Greg Norman Says Players Content with Top 20s over Wins

[Silent]

Two things boggle my mind about this thread:

1.)  The fact that its 13 pages long...

2.) The fact that a lot of guys on here believe touring pros are impervious to human nature. Complacenecy is very much a part of human nature, even for people blessed with a lot of talent and work ethic.

Norman expressed his thoughts in an asinine manner and he definitely hasn't said much to garner likeability points with me (who was a big fan of his years ago) or anyone else, but that doens't necessarily make them wrong. I think he over-generalized a bit but he hasn't completely missed the mark.

From what I read, the point of that argument was as compared to a lot of people at people's work: they don't all work equally hard for it, since that's in human's nature. In light of that comparisation it was said that you can't compare tour pros to the 'regular' persons. Which makes sence, at my (and your) work we don't only hire the absolute best of the world, or people get to a certain level without maybe even giving it their all. Tour pros on the contrary are by definition the best of the best, and became tour pros because of their hard work, commitment, focus to win and perform their very best and as a result they became tour pros. So the selection is already been made and people with less talent, commitment and results already fell of the wagon. So saying that at your work not everybody is a hard working or having the ambition to get a better position (so why would it be different on the tour) is a comparisation with a serious flaw imho. (not that you said that, it was somebody else...)

[Golfingdad]

From what I read, the point of that argument was as compared to a lot of people at people's work: they don't all work equally hard for it, since that's in human's nature. In light of that comparisation it was said that you can't compare tour pros to the 'regular' persons. Which makes sense, at my (and your) work we don't only hire the absolute best of the world, or people get to a certain level without maybe even giving it their all. Tour pros on the contrary are by definition the best of the best, and became tour pros because of their hard work, commitment, focus to win and perform their very best and as a result they became tour pros. So the selection has already been made and people with less talent, commitment and results already fell off the wagon. So saying that at your work not everybody is hard working or having the ambition to get a better position (so why would it be different on the tour) is a comparison with a serious flaw imho. (not that you said that, it was somebody else...)

QFT, especially the bold.

[turtleback]

Yes, Yes I do. And, it doesn’t matter. Norman was #1 in the world. He has the right and privilege to make remarks about winning and ascending to #1. He did it. He knows how.

He can be the judge and jury. He’s pompous for that very fact. He is the epitome of his own former # 1 arrogance. You know what – I like Greg Norman.

Re: You have absolutely no evidence that the guys in Norman's era worked anywhere near as hard as these guys work. Tiger brought a new appreciation of fitness to the Tour and guys have been busting their butt every since.

No evidence?? WHAT? Norman was a physical fitness maniac his whole career. He was and is an avid runner, weight-lighter and tennis player.

He’s crazy about good nutrition as well.

Re: Everyone on the exempt list is a great player. Everyone works hard.

No one disputes that. I’ve said it 5 times in this very thread.

Not everyone that plays on tour is good enough to be a consistent winner. Look at Fred Couples – don’t get me wrong he’s awesome, but he is one lazy bastard and fell into the funny world of false love and bad relationships. He used to get 1M bucks to show up and play 18 holes in Turkey. He was a silly season staple. His true potential will never be known. He should have won 25 more times. For pete’s sake his biography was called, Golf’s Reluctant Superstar. I am saying that it is completely within human nature human for someone like a pro golfer to have all of the talent and choose to settle for the middle once the money starts rolling in.

Point 1:  The only thing his comments reveal is how insecure the guy really is, deep down.

Point 2:  I said you have no evidence that the guys in Norman's era worked as hard as the current guy.  Your response makes no sense in light of what I ACTUALLY said.  I do not know what Norman's fitness level has to do with how hard the other players of his era worked.  And frankly I doubt if Norman would even be more than average fit by the standards of today's pros, whereas he clearly stood out in his own era.  A fact with obvious implications which you will steadfastly ignore.

Norman was lifting weights and maintaining good fitness at a very early age, prior to being on tour.

