Tiger Woods' chances to win at Merion??

[Beachcomber]

I'm wondering if any of the 11 users who voted 'Slam Dunk' would change their vote, if they could, based on Tigers melt down on Saturday?

[phan52]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Sounds like he got 10%.  If I remember correctly, Trevino got 30k for first, and Jack got 15 for second.  They showed the money leaders near the end of the telecast, and they were 1 and

Before they teed off for the playoff, Trevino told his caddie that he was going to get "3 big ones" if he won the playoff. Tom thought he meant $300.00 and was shocked that it was $3 Grand.

Understand that this was a time when we were getting $10-12 a bag in our regular loops.

[Spyder]

Originally Posted by phan52

Before they teed off for the playoff, Trevino told his caddie that he was going to get "3 big ones" if he won the playoff. Tom thought he meant $300.00 and was shocked that it was $3 Grand.

Understand that this was a time when we were getting $10-12 a bag in our regular loops.

Kids today don't even know what 56K is, what VHS means, what a Cassette tape deck is (or how to use it)... let alone could they ever fathom the money you are talking about!

Hell, I'm only 28 and kids today make me feel old!

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by moro

i know this may be off topic but wont tiger be paired with rory and adam for the first two rounds based on the owgr

Originally Posted by Zwick

The groupings are not always like the OWGR. For example: last year, Tiger played with Mickelson and Watson for the first two days and Rory with Westwood and Donald (if I remeber correctly). Some other years it was like the OWGR (2008 I think).

I also remember learning last year that the USGA likes to have fun with some of the groupings.  They'll group guys by nationality, college, home state, major winners, loud dressers, guys with names that rhyme or are alliterate, whatever they can come up with.

I think the only set in stone group is the reigning champ, reigning British Open champ, and reigning USAM champ.

[9iron]

Actually, Tiger has played Merion. He played it last week (prior to going to Jack's event) and he played it in Cargo shorts. No joke.

[Zeph]

They should put Tiger, Sergio and Stevie in the same group. :banana:

[newtogolf]

Originally Posted by Zeph

They should put Tiger, Sergio and Stevie in the same group.

Sure, Sergio could bring the fried chicken.

[Beachcomber]

Originally Posted by 9iron

Actually, Tiger has played Merion. He played it last week (prior to going to Jack's event) and he played it in Cargo shorts. No joke.

Sorry my crystal ball was in for repairs when I wrote this thread.  I just got it back from the shop, and you are correct!

[phan52]

Originally Posted by 9iron

Actually, Tiger has played Merion. He played it last week (prior to going to Jack's event) and he played it in Cargo shorts. No joke.

Phil was there today and, like Tiger, he was playing in the rain.

[Ole_Tom_Morris]

What are the odds? I think Tiger has a 5-10% chance of winning. Actually very good odds, because regardless of how good a golfer is, the odds are with the field to beat him. Lemme quote from Sam Snead's and Al Stump's book Education of a Golfer :

"...never place a bet on any contestant at bookmaker odds of less than 8-1...  No player, from Vardon to Hogan to Palmer, ever was better than 8-1 against a class field... Favorites don't really exist in any pro event...That's why the pros don't bet amongst themselves as they once did:  we're too closely bunched."   [P. 191.]

It's not a question of whether Woods is there and playing well.   There are 20-30 other guys there who can take it if they play up to their capability.

[MyrtleBeachGolf]

What are the odds? I think Tiger has a 5-10% chance of winning. Actually very good odds, because regardless of how good a golfer is, the odds are with the field to beat him. Lemme quote from Sam Snead's and Al Stump's book Education of a Golfer : "...never place a bet on any contestant at bookmaker odds of less than 8-1...  No player, from Vardon to Hogan to Palmer, ever was better than 8-1 against a class field... Favorites don't really exist in any pro event...That's why the pros don't bet amongst themselves as they once did:  we're too closely bunched."   [P. 191.]   It's not a question of whether Woods is there and playing well.   There are 20-30 other guys there who can take it if they play up to their capability.

The book I use has Tiger at 3-1 (+325) for the US Open. Not enough value in my opinion.

[bplewis24]

% chance that Tiger's pending re-negotiation with Nike has affected any of his focus lately?

