Tiger Woods Master Catch-All Discussion

[nevets88]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

What prompted that?

Most of those wins are, of course, WGCs and majors.

Yeah, I know, I had the same reaction as this guy:

 

[brocks]

The Euro Tour is apparently not happy about Tiger.  Not only is he third on their all-time wins list, but he is miles ahead of everyone else in career winnings.  Ten years or so ago, this was acknowledged on the official Euro Tour website, but now there's no mention of Tiger, and a footnote that only players who are official members of the Tour are listed.

Also interesting to note that if you don't count WGCs and majors, Tiger still has 8 wins in Euro tour events, which is one more than Rory.

[Dr. Manhattan]

17 minutes ago, brocks said:

The Euro Tour is apparently not happy about Tiger.  Not only is he third on their all-time wins list, but he is miles ahead of everyone else in career winnings.  Ten years or so ago, this was acknowledged on the official Euro Tour website, but now there's no mention of Tiger, and a footnote that only players who are official members of the Tour are listed.

Also interesting to note that if you don't count WGCs and majors, Tiger still has 8 wins in Euro tour events, which is one more than Rory.

 

They should be very glad his win rate fell off a cliff. Between WGC’s and majors, he was going to blow well past Seve’s 50 Euro wins. 

[iacas]

On the issue of Tiger Woods and Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs):

[MuniGrit]

I'll tell you who else Tiger has made millions and millions of dollars. Sports books and bookies over the past 20 years. Tiger fans always lay his bloated odds and the books clean up.

[nevets88]

 

 

 

[Zeph]

Tiger officially commits to the US Open at Shinnecock. WD ('95) and T17 ('04) in his previous two trips there.

— Ryan Lavner (@RyanLavnerGC) April 12, 2018

[ScouseJohnny]

On 4/10/2018 at 1:06 PM, MuniGrit said:

I'll tell you who else Tiger has made millions and millions of dollars. Sports books and bookies over the past 20 years. Tiger fans always lay his bloated odds and the books clean up.

Probably much more so in recent times than the last 20 years. Back in his prime, late '90s to 2008, he likely reduced their takings a bit: the odds on him in the majors were probably so short - 2/1 on - that in the majors he didn't win, the bookies likely didn't clean up much. His dominance probably discouraged other betting - not much point in betting in what you think will be a one-horse race, unless you're getting long odds on the one horse, or you are confident enough and bothered enough to back the others for a place. Among causal gamblers, outright win is always what they want to lay their money on. In the era of Tiger's dominance, people like Sergio were more likely the toast of the bookmakers' Christmas office party - I bet Sergio's provided many a bookie's vacation cruise.

Nowadays, though? Oh yeah, I think Tiger is providing a bookies' bonanza. Keep the odds short enough that it suggests he has a decent chance of winning, and just long enough to encourage romantic punters to think, "Oh, I could clean up here!" At present, for the remaining 3 majors of the year, most of the big bookies have him at 16/1. Right in the sweet spot for what I've just described.

Anyone who walks into Paddy Power to place a nostalgic or romantic bet deserves what he gets. A fool and his money, and all that...

Do I think Tiger could win another major, maybe even soon? Yes. Based on what I saw last weekend - the gulf between where he is and where the young guns are - am I brave enough to risk some of my hard-earned on it? No. No way.

Edited April 12, 2018 by ScouseJohnny

[iacas]

15 minutes ago, ScouseJohnny said:

Do I think Tiger could win another major, maybe even soon? Yes. Based on what I saw last weekend - the gulf between where he is and where the young guns are - am I brave enough to risk some of my hard-earned on it? No. No way.

It's one event.

Sergio Garcia went from winning to MCing. Billy Horschel won the FedExCup, but MCed. Perez MCed. Willett. Ted Potter. Steele. Sharma, Cantlay. Dufner. Schwartzel. Poulter barely made it, but won the week before.

It's one event.

[ScouseJohnny]

20 minutes ago, iacas said:

It's one event.

Sergio Garcia went from winning to MCing. Billy Horschel won the FedExCup, but MCed. Perez MCed. Willett. Ted Potter. Steele. Sharma, Cantlay. Dufner. Schwartzel. Poulter barely made it, but won the week before.

It's one event.

Sergio is 38. And I think he's won his one major. I was wrong about Poulter, if you'd asked me on Wednesday night last week, I'd have predicted: cut.

The issue isn't whether I think Tiger can win a major again (as I said, I think he can - maybe even will).

But there's a huge difference between looking at something with interest, and the other scenario of risking your money on it. One is genuine enthusiasm, the other is more clinical - and dispassionate.

If you absolutely forced me to place a bet, on, say, the British Open, I'd place it on Rory or Jordan in spite of their short odds, rather than Tiger at 16/1. At least I feel I might get my stake back and some pocket change that way. If I feel like a gamble, though, I might even think that Fleetwood at 28/1 is a much juicer prospect than Tiger at 16/1.

But would I fall down in shock to see Tiger picking up a Claret Jug later this year? Nope. Certainly not. Just not confident enough to put money on it.

 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2018 by ScouseJohnny

[Patch]

I watch Tiger's 4th round at the Masters on You Tube. It shows just about all his shots in about  7 or 8 minutes. 

That 4th round, Tiger looked like he played more relaxed, than the other three. Maybe since he was out of the winners circle, he just kicked back, and played his game.

Perhaps, if he  starts playing more relaxed, he will string together 4 rounds of winning golf. 

Jmo.....