And he got a lot of attention for it, just as Gary Player did in an earlier era (oops, I think Gary would dispute Greg's claim that he was the first one to care about fitness).  And WHY did they get this attention?  Because they were relatively unique.  They stood out precisely because the other guys of their era DIDN'T do these things.

Not like guys these days. Not nearly.

Guys in my day would just as soon lift a 12 ounce can as hit more balls. They NEVER visited the gym. It changed a bit during the 80s and 90s and keeps getting more and more serious.

But Greg did not work out nearly as much as the guys in the middle of the 125 today.

What the hell do you know about it?  You just played against these guys.

Yes, I know.

Phil said: "But Greg did not work out nearly as much as the guys in the middle of the 125 today."

That's inaccurate. Why? The Shark probably worked out more, and not as a reaction to the new level of fitness The Tiger brought to golf, but because that was an integral part of Mr. Norman's healthy lifestyle prior to, during, and after his career in golf.

How do you know it is inaccurate.  You give all this credibility to Greg, but Phil played with these guys and knows way more about it than you do.  What is the FACTUAL basis for your claim?

I didn't think so.  You argue against things no one ever said and you make flat assertions without a scintilla of evidence.

Any of these guys can be the best…... if only. We’ve all known someone personally that has succumbed to the secular things in life.

It’s pure selfishness.

Fred Couples, prior to being # 1, got some advice from his mentor and pal, Ray Floyd. Ray told him, “to win Fred you do not need to be the best or play your best, you just need to shoot the lowest score.” Read Norman’s article and think about that. It doesn’t matter if you’re big, small, fat or tall – if you shoot the lowest score – you win.

First point:  what nonsense.  It takes a lot more than hard work and effort to reach the top and be the best. You DO realize that only one guy can be the best while lot and lots of guys can avoid succumbing to temptations, can work hard, can be utterly dedicated.

As to Fred Couples, this as to be one of the most ridiculous points raised in this article.  Next thing we know they will say Tiger wasn't motivated because he played so little in 2008.  But what a lazy bum Couples was, laying there in bed recovering from back surgery rather than being out there beating balls.

You DO understand that Couples had a bad back and he had to manage his physical exertions?  A laid back attitude is not the same as not working hard.  Personally I think the guy did a hell of a job given the physical limitations he was under.  With Norman's body he probably would have won a half dozen majors.

Which is another problem with the argument that was raised by you to Gunther about some players only hitting hundreds of balls while other hit thousands of balls.  That is an absurd way of measuring work.  One guy may get more real work done hitting a hundred balls as another does hitting 1000 balls.  Maybe the guy hitting 1000 is working on something significant whereas the guy hit 100 is just working on maintenance because is swing is in a good place.

But damn, I'm glad you filled us in on that whole Lowest Score Wins thing.  You should tell @iacas about that insight.  I think he might be able to make a book out of it.  LOL

[dkolo]

The mental gymnastics that people have gone through in this thread are absolutely staggering. Instead of just acknowledging that Norman's claims are without merit because 1) players today work extremely hard, 2) players on Tour today have to work harder than players on Tour did in Norman's era to achieve comparable results, and 3) these complacent players on Tour that are constantly being argued over are unicorns; fabrications of people incorrectly analogizing their own experiences onto the highest-level athletes.

As a result of that obstinacy, we get diversions into character assassination of Tour players, misrepresentations of Tour player's routines, and bizarre comments about seeking mentorships.

So I'd like to, once again, clearly state the position that some others in this thread have misunderstood or tried to undercut:

- Tour players, by and large are not complacent. The reasons why they are not complacent are because either 1) players who would be complacent get weeded out by not making the Tour in the first place or 2) fall off the Tour because the high level of competition prevents those who just go through the motions from remaining on Tour. I want to clarify why I qualified that with "by and large": it's not an invitation to say "well those are the guys I'm talking about!" The ones who may be complacent are the ones who are falling off the Tour.

- What some people in this thread have incorrectly labeled "complacency" is actually "it's hard to succeed on Tour and even harder to sustain success on Tour," with success in this case being winning.

