Tiger Woods Today

[rastajenk]

I was, and I'm with POT on this one. I watched a lot of Th-Fri-Sat action; I wanted to get into an exciting Sunday finish. I like watching good players struggle with difficult courses that can produce unexpected results. By Sunday, though, the results were thoroughly predictably....bad. It was tedious.

In the 2002 Kentucky Derby, War Emblem led Perfect Drift and Proud Citizen all the way around, and nothing else did anything to alter the outcome. Few can claim it was an exciting Derby. All big events can throw a clunker sometimes...in my humble yet peerless opinion , this Open was one.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

I thought it was an absolute snoozer on Sunday. I swept the back porch, hoed the garden, and was still looking for something to do to occupy time until the last groups were on the final holes. And by then the winner was chillin' in the house.

A late run by Woods would have been welcome relief. Of course, the way he crashed on Saturday, his run would have been over by about 7:00. So it still would have been a snoozer.

To a point I agree with you.
As I said above Johnny Miller saved the show from being a disaster.
One of the problems that put a damper on the experience for me was the time frame.
It was Father's Day.
Our evening was warm and sunny a good time to barbeque.
With the family over, I did not want to spend the evening watching golf.
I would have enjoyed it more had the whole presentation ended 2 hours earlier.

[DJofSD]

What, no DVR?

Geeze, the golf world seems to be divided about west coast tournaments. Some really liked being able to watch real time in prime time. Then others complain about it running late, needing to go to work the next morning, and now, don't interfer with my family BBQ. Really?

[Canarsie]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

To a point I agree with you.
As I said above Johnny Miller saved the show from being a disaster.
One of the problems that put a damper on the experience for me was the time frame.
It was Father's Day.
Our evening was warm and sunny a good time to barbeque.
With the family over, I did not want to spend the evening watching golf.
I would have enjoyed it more had the whole presentation ended 2 hours earlier.

Ratings were exceptional my hunch is they would love for it to be on the west coast every year. Having said that I agree 100% that being with family is far more important.

U.S. Open Prime Time TV Ratings on NBC Rise 29% as Simpson Wins

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...E901-M5TNJ.DTL

[Jay Trotter]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

I was, and I'm with POT on this one. I watched a lot of Th-Fri-Sat action; I wanted to get into an exciting Sunday finish. I like watching good players struggle with difficult courses that can produce unexpected results. By Sunday, though, the results were thoroughly predictably....bad. It was tedious.

In the 2002 Kentucky Derby, War Emblem led Perfect Drift and Proud Citizen all the way around, and nothing else did anything to alter the outcome. Few can claim it was an exciting Derby. All big events can throw a clunker sometimes...in my humble yet peerless opinion , this Open was one.

Actually, some "good" players did step up and post outstanding efforts including Webb Simpson's 68, Michael Thompson's 67, and amateur Jordon Speith's 70. Unfortunately, these players weren't the big name players we expected to light it up. The fact that Furyk, McDowell, etc. blew up shouldn't take away from the ones who withstood the pressure.

Part of the problem might be the way the media focuses their coverage leading up to the final putt. A good example would be the fine coverage Beau Hossler received with a host of neat storylines while Jordon Speith was all but ignored. For the most part the same thing happened to Webb Simpson. He was ignored to a great extent and somehow emerged on top when the dust settled.

The TV coverage needs to make each player's story part of the telecast -- give us a reason to root for them. Often they treat the non-Tiger Woods, non-Phil Michelson's as if they're the Washington Generals or the guy in Pro Wrestling who always loses. If we knew the backstories and the battles some of these guys endured just to get to the tournament we might look at their efforts a bit differently.

That's my take but if someone indicates they were "not entertained" sufficiently, then who is anyone else to say they are wrong!

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by DJofSD

What, no DVR?

Geeze, the golf world seems to be divided about west coast tournaments. Some really liked being able to watch real time in prime time. Then others complain about it running late, needing to go to work the next morning, and now, don't interfer with my family BBQ. Really?

