By: Brian Gabrielle
8/9/2006 7:18:46 AM
I can understand when people, on air and around the water cooler, call for a worthy adversary for Tiger. I was a Celtics fan when I was a kid in the 80s.
I saw them win three championships out of five. That was sweet for many reasons, at or near the top of which is that they had their adversary. The Lakers and Celtics met head-to-head in the finals three times, the fast breakers from the West beating the half court offense of the East two to one.
Name another sport, even non-team sports like golf, and you'll find such rivalries. Yet I don't understand this strong sentiment to dethrone Tiger because Tiger, like Muhammad Ali, is in a class by himself and should be appreciated as such while his in his prime, which could last another ten years.
Can't we appreciate what we're seeing as not just a once in a generation phenomenon, but maybe a once in a lifetime phenomenon. Once ever?
I've been curious as to why Tiger has tinkered with his swing. And each time we've seen him continue apace of his ridiculous standards. We're now seeing the full fruits of the second overhaul.
There's a Russian hockey team of the 80s, machine-like approach with Tiger, and I can understand why people would root for the underdog Mickelson, who's Gumby to Tiger's steel. Mike Eruzione isn't walking through the door of this analogy.
Can't we stand back and admire the winning strategy Tiger employed last month in England, where he essentially won ugly (if long drives are pretty)?
He played the Open like Phil McConkey used to run routes and return kicks---whatever it takes.
Ali's rope-a-dope is considered brilliant strategy.It wasn't the most exciting strategy, or prettiest,but he did what he thought he had to do to win.
Larry Bird wasn't always (or even often) the prettiest guy out there, but he would sooner eat Michael Cooper's socks than lose . to anyone.
If you can't appreciate a guy who finds a way to win,who pulls it out in dramatic, nearly desperate fashion (16th hole at Augusta, 2005), or who hangs back 100 yards and beats the field anyway (Open, last month),who can you appreciate? By the time a youngster comes along to seriously challenge him---none of the top players in the world now have consistently proven to be up to the task---you'll have missed the boat.
This week's International in Colorado uses the Modified Stableford scoring system, which has just been added to the math portion of the SAT. All I know is birdies are worth more than bogeys, two-to-one,meaning birdies are worth two points, bogeys worth minus one. Wait, so it's more than a 2-1 spread. Or is it?
Call Kaplan. Anyway, par's worth nothing, so in consecutive holes the guy who goes par-par is one behind the guy who goes birdie-bogey. You can see why Mickelson plays well in this tournament.
Take Justin Leonard (80-1), 1/6 unit: Leonard has a new baby and hadn't played since the British Open until his T21 last week. This is a new baby pick, because nothing in his game indicates he's going to contend this week.
Let's just say he's no birdie machine. But he has a history of appearing out of nowhere. Remember him at Whistling Straits a couple years ago? He missed the cut last year but finished T15 the year before.
Take Camilo Villegas (40-1), 1/6 unit: I'd say Spidey qualifies as an aggressive player. A win in this format is a win is a win. Villegas would like to get his first on Tour some time this year. He's 17th in birdie average and 15th in total birdies. For the record, I don't look at his contortion on the greens as a move for attention: put your cheek on the putting surface some time and I think you'll get a better look at the contours than if you get in the catcher's crouch.
Take Daniel Chopra (100-1), 1/6 unit: OK, so he's got a temper. OK, so he hasn't won on Tour. OK, he's got bad clothes, worse hair, and lacks the charm to pull it off. But he's 1st on Tour in total birdies and 7th in birdie average. You'd like that in any tournament, especially considering his equally high ranks in the putting categories, and in par four birdie or better leaders. He finished
T15 at last year's International. Come on Chopra! I need a new visor and some hair dye!
In the head-to-head, take Stewart Cink to finish higher than Sergio Garcia (21-20), 1 unit: I wouldn't pick Cink to win outright these days, maybe not ever again, given his problems on the greens. He's great for a head-to-head because you can depend on him to play well: he's missed only 4 cuts in 19 events, and in 12 of those he finished in the top 30 (five were top 10s).
Given the scoring swings with this format, the pressure may be off. I think this works to Cink's advantage, and his past performance at The International seems to bear that out: In the last five years he's finished T12, T6, 17, T39, and T26. Sergio missed the cut last year.