- Players on Tour do not avoid winning. They do not win and intentionally coast. The fallacy of the one-and-done player who coasts is stupid because it misunderstands the exempt status Tour wins provide.

- Players throughout the Tour field put in countless hours that are not appreciated by the viewers because those aren't shown on TV. An average player who never even sniffs a win will often have swing coaches, strength and conditioning coaches, and sports psychologists on their payroll because that's the level of commitment needed to just be on Tour.

So, simply put, Norman's comments , while they may or may not have been true in his day, are objectively false with respect to today's Tour . His status as a legend of the game does not counter that. If anything, his extensive experience with a different version of the Tour has made him unwilling to examine the massive changes that have happened in the intervening decades.

[Ferguson]

Point 1:  The only thing his comments reveal is how insecure the guy really is, deep down. Point 2:  I said you have no evidence that the guys in Norman's era worked as hard as the current guy.  Your response makes no sense in light of what I ACTUALLY said.  I do not know what Norman's fitness level has to do with how hard the other players of his era worked.  And frankly I doubt if Norman would even be more than average fit by the standards of today's pros, whereas he clearly stood out in his own era.  A fact with obvious implications which you will steadfastly ignore. And he got a lot of attention for it, just as Gary Player did in an earlier era (oops, I think Gary would dispute Greg's claim that he was the first one to care about fitness).  And WHY did they get this attention?  Because they were relatively unique.  They stood out precisely because the other guys of their era DIDN'T do these things.   What the hell do you know about it?  You just played against these guys. How do you know it is inaccurate.  You give all this credibility to Greg, but Phil played with these guys and knows way more about it than you do.  What is the FACTUAL basis for your claim? I didn't think so.  You argue against things no one ever said and you make flat assertions without a scintilla of evidence. First point:  what nonsense.  It takes a lot more than hard work and effort to reach the top and be the best. You DO realize that only one guy can be the best while lot and lots of guys can avoid succumbing to temptations, can work hard, can be utterly dedicated. As to Fred Couples, this as to be one of the most ridiculous points raised in this article.  Next thing we know they will say Tiger wasn't motivated because he played so little in 2008.  But what a lazy bum Couples was, laying there in bed recovering from back surgery rather than being out there beating balls. You DO understand that Couples had a bad back and he had to manage his physical exertions?  A laid back attitude is not the same as not working hard.  Personally I think the guy did a hell of a job given the physical limitations he was under.  With Norman's body he probably would have won a half dozen majors.   Which is another problem with the argument that was raised by you to Gunther about some players only hitting hundreds of balls while other hit thousands of balls.  That is an absurd way of measuring work.  One guy may get more real work done hitting a hundred balls as another does hitting 1000 balls.  Maybe the guy hitting 1000 is working on something significant whereas the guy hit 100 is just working on maintenance because is swing is in a good place.   But damn, I'm glad you filled us in on that whole Lowest Score Wins thing.  You should tell @iacas about that insight.  I think he might be able to make a book out of it.  LOL

I guess it’s fair to say we don’t really see eye to eye on this topic. I know it’s not always the best practice to speculate but do you think this discussion would have taken a different path had the comments come from someone other than Greg Norman - say, Peter Kostis or someone like that?

[dkolo]

I guess it’s fair to say we don’t really see eye to eye on this topic. I know it’s not always the best practice to speculate but do you think this discussion would have taken a different path had the comments come from someone other than Greg Norman - say, Peter Kostis or someone like that?

The only people who seem to care that it was Norman saying this as opposed to anyone else are the ones defending his comments. Those of us who disagree with you don't care and have largely made substantive counterarguments. I literally attach no more or less value to the statements because they were made by Norman. They're wrong regardless of who said them.

[Ferguson]

The only people who seem to care that it was Norman saying this as opposed to anyone else are the ones defending his comments. Those of us who disagree with you don't care and have largely made substantive counterarguments. I literally attach no more or less value to the statements because they were made by Norman. They're wrong regardless of who said them.