Of course I used the DVR to watch the end of it.
But some of my family watched the end and I had to ask them not to tell me the outcome.
I played it back later that evening as it would be impossible to avoid the radio/tv/newspaper reporting of it.
Would you like to watch the DVR for the Kentucky Derby or watch it live?
Don't tell me that it doesn't matter. To me it does.

[delayjf]

my hunch is they would love for it to be on the west coast every year.

If I was the golf god it would be at Pebble beach every year, The British Open would be a St Andrews every year, and they could play the PGA at a different location every year.

[PhantomOnTour]

Originally Posted by DJofSD

Were you aware of the nature of the course before watching?

Yes...why can't guys hit the fairway off the tee?

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour

Yes...why can't guys hit the fairway off the tee?

Those fairways are quite a bit narrower than what 95% of us are used to.
To get an idea hold your hand out at arms length and close the two middle fingers.
The space remaining between the forefinger and little finger will give you an idea of the width of an average fairway as it tapers away in 3 dimension.
Then hold your hand out again, this time closing your ring finger and the little finger.
Looking between the forefinger and the long finger will give you an idea as to the sight that the pros are facing.
Of course at the U.S. open 1 foot off the fairway and you're in deep rough.

[PhantomOnTour]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Those fairways are quite a bit narrower than what 95% of us are used to.
To get an idea hold your hand out at arms length and close the two middle fingers.
The space remaining between the forefinger and little finger will give you an idea of the width of an average fairway as it tapers away in 3 dimension.
Then hold your hand out again, this time closing your ring finger and the little finger.
Looking between the forefinger and the long finger will give you an idea as to the sight that the pros are facing.
Of course at the U.S. open 1 foot off the fairway and you're in deep rough.

I know the rough in the US Open is deep...there's no first cut.
All the reason more to make sure you hit the fairway and these guys couldn't do it.
I chalk it up to nothing more than pressure.
The best golfers in the world can hit it straight and land in the fairway, unless they have to ask their knees to please not knock.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour

I know the rough in the US Open is deep...there's no first cut.
All the reason more to make sure you hit the fairway and these guys couldn't do it.
I chalk it up to nothing more than pressure.
The best golfers in the world can hit it straight and land in the fairway, unless they have to ask their knees to please not knock.

Oh. Don't get me wrong. I thought Furyk....probably "choked."
Having said that most pros do not hit straight shots on drives.
They say it's one of the hardest things to do.

[PhantomOnTour]

"Hitting it straight" was not the best term i could have used.
What i meant is...the best golfers in the world should be able to hit the fairway...by draw, fade or whatever.
This tourney seemed like it was won only because someone had to win it.
IMO it just wasn't good golf.

[DJofSD]

First, the fairways are narrow to begin with, and, they become even narrower where a ball typically would land at about 270 yards from the tee box.

Next, none of those fairways are level. The course is built on the side of a sand dune. The end result is a course that not only is canted but there's a bend or out and out dogleg. The insult on top of injury is the slope of the fairway is away from the bend making it even harder to keep the ball in play -- dogleg right will have a slope from high side on the right to low on the left.

So you might have been disappointed the fairways hit was low. But remember, where the ball first lands is not how that stat is measured, it is where the ball stops. And on that course, sure, the ball might hit the fairway but quiet often it rolls into the rough.

[DJofSD]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour

"Hitting it straight" was not the best term i could have used.
What i meant is...the best golfers in the world should be able to hit the fairway...by draw, fade or whatever.
This tourney seemed like it was won only because someone had to win it.
IMO it just wasn't good golf.

Well, there's good golf and then there's exciting golf.

Sounds like you wanted the latter.

[melman]

DJ--I liked this year's setup just fine. The best players on a very tough course. However in review take a look at the final numbers. Holes 1 thrue 6 is where "the course" did all it's damage. I believe the field was a combined 1,200 OVER PAR for those holes. I think the USGA went overboard on the set up of those holes. The Masters remains my favorite. When great players hit great shots they can get rewarded with birdies or an eagle. I can see it both ways and enjoy it both ways. But I also think it would be more interesting for the casual viewer to see some below par scores.