[Zwick]

Originally Posted by Ole_Tom_Morris

What are the odds? I think Tiger has a 5-10% chance of winning. Actually very good odds, because regardless of how good a golfer is, the odds are with the field to beat him. Lemme quote from Sam Snead's and Al Stump's book Education of a Golfer:

"...never place a bet on any contestant at bookmaker odds of less than 8-1...  No player, from Vardon to Hogan to Palmer, ever was better than 8-1 against a class field... Favorites don't really exist in any pro event...That's why the pros don't bet amongst themselves as they once did:  we're too closely bunched."   [P. 191.]

It's not a question of whether Woods is there and playing well.   There are 20-30 other guys there who can take it if they play up to their capability.

Woods has won close to 30% of all his starts as a professional on the PGA Tour. So his chances are higher than 5-10%. Those odds are probably right for Mickelson.

And if Woods is playing close to his best, there are not many guys who could challenge him (McIlroy?).

[Wansteadimp]

Originally Posted by Zwick

Woods has won close to 30% of all his starts as a professional on the PGA Tour. So his chances are higher than 5-10%. Those odds are probably right for Mickelson.

And if Woods is playing close to his best, there are not many guys who could challenge him (McIlroy?).

The odds also factor in the amount of money placed on a player. The chances of Tiger winning aren't 3-1 but the bookies set the odds to minimise their losses if Tiger were to win.

[tomvk77]

Originally Posted by Beachcomber

I'm wondering if any of the 11 users who voted 'Slam Dunk' would change their vote, if they could, based on Tigers melt down on Saturday?

No, would't change my opinion.

We will see in a couple off weeks.

by that time he will be ready.

We all have a meltdown now and than. also tiger.

I think he did make some poor decisions on last weeks tournament tho.

He was flopping more than a few times where i think he better could have played a low type

wedge shot.

I couldn't understand why he played those shots.

[Spyder]

I voted for Tiger as a slam dunk and I am keeping it that way, because given the choices it was the most logical for me to take. Right now, his winning percentage is phenomenal and I can't place doubt on his last performance. I also think that his negotiations with Nike may be slightly affecting his focus, but not to the extent that would really damage his game. This past weekend's Memorial performance was something else entirely in my opinion, but who the hell knows what.

I think he will be focused come Thursday morning and I expect him to be within the top 3 by the end of day 1. If he keeps that pace up on day 2, he will obviously be the statistical favorite.

I threw down on Tiger at 9-2 and Kuchar at 20-1.

[Ole_Tom_Morris]

Originally Posted by Zwick

Woods has won close to 30% of all his starts as a professional on the PGA Tour. So his chances are higher than 5-10%. Those odds are probably right for Mickelson.

And if Woods is playing close to his best, there are not many guys who could challenge him (McIlroy?).

You are correct about Woods' 27% win rate on the PGA tour.

Woods has an awesome record.   There are qualifications.   One is that he has cherry picked a lot of the tournaments he entered;  some he likes and is successful at and enters and some he doesn't and isn't and doesn't enter, so that skews his win record somewhat.   And when he has been in a bad slump, he tends not to play, which further skews the stats.      If he played 25 tournaments a year,  he probably would not have won 27% of them.

Out of 17 U.S. Opens, Tiger won 3.   That's 18%.

Is there a way of handicapping the field over the duration of Woods' career?   I suspect the quality of the competition is better now than when Woods was at his most overwhelming;  certainly the depth is.

I'll stick with a 10% chance of a Tiger win.   Phil I'd grant /emoticons/huh.png" style="line-height: 1.231;"/> Love to see an amateur win.

As for Phil:   Don't know what his stats are for tournaments overall or for U.S. Opens in particular, but they are less than overwhelming.   Phil is one of those golfers who have superlative skills and experience but do not often close the deal.     As for McIlroy, he's still overrated.

Added:  It's never a slam dunk for an individual versus the field, unless by slam dunk you refer to CIA Director Tenet's horrible miscall of the odds that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction based mostly on the tall tales of one defector called Curveball.

All this reminds me of the predictions a month ago that Orb was a shoe-in at the Preakness.

[bplewis24]

I stopped reading after "cherry picked."