I think you explained your thoughts and observations very clearly on this matter. After reading an article in Forbes a few months back about a golfer trying to make it on tour, I gained a greater appreciation for the TOTAL COST involved of trying to make it. Human cost, travel cost, and monetary cost – and I understand it’s no bed of roses. May I clarify something with you and in my own brain? I do realize that times have changed and the tour of today is a different place than that of the tour when Greg was active – I’m with you on that one. Notwithstanding that they have made courses longer and jacked up the balls and every US OPEN has a 500 yard PAR-4 hole now - would you agree with me that the sport of golf, 18 holes and lowest score wins after 4-days, hasn’t changed a bit? If so, then we can say that golf is a game of eras and comparing eras or folks from different eras is like comparing apples to oranges.

[Phil McGleno]

I guess it’s fair to say we don’t really see eye to eye on this topic know it’s not always the best practice to speculate but do you think this discussion would have taken a different path had the comments come from someone other than Greg Norman - say, Peter Kostis or someone like that?

Says the guy who has had all of his supposed facts destroyed and his arguments picked to pieces. I could not care less who said the comments. As someone said upthread that is a lie you are telling yourself to justify the contrary opinions. BTW even the "rabbits" on the PGA Tour in the 60s or 70s worked less than the guys in the top 50 do these days, and not just by a little.

[cubdog]

I guess it’s fair to say we don’t really see eye to eye on this topic. I know it’s not always the best practice to speculate but do you think this discussion would have taken a different path had the comments come from someone other than Greg Norman - say, Peter Kostis or someone like that?

Peter Kostis wouldn't say anything akin to Norman's comments. He's much smarter than that.

[Quadhole]

Being a player does not make you a good analyst automatically. They might have some insights, but they're often absolutely wrong. Take ball flights: legendary players on TV would talk at length about how to shape balls based on what their feels were, but analysis by those pesky "guys who've never played the game" (and lots of guys who have as well) proved the players dead wrong. They thought they knew something, but they didn't, and still made it work. You see this in other sports. Joe Morgan was a legendary second baseman. Probably the best to ever play the game. But his analysis on TV was so staggeringly wrong and narrative- as opposed to fact-based, it's the stuff of legend. Comments like Normans are narrative-based and I would argue that that narrative is self-serving and self-aggrandizing: by implication, he's a guy who out-worked and out-desired the field. Maybe. Probably he had more talent as a baseline and that didn't hurt him any either. I don't even doubt that he may have out-worked some players then. Just that that is really unlikely now because everybody is busting their asses in the gym and on launch monitors, etc. Thank Tiger for that.

And for the love of God, please don't make the argument of "well, let's just compromise and meet in the middle." Sometimes a position is wrong and isn't defensible. If I say 3+3 is 6 and someone says it's 4, is it a reasonable thing to agree to split the difference? I'm happy to have discussions but there needs to be concrete evidence brought in. Pushing narratives and platitudes is facile.

Bringing in evidence would be impossible. You will never get any golfer to admit what Greg said. Although everyone know it to be true. Just like you will never get a married man to admit his wife is fat, or that he has cheated, or that he would like to given the chance. Or something he may do to himself in private. It is one of those line we have learned not to cross, as we become more and more social with our lives. It takes a retired millionaire to speak up and when he does, everyone calls him out for telling the truth.

I am not debating this because it is true. No doubt some of these guys hate fighting week in and week out for the TOP SPOT. I read one of the post here about one hit wonders and them backing off, I dont believe that at all and those guys wish they had their MOJO..

I dont wake up everyday ready for battle, making more calls each day to gain market share, but some days I do.

I dont even consider it a question of if, I consider it a fact and these guys cant state what they think... If they did the PGA would chastise them, so would everyone on twitter and guys like Ian Poulter would come out and lie the opposite, I try 125% every shot, blah blah... looking to up their image..

Here is a list of cruiser, not that they wouldn't love to win, just being a multimillionair is good enough for now ... Spelling dont count... :)

Sabbatini

Mcdowell

oosthutzien

Perez

This is the type I think are doing it. Now, don't get me wrong, it is not like I think they dont want to win, and if they shot a good first round, I think they would try harer their second round and so on. If they shot a 73 on saturday, then I know they are going for the money.