 

 

Edited April 12, 2018 by Patch

[ScouseJohnny]

This may have been touched on among all the other variables considered in the Jack v Tiger thread, but something I've always pondered is extent to which the cream of the crop up their game for majors. What is the effect of the extra incentive, viz a viz a major v a regular tour event, irrespective of purse or other benefit?

It might be possible to measure (I haven't the time to do it myself), but, simply put, do the world's best golfers try harder and play better in majors? Whether consciously or subconsciously?

What I was trying to get at re: the bookies/gambling comments was this.

Imagine a data visualization instrument in which all the names of golfers likely to win majors this year are expressed, with the most likely winners clustered in the very center of the chart, and names appearing closer to the edge of the paper based upon how unlikely it is that they will win.

Draw a circle around the very center of the chart. There's your pool of most likely winners. Dustin, Rory, Jordan, etc.

A little further out, the Rickies of this world (competitive, but yet to win a major, which presents a question mark). Tiger is outside the very central cluster, too. He hasn't won a major in a decade.

On the fringes, the likes of Poulter - if he was going to win a major, I think he'd have done it by now. He has a realistic chance of winning, but he's not a likely winner. Which is why I never thought about him going into last week.

I know it sounds vaguely nebulous, but, in the case of Poulter, I don't see a very recent tour win as representing form for a major.

That circle around the central cluster represents the cream of the crop, in my mind - the pool of the most likely winners. The untested hypothesis is that some of them could play like total dogshit in a PGA Tour event  a week before a major, and then show up and turn on their greater (contemporary) talent for the major.

Edited April 12, 2018 by ScouseJohnny

[colin007]

2 hours ago, Patch said:

I watch Tiger's 4th round at the Masters on You Tube. It shows just about all his shots in about  7 or 8 minutes. 

That 4th round, Tiger looked like he played more relaxed, than the other three. Maybe since he was out of the winners circle, he just kicked back, and played his game.

Perhaps, if he  starts playing more relaxed, he will string together 4 rounds of winning golf. 

Jmo.....

It's been said by several here, myself included, that Tigs has difficulty bringing his range swing to the course, especially with his driver.

[Dakota Atkinson]

Of the 3 remaining majors, which course do you guys think suits Tiger the best? Shinnecock, Carnoustie, or Bellerive?

[onthehunt526]

34 minutes ago, Dakota Atkinson said:

Of the 3 remaining majors, which course do you guys think suits Tiger the best? Shinnecock, Carnoustie, or Bellerive?

Honestly... Probably Carnoustie. Sounds crazy, but I'd say Carnoustie.

[Zeph]

I don't spending money on betting, but if I was, I would never put it on a golfer winning a golf tournament. In team sports you can choose between two teams and often make a good case for it. Golf is individual and a player spends 16-20 hours winning it. No matter how much you look at form, previous history on the course etc. it's very difficult to guess. 

With enough people betting, I can't imagine the bookies ever struggling making their vacation money.

[RussUK]

6 hours ago, onthehunt526 said:

Honestly... Probably Carnoustie. Sounds crazy, but I'd say Carnoustie.

+1, but dont thinks its crazy at all. You hear a lot of pro's refer to many of the courses on the PGA tour as "Target Golf". Accuracy is way way up there. The links course, while tough thanks to conditions and location on or near the coast, alway seem to be a little more forgiving if a player is a touch "off" on his/her drives.

I know the trees of a parkland are replaced with gorse and heather but there is more margin for error. Just my opinion and i could be totally wrong.

Tiger's driving wasnt the best at the masters so i think a wide open course like Carnoustie might just give him more confidence off the tee. Plus, if the weather isnt great (its a British summer after all) then it levels the playing field.

[klineka]

13 hours ago, ScouseJohnny said:

It might be possible to measure (I haven't the time to do it myself), but, simply put, do the world's best golfers try harder and play better in majors? Whether consciously or subconsciously?

How can you measure subconscious "try harder" ?

It also depends on how you define "play better". Some (not all) major courses are more difficult (either by course design or course setup/conditions) than normal "non major" courses, so if you define "play better" as a lower overall score, I would have to lean towards, no, on average they probably dont play better, but its not really an equal playing field since it would be comparing scores on different courses.

13 hours ago, ScouseJohnny said:

Imagine a data visualization instrument in which all the names of golfers likely to win majors this year are expressed, with the most likely winners clustered in the very center of the chart, and names appearing closer to the edge of the paper based upon how unlikely it is that they will win.

Draw a circle around the very center of the chart. There's your pool of most likely winners. Dustin, Rory, Jordan, etc.

A little further out, the Rickies of this world (competitive, but yet to win a major, which presents a question mark). Tiger is outside the very central cluster, too. He hasn't won a major in a decade.

On the fringes, the likes of Poulter - if he was going to win a major, I think he'd have done it by now. He has a realistic chance of winning, but he's not a likely winner. Which is why I never thought about him going into last week.

I'm not really sure what this would accomplish, or how you would do it without bringing your opinion into play. How you might define that inner circle of players is different than how I would define it. You could say its the top 10 in the OWGR, but someone else could say their inner circle consists of the top 10 players in strokes gained tee to green, and someone else could make their inner circle a combination of things. 

Good chances are, if you would have made that visualization before the Masters, Patrick Reed would have been on the fringes as you defined it, like Poulter, yet Reed won and played really well.

I think that at least 75%, if not more, of the field every single week has a legitimate chance to win each tournament they enter, and the person that typically wins each week is one of the best putters out of the best ball strikers that week.