Tiger is the favorite for the British Open

[TN94z]

So I was searching around the internet and stumbled upon an article written by Erik Matuszewski with Businessweek .

Quote:

Tiger Woods remains the oddsmakers’ favorite to capture next month’s British Open even though he isn’t among the 15 different players who have won golf’s past 15 major championships.

It states that Tiger is a 10-1 favorite to win the British Open next month!  He hasn't won a major since 2008 and hasn't exactly shown that "favorite" material either. So where have these oddsmakers been?  What have they been watching that would lead them to Tiger as a 10-1 favorite?

What do you think?   Should Tiger be the favorite?

[Chas]

Too stupid a notion (10:1 favorite) to merit a response.

[Beachcomber]

They were talking about this on the Golf Channel... The reasoning is that:

1.) He has two wins this year with the Foley swing.

2.) In the Majors this year... The Masters he had no solid rounds.  At the US Open, he had two solid rounds.  So folks believe that he will put four solid rounds of golf together at the Open.  And when Tiger puts four solid rounds of golf in... He is pretty much winning tournaments - especially majors.

I think it is fair to say that he is the heavy favorite.  But he has a lot of work to do to pull it off.  His short game (sand/chip/pitch) was not even close to where he needs to be to win a Major.  I think if he can work on that and keep his swing going in the right direction, he could definitely win his first Major since 2008.

[MSchott]

If Tiger is not the favorite, who should be the favorite? Not Phil as he does not play well on Links courses, Rory is not on form and I don't see Simpson continuing this streak. Tiger is close to being in great form and certainly knows how to play a links course. It makes sense that he'd be the favorite. Maybe this will be Westwood's week to finally break through. Sergio seems in better form.

[Zeph]

So I was searching around the internet and stumbled upon an article written by [URL=http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-06-19/tiger-woods-is-10-1-oddsmakers-favorite-for-golf-s-british-open]Erik Matuszewski with Businessweek[/URL][URL=#].[/URL]

Relative of our Erik? :-D I don't see a big problem with this. Tiger won at The Memorial and contended for two rounds at the US Open. One might expect him to get better as the year progress. Aside from the playing results, Tiger is Tiger. Everyone expect him to win all the time, including the bookies.

[Wansteadimp]

Originally Posted by Zeph

Aside from the playing results, Tiger is Tiger. Everyone expect him to win all the time, including the bookies.

The bookies dont expect him to win, the bookies set the odds to minimise their loses on any given result.

Tiger attracts more money than anyone else because of his previous record and having more fans than anyone. Therefore a Tiger win is usually the worst possible result for them therefore he is the favorite.

Interestingly from Royal Lytham's website about the last Open there, Mark James doesn't think it suits Tiger or the bombers: -

Ryder Cup Captain Mark James wrote:

"And Lytham was set up magnificently in 2001 (for the Open Championship), perfect for the world's premier golfing event. I do not think they could have prepared that Course better. It was a perfect combination of width of fairways, length of rough and pace and quality of greens. It should be used as a model for future Opens. Everyone who knows Lytham knew that it would be the one Course where Tiger Woods would not have a big advantage because of the distance he hits, as there are relatively few holes where you can carry the trouble. Tiger could not tame it".

[TN94z]

Originally Posted by Wansteadimp

The bookies dont expect him to win, the bookies set the odds to minimise their loses on any given result.

Tiger attracts more money than anyone else because of his previous record and having more fans than anyone. Therefore a Tiger win is usually the worst possible result for them therefore he is the favorite.

Interestingly from Royal Lytham's website about the last Open there, Mark James doesn't think it suits Tiger or the bombers: -

Ryder Cup Captain Mark James wrote:

"And Lytham was set up magnificently in 2001 (for the Open Championship), perfect for the world's premier golfing event. I do not think they could have prepared that Course better. It was a perfect combination of width of fairways, length of rough and pace and quality of greens. It should be used as a model for future Opens. Everyone who knows Lytham knew that it would be the one Course where Tiger Woods would not have a big advantage because of the distance he hits, as there are relatively few holes where you can carry the trouble. Tiger could not tame it".

Is Tiger still considered a "bomber" now though?  It seems he is turning into more of a thinker around the course than he used to be. He always has the extra gear to reach for if he feels confident and needs it, but it doesn't seem like he goes after as in times past.  Maybe the new "bombers" on tour are just drawing all of the attention now.

[zeg]

Originally Posted by MSchott

If Tiger is not the favorite, who should be the favorite?

That's the question. Somebody has to be the favorite, even if you don't think he's all that likely to win. You can't pick "not Tiger" as the favorite. So who else would you put money on? Even just looking at this year, he's not a bad bet---most guys on the Tour haven't had any wins this season at all.

(And this is without even getting into the economics of oddsmaking.)

[eich41]

Originally Posted by Wansteadimp

The bookies dont expect him to win, the bookies set the odds to minimise their loses on any given result.

