PGA Tour: The "PGA" - Best Major, or an Afterthought?: Notes from the Ballwasher

1).Strange, isn't it, that the lightly regarded "Fourth Major" invariably has the best field and often the most interesting finish?
The ambition to produce the Top 100 in the owgr has clearly been punctured with Dustin Johnson absent, Tiger Woods a doubt, and others (Crane, Day, DeLaet, Toms) who were sufficiently infirm last week to withdraw from their respective tournaments, but the Top 130 in this week's field won't be matched this year anywhere in the World.

2).You don't need Mark Knopfler to tell you that half the Tour is coming down with Industrial Disease.
No word as to who's got smoker's cough from smoking, brewer's droop from drinking beer, and if Jesus is on hunger strike, dying by degrees, a dozen or two of the field will undoubtedly give up the ghost on the first tees. Not sure about "Rule Brittania, gassy beer, page three"! Have to speak to Poulter about that.

Whatever, we certainly have more than our fair share of casualties, most of whom will play, but whether just going through the motions or not remains to be seen.

3).Another wonderful win from Rory last week - reckon he won it on Saturday with birdies on #17 and #18 rather than on Sunday. Those two threes crept him closer to the lead and deeper inside Sergio's head, and early Sunday birdies clinched the deal.
Just a thought as one reflected upon the summer form of Rory, followed albeit at a distance, of Kaymer, Scott, Rose and Garcia:
Are we entering a brand new post-Tiger era of golfing excellence, or has it always been there, just a level below the Woods of a decade ago? I'm inclined to feel we're seeing some separation with Rory at one level, the next five or six consistently just behind, and some distance to those below the top seven or eight players.

4).As at Tuesday afternoon Valhalla time, all we know is that Woods has not yet been to the course and it's anyone's guess as to whether he'll be teeing it up on Thursday. But he won't be a force just because he's playing, he'll only be a force again, if ever, when he sets his ego aside, gets himself properly fit, and ratchets down his swing and resultant effect on his aging physique. Odds against in my book, but he's surprised before.

5).The PGA will be played, for the third time in 20 years, at Valhalla GC a Jack Nicklaus design outside Louisville, Kentucky. The Par-71 was also the venue for Azinger's Ryder Cup Team victory in 2008.
Several of the Team members from 2008 played well, Mickelson among them to go with Top Ten finishes in the 1996 (T8) and 2000 (T9) PGA Championships. Robert Karlsson was entering the best run of form of his life, Messrs Mahan, Rose and McDowell made promising Ryder Cup debuts, and Poulter excelled in a losing cause.

6).Others in the field with PGA Championship / Ryder Cup form who might be expected to contend (so not you Mark Brooks, nor even Kenny Perry who will doubtless perform well following his Langer-beating effort last week) include:
1996 PGA:
T17: Furyk
T24: Jimenez
T61: Els

2000 PGA:
3rd: Thomas Bjorn
T16: Westwood
T19: Cabrera (Nantz looked at Faldo as if he had two heads when sirnick suggested El Pato as a contender this week)
T34: Els, Garcia (who's on recent record as saying he doesn't like the course, certainly played as if he didn't in the Ryder Cup)
T64: Jimenez
T72: Furyk

2008 Ryder Cup:
0.5 pt: Jimenez, Stricker
1.0 pt: Casey, Garcia, Westwood
1.5 pts: Stenson
2.0 pts: Karlsson, Mickelson (playing mostly with a young hotshot called Kim)
2.5 pts: Furyk, Holmes, McDowell
3.0 pts: Rose
3.5 pts: Mahan
4.0 pts: Poulter

7).European chances:
Got to include McIlroy of course and I like the chances of Bjorn, Karlsson, Rose and Stenson.
Can't see Sergio contending while there's chat about Kaymer having back/neck issues.
Hopefully McDowell will play well but is this course a little too long for him? He'll be off on paternity leave shortly.
Big week for Donald (nah) and Donaldson. And will Lowry bring his links form to the Blue Grass?

8).Americans, also playing to earn a spot on Watson's Ryder Cup Team:
Bradley and Fowler are in great form right now.
Dufner's got his bulging discs and wonder if Valhalla is just too long for Furyk and Zach Johnson (who needs a good result for Ryder Cup ambitions)?
No doubt Kuchar will be there or thereabouts, perhaps Mahan will rediscover his form of 2008, while Snedeker and Holmes are local-ish.
And I wouldn't rule out Mickelson, somewhat (and rightly so) overlooked all year, but he found something last Sunday - can he keep it going?

