aperson

Mickelson shot 31 on the front yesterday. So Woods' 31 doesn't undoubtedly elevate him above Els, Mickelson, etc. and let you say "Tiger's back" (although I do get that feeling).

Grammatically, "that" can refer to "putting together some good shots for 9 holes." Come on, Rugger was clearly just saying that 9 good holes does not necessarily indicate a long-term trend. I mean Rugger even winked after he said that... (And sean_miller just said something a little off topic akin to "Tiger Woods is better at golf than you." )

Just about the story posted earlier ("The following was posted on another forum purportedly by a friend of Tiger's agent, Mark Steinberg.") iacas is right to be suspicious: http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/ask_...oods_true.html

Still, Sergio was first in scoring average last year with rather average putting stats, so he must be a very good "scoring" ball-striker? Also Sergio (or maybe it was Paddy) said a while back that while Paddy is well-suited for short game, Sergio is naturally well-suited at long game, aka ballstriking.

$0 Just google it. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_PGA_gol...s_they_play_in Here's an example: http://carolinas.pga.com/gui/pgacaro...nQualEntry.pdf

The "Break 100" at the US Open gives some raw numbers: e.g. Lauer scraped by with a 100 on the par-71 course despite playing with a 6.2 handicap index. He came back from an early quad and a series of double bogeys to make a par 5 on the final hole. Compare that to golfers which qualified to the US Open e.g. Philippe Gasnier plays on mini tours and shot +19 (86 - 75) after two days. Woods of course was under par after 4 rounds.