Tiger attracts more money than anyone else because of his previous record and having more fans than anyone. Therefore a Tiger win is usually the worst possible result for them therefore he is the favorite.

Interestingly from Royal Lytham's website about the last Open there, Mark James doesn't think it suits Tiger or the bombers: -

Ryder Cup Captain Mark James wrote:

"And Lytham was set up magnificently in 2001 (for the Open Championship), perfect for the world's premier golfing event. I do not think they could have prepared that Course better. It was a perfect combination of width of fairways, length of rough and pace and quality of greens. It should be used as a model for future Opens. Everyone who knows Lytham knew that it would be the one Course where Tiger Woods would not have a big advantage because of the distance he hits, as there are relatively few holes where you can carry the trouble. Tiger could not tame it".

This.  Apparently not many of you understand how odds and "favorites" are determined.  Bookmakers set the odds based on the amount of money (or before betting opens the anticipated amount of money) being placed on that golfer/team.  The lines then move up or down depending on the amount of money bet on that golfer/team.  Ideally they want to balance the money as much as possible, to minimize their exposure to one particular golfer/team.  The reason why Tiger is the favorite is simply because he has more of a following and is the best known golfer in the world and therefore there are more people who pick him to win.  This is further exacerbated in major championships, because the average joe who rarely watches or follows golf will throw down a bet on a major championship, and the only two golfers he knows are Phil Mickelson and Tiger Woods.  How many uber-casual golf fans had heard of Bubba Watson or Webb Simpson prior to their majors this year?

[TN94z]

Originally Posted by eich41

This.  Apparently not many of you understand how odds and "favorites" are determined.  Bookmakers set the odds based on the amount of money (or before betting opens the anticipated amount of money) being placed on that golfer/team.  The lines then move up or down depending on the amount of money bet on that golfer/team.  Ideally they want to balance the money as much as possible, to minimize their exposure to one particular golfer/team.  The reason why Tiger is the favorite is simply because he has more of a following and is the best known golfer in the world and therefore there are more people who pick him to win.  This is further exacerbated in major championships, because the average joe who rarely watches or follows golf will throw down a bet on a major championship, and the only two golfers he knows are Phil Mickelson and Tiger Woods.  How many uber-casual golf fans had heard of Bubba Watson or Webb Simpson prior to their majors this year?

Very good point!

[Wansteadimp]

Originally Posted by zeg

That's the question. Somebody has to be the favorite, even if you don't think he's all that likely to win. You can't pick "not Tiger" as the favorite. So who else would you put money on? Even just looking at this year, he's not a bad bet---most guys on the Tour haven't had any wins this season at all.

(And this is without even getting into the economics of oddsmaking.)

10-1 looks very skinny at this stage, but nowhere near the 4-1's that were offered in his pomp in a 160 runner field!

Lytham has produced 5 first time major winners the last 7 times it has been there. The current trend to continue?

Having said that, interesting to see how Harrington's form goes over the next month, he looked to be finding form at the US Open.

[Wansteadimp]

Originally Posted by TN94z

Is Tiger still considered a "bomber" now though?  It seems he is turning into more of a thinker around the course than he used to be. He always has the extra gear to reach for if he feels confident and needs it, but it doesn't seem like he goes after as in times past.  Maybe the new "bombers" on tour are just drawing all of the attention now.

Not sure how much that James quote stands up now. The bombers hit the ball much further than 2001, maybe they can knock it past the trouble?

As for Tiger I suspect he hits the ball further than in 2001 but a lot  have caught and passed him in length.

[MEfree]

He is the favorite because he is one of the best golfers ever and has shown some signs of going from an average world top 5 player to the form he showed while compiling the best decade long record in golf.  From 1999 through 2008 he won a third of his PGA events.  The second favorite Lee Westwood has never won a major and the 3rd  favorite Rory has missed more cuts the last few months than Tiger did for a whole decade.

TW	EVENTS	FINISH
Year	PLAYED	1 ST	2 ND	3 RD	TOP 10	TOP 25	MADE CUT	CUT	WD	MONEY
2008	6	4	1	--	6	6	6	--	--	$5,775,000
2007	16	7	3	--	12	15	16	--	--	$10,867,052
2006	15	8	1	1	11	13	14	1	1	$9,941,563
2005	21	6	4	2	13	17	19	2	--	$10,628,024
2004	19	1	3	3	14	18	19	--	--	$5,365,472
2003	18	5	2	--	12	16	18	--	--	$6,673,413
2002	18	5	2	2	13	16	18	--	--	$6,912,625
2001	19	5	--	1	9	18	19	--	--	$5,687,777
2000	20	9	4	1	17	20	20	--	--	$9,188,321
1999	21	8	1	2	16	18	21	--	--	$6,616,585
Totals	173	58	21	12	123	157	170	3	1	$77,655,832
Decade	%	33.5%	12.1%	6.9%	71.1%	90.8%	98.3%	1.7%	0.6%

FWIW, his t25 in 2001 was his second worst finish of that year.