9)."Internationals":
Great to see Ogilvy pick up his win last week and like him and Scott best of the Aussies, especially given Day's fitness issues.
No South African has won in the US for three years and can't see that changing.
But I love Cabrera's recent form and expect him to make some noise, while Matsuyama has already won on one Nicklaus course this year.

10).It won't be the stiflingly hot August week that you'd expect in Louisville, but there'll be enough humidity to make it feel warm and precipitate random thundershowers.
Hopefully the cream will rise to the top as it has for most big events this year.
The PGA won't have the glamour of The Masters, the history of the US Open or the tradition of The Open Championship, but it will host the best field and will surely provide a deserving winner.
Hope ailing stars get healthy and we enjoy a great Championship.

kwinigolfer wrote:
Can't see Sergio contending while there's chat about Kaymer having back/neck issues.

Is sergio really that worried about der Kaiser's back/neck?   

Oh wait I get it. A bit like "let's eat grandma" vs "let's eat, grandma"   

Fantastic piece!

Go PADRAIG!!!!!

Hopefully Tiger plays!

You can't get away from an events kudos. The PGA is like the Australian Open in tennis or to be really cruel the League Cup (whatever name it currently has). Great to win but if you only won one major honour you'd rather it wasn't the PGA.
Let's face it a fair few general sports fans if asked to name all 4 golf majors would struggle with the PGA.
Harsh but that's life I guess.

In no way is the Australian Open in tennis viewed like the PGA is viewed in Golf

Yes it is

Cheers kwini.

Re 9): wouldn't rule out Schwartzel. Think Valhalla will suit his game and he's in decent form.

To me the French Open is the PGA of Tennis.

Diggers wrote:Yes it is

It isn't but that's just my opinion.

Unless you're an Aussie, the Aussie Open is the least prestigeous to win.

To clarify its improved but it has no history. In the 70's and 80's barely anyone turned up worth mentioning.
It's the least of the 4..by a country mile...as is the PGA.

Actually, although it is perceived as being the least prestigious, the PGA ironically has the strongest field.

s_r,
Which was exactly my point!

Sure Palmer and Watson would like to have one too!!

Cheers pedro, Yup King Charl in good form, but is his recent putting form up to winning a big 'un?

PS: Would LOVE to attend the Aussie Open, certainly more so than Roland Garros or Wimbledon.

Let's face it nobody gives a monkeys about that Super. All the big names play the majors and outside of the top 40 or so it's all interchangeable on form and nobody apart from a golf OWGR expert really cares.

super_realist wrote:Actually, although it is perceived as being the least prestigious, the PGA ironically has the strongest field.

And Ishikawa is in!

Reports from golfchannel.com that Major Toms has withdrawn, his circuit's dead, there's something wrong - one PGA Champion down, another has requested an extension to the course registration deadline - not sure the exact details.

Anyway, expect Stefani will replace Toms. EDIT: Confirmed. John Huh now first alternate - reckon must be 2-1 on him getting in.

Is there any realistic possibility of the uspga moving overseas in the future or was it the president/ceo just looking to bring a bit of attention to the event?
I reckon moving the event overseas the odd time would add a bit of life to the event. It just seems like a big pga tour event like the players to me.

Seems inconceivable to me - what's the point? I know it's been suggested but still can't comprehend the rationale.
Having said which, the PGA Of America would enhance their tournament by taking it the great courses, not just those they have cosy commercial deals with, like Valhalla (which they own), and Whistling Straits.

I know that these threads are PGATour centric, but it is worth noting that German Moritz Lampert won a Battlefield Promotion from the Challenge to the Euro Tour.

He has won 3 events in the last 10 weeks (and one 2nd) and his ranking has gone from outside the top 1000 to inside the top 15.

It looks like it is all or nothing for Moritz.  Last 8 tournaments

3 Wins
1 2nd place
1 5th place
1 12th places
2 Missed Cuts

Is it not quite unlikely for McIlroy to win 3 events in a row?

I also doubt if we will ever see an overseas PGA championship.

McLaren wrote:Is it not quite unlikely for McIlroy to win 3 events in a row?

Why so unlikely? Shows he's in good form. Previous successes can have no negative impact on probabilities - only positive ones

Davie

It would seem a golfers time spent in peak form is quite short given how infrequently they win multiple starts in a row. There is no doubt Rory and Garcia are in decent form but it only takes someone in a greater peak this week to beat them.

It's the same every week Mac, your last result has no bearing on your next.