This type of thing comes down to how you feel I guess. I think it is a fact, and your the type that needs proof. THat is OK... I did not grow up with money. I seen a lot of low life people do really bad things. Most people would never mention the things they think about from time to time. I knid of hate that about TV, twitter, etc. Every interview with golfers, football coaches, etc. sound the same.  You can interchage them between golfers and you could never tell who was who. For guys that have a bad day on the green it goes like...  Hello Tiger, how do you feel about your round today... "I hit the ball well but could get it rolling well on the green" Or any form of that, quoted a little different, etc... If the greens were bad would one state : "The greens sucked today and it wasn't just me that noticed it, we like the guys that run the corse here, but they need to do a better job" The golfer would say it to his caddie, and to his playing partner, even unquoted to an announcer. So why can't I hear his true feelings ? Because someone out there has determined that you always have to PRETEND you are someone you are not.... Or at least until you are retired.... I think Gary Player is a real high road guy, and think he means it.... Always what is best for golf...

I just hate all the fake BS...

[Golfingdad]

Peter Kostis wouldn't say anything akin to Norman's comments. He's much smarter than that.

The more I think about it, though, in the hypothetical, if he did, I think it might resonate a lot MORE and turn out to more controversial.

Because, unlike Norman, Kostis is in touch with todays players and is out there every day with these guys, and also because Kostis doesn't really have anything to gain by saying it (quite the opposite, in fact.)

[dkolo]

I think you explained your thoughts and observations very clearly on this matter.

After reading an article in Forbes a few months back about a golfer trying to make it on tour, I gained a greater appreciation for the TOTAL COST involved of trying to make it. Human cost, travel cost, and monetary cost – and I understand it’s no bed of roses.

May I clarify something with you and in my own brain? I do realize that times have changed and the tour of today is a different place than that of the tour when Greg was active – I’m with you on that one. Notwithstanding that they have made courses longer and jacked up the balls and every US OPEN has a 500 yard PAR-4 hole now - would you agree with me that the sport of golf, 18 holes and lowest score wins after 4-days, hasn’t changed a bit? If so, then we can say that golf is a game of eras and comparing eras or folks from different eras is like comparing apples to oranges.

I don't understand the logical path from "the game hasn't changed" to "therefore we can't compare eras." So I'm not sure I understand your statement to agree or disagree.

I would say that you can make some comparisons between eras, but you have to be aware of differences in making those comparisons. There have been threads on here that have tried to run statistical analyses to compare Tiger's and Jack's eras, attempting to normalize for the differences. So comparing is possible, but you're limited in what conclusions you can draw based on those comparisons.

[Gunther]

Says the guy who has had all of his supposed facts destroyed and his arguments picked to pieces. I could not care less who said the comments. As someone said upthread that is a lie you are telling yourself to justify the contrary opinions. BTW even the "rabbits" on the PGA Tour in the 60s or 70s worked less than the guys in the top 50 do these days, and not just by a little.

Yeah, not sure about your 1st sentence. No one here has the facts. Some may have more recent and closer insight than others but everyone here is speculating and generalizing. You don't know the mindset of every player on tour nor their work ethic. I'm certainly not saying anyone on tour is slothful, which I think some of you believe is what Norman said. I didn't interpret it that way. I agree they put in the hours to get where they are, some more than others based on their talent level. But there are those that are truly driven and it's not all 150 out there. I've come to think it is probably more than the 20 I indicated earlier, based on comments from mvmac and iacas. But where I think your argument is undercut is believing everyone out there is immortal, impervious to the human frailties that plague us all. I follow Poults on Twitter. I can tell you, he's a busy guy, with a lot of business commitments, charity, family, etc. He is simply not working as hard on his game year-round as Rory is. I think this is an example of who Norman might be referring to, although that is speculation. I don't fault Poulter, as I said, he's busy, I have no doubt that he works hard on his game but hard is relative. If he put in the time VJ used to, could he be top 5? Maybe. But he's balancing a lot of things and I admire him nonetheless. Another example of someone I admire greatly: Erik Compton. I do know for a fact he doesn't work on his game as much as some because he said it in an interview. He cannot due to his health issues. I don't think Norman referred to him in any way but I use him to demonstrate my point. He doesn't practice much, almost not at all during a tournament because he's so worn out from walking 18. Imagine if he didn't have those problems and had the same drive as Tiger? Could he be top 10? Perhaps. There are degrees of hard work, sure it took a lot to get out there, things happen in life to cause you to change your priorities. Again, it's human nature, something to which none of these dudes are immune. For some of you to get angry and throw insults at people with opposing viewpoints on a topic as insignificant as this is quite sad and I guess a reflection of the times.