[Mr3Wiggle]

If I had to pick one player to win the Open and put my life savings on it, I'd go with Tiger.  Obviously I wouldn't take him even against the field like back in the day, but he'd be my choice if I had to pick one guy.

[Wansteadimp]

Originally Posted by MEfree

He is the favorite because he is one of the best golfers ever and has shown some signs of going from an average world top 5 player to the form he showed while compiling the best decade long record in golf.  From 1999 through 2008 he won a third of his PGA events.  The second favorite Lee Westwood has never won a major and the 3rd  favorite Rory has missed more cuts the last few months than Tiger did for a whole decade.

TW

EVENTS

FINISH

Year

PLAYED

1ST

2ND

3RD

TOP 10

TOP 25

MADE CUT

CUT

WD

MONEY

2008

6

4

1

--

6

6

6

--

--

$5,775,000

2007

16

7

3

--

12

15

16

--

--

$10,867,052

2006

15

8

1

1

11

13

14

1

1

$9,941,563

2005

21

6

4

2

13

17

19

2

--

$10,628,024

2004

19

1

3

3

14

18

19

--

--

$5,365,472

2003

18

5

2

--

12

16

18

--

--

$6,673,413

2002

18

5

2

2

13

16

18

--

--

$6,912,625

2001

19

5

--

1

9

18

19

--

--

$5,687,777

2000

20

9

4

1

17

20

20

--

--

$9,188,321

1999

21

8

1

2

16

18

21

--

--

$6,616,585

Totals

173

58

21

12

123

157

170

3

1

$77,655,832

Decade

%

33.5%

12.1%

6.9%

71.1%

90.8%

98.3%

1.7%

0.6%

FWIW, his t25 in 2001 was his second worst finish of that year.

A lot more to do with his record than his current form, he was a best price of 12/1 for the 2010 US PGA a week after his T-78 at the Bridgestone in the middle of his worst run of form ever.

[nicoy3k]

He's won the open three times before, has won twice this year, and lead 2 rounds of the last major. If Tiger doesn't to be the favorite, no one does. We need to stop comparing 2012 Tiger to 2000 Tiger and start comparing him to every other golfer who ever lived.

[Wally Fairway]

Originally Posted by MEfree

He is the favorite because he is one of the best golfers ever and has shown some signs of going from an average world top 5 player to the form he showed while compiling the best decade long record in golf.  From 1999 through 2008 he won a third of his PGA events.  The second favorite Lee Westwood has never won a major and the 3rd  favorite Rory has missed more cuts the last few months than Tiger did for a whole decade.

TW

EVENTS

FINISH

Year

PLAYED

1ST

2ND

3RD

TOP 10

TOP 25

MADE CUT

CUT

WD

MONEY

2008

6

4

1

--

6

6

6

--

--

$5,775,000

2007

16

7

3

--

12

15

16

--

--

$10,867,052

2006

15

8

1

1

11

13

14

1

1

$9,941,563

2005

21

6

4

2

13

17

19

2

--

$10,628,024

2004

19

1

3

3

14

18

19

--

--

$5,365,472

2003

18

5

2

--

12

16

18

--

--

$6,673,413

2002

18

5

2

2

13

16

18

--

--

$6,912,625

2001

19

5

--

1

9

18

19

--

--

$5,687,777

2000

20

9

4

1

17

20

20

--

--

$9,188,321

1999

21

8

1

2

16

18

21

--

--

$6,616,585

Totals

173

58

21

12

123

157

170

3

1

$77,655,832

Decade

%

33.5%

12.1%

6.9%

71.1%

90.8%

98.3%

1.7%

0.6%

FWIW, his t25 in 2001 was his second worst finish of that year.

nice listing of his history - how about this, since 2006 (his last Open Championship win) he has no top 10s. Would you still pick him to win this year?

As stated earlier - odds are about balancing the wagers, Tiger is still a fan favorite & people want to bet on him...so the odds go down.

Looking at the recent Open Championship winners (Clarke, Cink, Oosthuzien), I'd lean towards picking Westwood, Rose or Colsaerts to wager my euros on.

[Zwick]

First: The oddsmaker can't give much higher odds on Woods, they would risk to go broke if they would put him at 1-20 or something like that. Because everyone would bet on Woods with those odds.

Second: The chances are that we will see another first-time winner  (for example Rose). On top of that, who plays better golf than Woods over the last few months? Perhaps Dufner, but the list certainly isn't very long.

I played at Lytham & St. Annes this April and can say, the winner will have to hit a lot of the narrow fairways and stay out of the over 200 bunkers. Every fairway bunker is close to a 1-shot penalty, because there is no way they can advance the ball further than a few yards out of them. If Woods can play the stinger 3 iron well that week, he will surely contend. I'd say it's a similar course to Hoylake, where he played exactly like that.