8/9/2006 7:18:46 AM
I can understand when people, on air and around the water cooler, call for a worthy adversary for Tiger. I was a Celtics fan when I was a kid in the 80s.
I saw them win three championships out of five. That was sweet for many reasons, at or near the top of which is that they had their adversary. The Lakers and Celtics met head-to-head in the finals three times, the fast breakers from the West beating the half court offense of the East two to one.
Name another sport, even non-team sports like golf, and you'll find such rivalries. Yet I don't understand this strong sentiment to dethrone Tiger because Tiger, like Muhammad Ali, is in a class by himself and should be appreciated as such while his in his prime, which could last another ten years.
Can't we appreciate what we're seeing as not just a once in a generation phenomenon, but maybe a once in a lifetime phenomenon. Once ever?
I've been curious as to why Tiger has tinkered with his swing. And each time we've seen him continue apace of his ridiculous standards. We're now seeing the full fruits of the second overhaul.
There's a Russian hockey team of the 80s, machine-like approach with Tiger, and I can understand why people would root for the underdog Mickelson, who's Gumby to Tiger's steel. Mike Eruzione isn't walking through the door of this analogy.
Can't we stand back and admire the winning strategy Tiger employed last month in England, where he essentially won ugly (if long drives are pretty)?
He played the Open like Phil McConkey used to run routes and return kicks---whatever it takes.
Ali's rope-a-dope is considered brilliant strategy.It wasn't the most exciting strategy, or prettiest,but he did what he thought he had to do to win.
Larry Bird wasn't always (or even often) the prettiest guy out there, but he would sooner eat Michael Cooper's socks than lose . to anyone.
If you can't appreciate a guy who finds a way to win,who pulls it out in dramatic, nearly desperate fashion (16th hole at Augusta, 2005), or who hangs back 100 yards and beats the field anyway (Open, last month),who can you appreciate? By the time a youngster comes along to seriously challenge him---none of the top players in the world now have consistently proven to be up to the task---you'll have missed the boat.
This week's International in Colorado uses the Modified Stableford scoring system, which has just been added to the math portion of the SAT. All I know is birdies are worth more than bogeys, two-to-one,meaning birdies are worth two points, bogeys worth minus one. Wait, so it's more than a 2-1 spread. Or is it?
Call Kaplan. Anyway, par's worth nothing, so in consecutive holes the guy who goes par-par is one behind the guy who goes birdie-bogey. You can see why Mickelson plays well in this tournament.
Take Justin Leonard (80-1), 1/6 unit: Leonard has a new baby and hadn't played since the British Open until his T21 last week. This is a new baby pick, because nothing in his game indicates he's going to contend this week.
Let's just say he's no birdie machine. But he has a history of appearing out of nowhere. Remember him at Whistling Straits a couple years ago? He missed the cut last year but finished T15 the year before.
Take Camilo Villegas (40-1), 1/6 unit: I'd say Spidey qualifies as an aggressive player. A win in this format is a win is a win. Villegas would like to get his first on Tour some time this year. He's 17th in birdie average and 15th in total birdies. For the record, I don't look at his contortion on the greens as a move for attention: put your cheek on the putting surface some time and I think you'll get a better look at the contours than if you get in the catcher's crouch.
Take Daniel Chopra (100-1), 1/6 unit: OK, so he's got a temper. OK, so he hasn't won on Tour. OK, he's got bad clothes, worse hair, and lacks the charm to pull it off. But he's 1st on Tour in total birdies and 7th in birdie average. You'd like that in any tournament, especially considering his equally high ranks in the putting categories, and in par four birdie or better leaders. He finished
T15 at last year's International. Come on Chopra! I need a new visor and some hair dye!
In the head-to-head, take Stewart Cink to finish higher than Sergio Garcia (21-20), 1 unit: I wouldn't pick Cink to win outright these days, maybe not ever again, given his problems on the greens. He's great for a head-to-head because you can depend on him to play well: he's missed only 4 cuts in 19 events, and in 12 of those he finished in the top 30 (five were top 10s).
Given the scoring swings with this format, the pressure may be off. I think this works to Cink's advantage, and his past performance at The International seems to bear that out: In the last five years he's finished T12, T6, 17, T39, and T26. Sergio missed the cut last year.