[Ferguson]

The more I think about it, though, in the hypothetical, if he did, I think it might resonate a lot MORE and turn out to more controversial. Because, unlike Norman, Kostis is in touch with todays players and is out there every day with these guys, and also because Kostis doesn't really have anything to gain by saying it (quite the opposite, in fact.)

Exactly. Thank you very much for seeing my point. The source must always be considered. At least Norman is genuine and not a bobble head for the top brass at the PGA. We expect something like this from Norman. That’s why I defended him. If Kostis said this, we’d be like, “I’d think Kostis had a few cocktails before giving that interview. “

[Ferguson]

I don't understand the logical path from "the game hasn't changed" to "therefore we can't compare eras." So I'm not sure I understand your statement to agree or disagree. I would say that you can make some comparisons between eras, but you have to be aware of differences in making those comparisons. There have been threads on here that have tried to run statistical analyses to compare Tiger's and Jack's eras, attempting to normalize for the differences. So comparing is possible, but you're limited in what conclusions you can draw based on those comparisons.

I'm asking you: Golf for tour pros is still a footrace to shoot the lowest score over 4 days, is it not?

[Ferguson]

Yeah, not sure about your 1st sentence. No one here has the facts. Some may have more recent and closer insight than others but everyone here is speculating and generalizing. You don't know the mindset of every player on tour nor their work ethic. I'm certainly not saying anyone on tour is slothful, which I think some of you believe is what Norman said. I didn't interpret it that way. I agree they put in the hours to get where they are, some more than others based on their talent level. But there are those that are truly driven and it's not all 150 out there. I've come to think it is probably more than the 20 I indicated earlier, based on comments from mvmac and iacas. But where I think your argument is undercut is believing everyone out there is immortal, impervious to the human frailties that plague us all. I follow Poults on Twitter. I can tell you, he's a busy guy, with a lot of business commitments, charity, family, etc. He is simply not working as hard on his game year-round as Rory is. I think this is an example of who Norman might be referring to, although that is speculation. I don't fault Poulter, as I said, he's busy, I have no doubt that he works hard on his game but hard is relative. If he put in the time VJ used to, could he be top 5? Maybe. But he's balancing a lot of things and I admire him nonetheless. Another example of someone I admire greatly: Erik Compton. I do know for a fact he doesn't work on his game as much as some because he said it in an interview. He cannot due to his health issues. I don't think Norman referred to him in any way but I use him to demonstrate my point. He doesn't practice much, almost not at all during a tournament because he's so worn out from walking 18. Imagine if he didn't have those problems and had the same drive as Tiger? Could he be top 10? Perhaps. There are degrees of hard work, sure it took a lot to get out there, things happen in life to cause you to change your priorities. Again, it's human nature, something to which none of these dudes are immune. For some of you to get angry and throw insults at people with opposing viewpoints on a topic as insignificant as this is quite sad and I guess a reflection of the times.

I agree with much of this. There is no unequivocal common thread amongst these players in terms of being hardwired for success. For every 100 people, there are 100 different standards of success. For every 100 people, there are 100 different ways they stack their priorities.

