregolf.com/articles/top10/2011/05/Top-10-Horses-for-Courses

Tiger's own words from the following link:

Q. Why do you think you've won here four times in a row and how much do you buy into the theory of horses for courses?

TIGER WOODS: It does set up well to my eye. And it's become better for the longer hitters when the greens were hard. When the greens are hard like that, if you hit the ball in play down the fairway, you get wedges and 9-irons -- someone has got 7-iron, 8-iron that's a big difference, especially when the ball is releasing with a wedge from 15, 20 feet. I think that's one of the reasons why I won those years the prior year, probably just played well.

Q. What do you think on the horses for courses theory, do you buy into that?

TIGER WOODS: I think to a certain extent because if you look at it. I'm sure Davis will say this, that the golf course sets up well to his eye. You hear that a lot. Freddie, you'll hear Riviera with Freddie, the whole golf course just sets up to his eye.

I think that's why this golf course, why I've had success on it. It does set up well to my eye. I don't feel uncomfortable on a lot of the shots. I'm very comfortable here. On top of that, I've won here five times, going back to my junior days. It just breeds confidence. The more you win, the more it breeds confidence.

http://www.asapsports.com/show_interview.php?id=15217

http://txodds.com/previews.php?p=osarchives/golf-us%20masters-betting-preview-040411.html

[David Sims]

I don't think it's easy for any player to win any major. Now can a player certainly feel comfortable and have a course suit his eye? Of course and even Phil speaks to that when he talks about Augusta. But winning majors is tough even for the best in the game. Ane even they will say that it even takes a little bit of luck along the way, getting the right bounce at the right time.

[Elvisliveson]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

This phenomenon is partly due to the sheer excellence of the players cited, but it also illustrates the term "horses for courses". That many people don't understand that Tiger's performance in the 2010 and 2011 Masters didn't exactly prove he was "back" any more than Nicklaus' win at Augusta in 1986 or Watson's close second at Turnberry in 2009 signalled their return to a previous level of excellence, well then there really is no point participating in this discussion for me.

I thought the fact that once he became tied for the lead with the easier back 9 to follow and couldn't shoot better than par with everyone else not named Rory ripping it up clearly demonstrated Tiger wasn't back

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by David Sims

I don't think it's easy for any player to win any major. Now can a player certainly feel comfortable and have a course suit his eye? Of course and even Phil speaks to that when he talks about Augusta. But winning majors is tough even for the best in the game. Ane even they will say that it even takes a little bit of luck along the way, getting the right bounce at the right time.

Winning the Masters is part luck, but finishing in the top 5 is tougher for > 80% of the field than it would be for players like Tiger, Phil, Angel Cabrera, Ernie, Freddie, Jack, Arnie, etc. When a relatively short hitter like Weir or Crenshaw wins it, it's because they putted the lights out or somebody choked. That's why Nicklaus contended almost every major (all 4 of them) he played in. He let the other guys choke. I'll end my thoughts there, since I've already given this thread more credibility than it deserved. Toodles.

[David Sims]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Winning the Masters is part luck, but finishing in the top 5 is tougher for > 80% of the field than it would be for players like Tiger, Phil, Angel Cabrera, Ernie, Freddie, Jack, Arnie, etc. When a relatively short hitter like Weir or Crenshaw wins it, it's because they putted the lights out or somebody choked. That's why Nicklaus contended almost every major (all 4 of them) he played in. He let the other guys choke. I'll end my thoughts there, since I've already given this thread more credibility than it deserved. Toodles.

In the case of Nicklaus, I have to say he played some great golf back in his prime. He was one of the best long iron players of the time and it seemed like he made every putt he looked at when it mattered most. And he was a master technician in dissecting the golf course he was playing. He knew where to miss it and always gave himself the best opportunities to score but also knew when to play for the fat part of the green.

It's a relevant question for one to ask if it seems that someone is trying to state that winning a major is easy for any player as I just can't believe that anyone, including Tiger, would say that it was.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by David Sims

In the case of Nicklaus, I have to say he played some great golf back in his prime. He was one of the best long iron players of the time and it seemed like he made every putt he looked at when it mattered most. And he was a master technician in dissecting the golf course he was playing. He knew where to miss it and always gave himself the best opportunities to score but also knew when to play for the fat part of the green.

It's a relevant question for one to ask if it seems that someone is trying to state that winning a major is easy for any player as I just can't believe that anyone, including Tiger, would say that it was.

I think that you're trying to state that someone was trying to state that, much like you did in post number one, henniebogan.

[Elvisliveson]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I think that you're trying to state that someone was trying to state that, much like you did in post number one, henniebogan.

Lol, you're right! So much for the penalty box. Well, at least until he wears out his new moniker with his one note posting.