[dkolo]

Bringing in evidence would be impossible. You will never get any golfer to admit what Greg said. Although everyone know it to be true. Just like you will never get a married man to admit his wife is fat, or that he has cheated, or that he would like to given the chance. Or something he may do to himself in private. It is one of those line we have learned not to cross, as we become more and more social with our lives. It takes a retired millionaire to speak up and when he does, everyone calls him out for telling the truth.

You're starting off by stating that no one with personal knowledge would come out and support your position. But we should take your word that everyone knows your position is true. This is not a promising start.

I am not debating this because it is true.

OK, well, thanks for stopping by.

No doubt some of these guys hate fighting week in and week out for the TOP SPOT. I read one of the post here about one hit wonders and them backing off, I dont believe that at all and those guys wish they had their MOJO..

I dont wake up everyday ready for battle, making more calls each day to gain market share, but some days I do.

I know it's most easy for you to analyze situations by analogizing them to your personal experiences, you need to understand that that's an imperfect exercise and, in cases like this, gives you the wrong answer.

I dont even consider it a question of if, I consider it a fact and these guys cant state what they think... If they did the PGA would chastise them, so would everyone on twitter and guys like Ian Poulter would come out and lie the opposite, I try 125% every shot, blah blah... looking to up their image..

Ian Poulter saying he tries 125% is a lie if only because of mathematical fundamentals. I have really little doubt that guy tries really effing hard though. Like, of the guys you could pick to say he's a liar for saying he tries really hard, you've picked maybe the worst one.

Here is a list of cruiser, not that they wouldn't love to win, just being a multimillionair is good enough for now ... Spelling dont count... :)

Sabbatini

Mcdowell

oosthutzien

Perez

This is the type I think are doing it. Now, don't get me wrong, it is not like I think they dont want to win, and if they shot a good first round, I think they would try harer their second round and so on. If they shot a 73 on saturday, then I know they are going for the money.

How did you choose this list? I don't have strong opinions of these guys one way or the other, but I'm fascinated to know why you think these guys are cruisers? Other than they haven't won recently.

This type of thing comes down to how you feel I guess. I think it is a fact, and your the type that needs proof. THat is OK...

Translation: "I mistake my intuition for facts, and you require proof of facts. That is OK."

I did not grow up with money. I seen a lot of low life people do really bad things. Most people would never mention the things they think about from time to time. I knid of hate that about TV, twitter, etc. Every interview with golfers, football coaches, etc. sound the same.  You can interchage them between golfers and you could never tell who was who. For guys that have a bad day on the green it goes like...  Hello Tiger, how do you feel about your round today... "I hit the ball well but could get it rolling well on the green" Or any form of that, quoted a little different, etc... If the greens were bad would one state : "The greens sucked today and it wasn't just me that noticed it, we like the guys that run the corse here, but they need to do a better job" The golfer would say it to his caddie, and to his playing partner, even unquoted to an announcer. So why can't I hear his true feelings ? Because someone out there has determined that you always have to PRETEND you are someone you are not.... Or at least until you are retired.... I think Gary Player is a real high road guy, and think he means it.... Always what is best for golf...

I just hate all the fake BS...

http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/golf/article12897536.html

Bubba Watson, even though he is well up the leaderboard in a tie for fourth place, doesn’t always appreciate the newer, tougher Blue Monster course at Trump National Doral.

“The golf course, no, I can’t stand the golf course,” Watson said after shooting 3-under-par 69 on Friday in the WGC-Cadillac Championship at Trump National Doral

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/golf/article12897536.html#storylink=cpy

[...] It’s pretty bad that you can hit two perfect shots and the ball can go in the water because of a ridiculous green design that’s really just terrible,” Holmes said. “The shape of the green is fine, and it’s not that wide anyways. Why you would put a giant hump in the middle of it to make a ball go in the water … it’s stupid. The golf course is hard enough. You don’t have to do that.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/sports/golf/article12897536.html#storylink=cpy

So there's that.

[dkolo]

I'm asking you:

Golf for tour pros is still a footrace to shoot the lowest score over 4 days, is it not?

Sure. Or however many rounds the tournament is, if we're being pedantic.