He's got the same chance of winning every week (1 in how ever many entrants are there)

Since the A in PGA stands for America, I think it's unlikely that they'll hold it outside of the USA or North America.

And I hope they resist the temptation that pushes the European Tour to hold events all over the world but few in countries where significant numbers play golf. I'm sure it pleases club makers to think that there may be a chance to flog a few drivers and putters in Azerbaijan, but we shouldn't be beholden to club makers. Bring the European Tour back to Europe.

Three in a row doesn't happen to many golfers. But then again at the moment you'd say he is do much better than everyone else that Coci could well throw in a bad round and still win.
He's 5/1 with Paddy Power, Scott is 12/1 and then its 18's. It seems a long time since he looked good value to miss the cut at the Open yet that was just a few weeks ago.
Funny old game.

George1507 wrote:Since the A in PGA stands for America, I think it's unlikely that they'll hold it outside of the USA or North America.

And I hope they resist the temptation that pushes the European Tour to hold events all over the world but few in countries where significant numbers play golf. I'm sure it pleases club makers to think that there may be a chance to flog a few drivers and putters in Azerbaijan, but we shouldn't be beholden to club makers. Bring the European Tour back to Europe.

Id assumed it was more to do with hard cash George? Can Europe support all those big events they are played elsewhere, are there the sponsors willing to back them? Also of course the different climates means they can drag out the season for even longer.

Just read that Tiger gets until 10 minutes before his tee time to declare if he's playing or not after being granted an extension to register. Yeah cus that is fair on the guy who is first reserve!

Sand wrote:Just read that Tiger gets until 10 minutes before his tee time to declare if he's playing or not after being granted an extension to register. Yeah cus that is fair on the guy who is first reserve!

Can you imagine Danny Willet or Koumei Oda being given that option?

Mac - if you were watching the national lottery draw and the first 5 numbers to come out were 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 ... would there be more or less chance of the final number being 6 or 49?

Davie

The cycle of a golfers form is very different from the next number to come out from a lottery draw.

Do you think a player has the same chance of playing better than the rest of the field every week they tee it up? Of course not, the result would be the same every week.

Davie wrote:Mac - if you were watching the national lottery draw and the first 5 numbers to come out were 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 ... would there be more or less chance of the final number being 6 or 49?

Mac doesn't approve of the lottery, it's a tax on the working class.

Diggers wrote:

George1507 wrote:Since the A in PGA stands for America, I think it's unlikely that they'll hold it outside of the USA or North America.

And I hope they resist the temptation that pushes the European Tour to hold events all over the world but few in countries where significant numbers play golf. I'm sure it pleases club makers to think that there may be a chance to flog a few drivers and putters in Azerbaijan, but we shouldn't be beholden to club makers. Bring the European Tour back to Europe.

Id assumed it was more to do with hard cash George? Can Europe support all those big events they are played elsewhere, are there the sponsors willing to back them? Also of course the different climates means they can drag out the season for even longer.

It probably is Diggers. I don't know. On the odd occasion I watch golf on TV - and it's very seldom these days - it just ****** me off to see some fellas wandering round a field in some place I haven't heard of, watched by a small handful of people who clearly have no idea at all of what they're watching. My pal reckons the organisers tour the streets of the local town, round them up in a bus and offer them free food and a coke if they agree to stand in the field all day watching blokes in funny trousers waving sticks and walking about.

You don't have to factor variables like say fatigue or pressure into picking a lottery number.

Nine Chins won 7 in a row, Byron Nelson 11. Is 3 that unrealisitic?

How often does it happen in relation to the number of events played by the number of golfers who have played them?
That would give you your answer. Not often would be the answer Is guess. Doesn't mean he won't do it though. Or maybe freaky Friday comes back.

super_realist wrote:

Davie wrote:Mac - if you were watching the national lottery draw and the first 5 numbers to come out were 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 ... would there be more or less chance of the final number being 6 or 49?

Mac doesn't approve of the lottery, it's a tax on the working class.

There would be more chance of it being 49 than 6. The first 10 balls are white (or whatever colour) and the next ten are blue and so on. So after you have picked five balls, the chances are that the next ball you pick is not white (5 whites left against 45 balls of other colours). Since there are 9 or 10 balls in yellow (or whatever colour the highest number balls are) you would be more likely to pick 49 than 6.

Only once in the UK lottery have all the balls picked been the same colour.

It doesn't happen very often, but then winning two in a row doesn't happen often, the probability and the realistic chance though aren't the same thing. His chances of winning this week, are the same as before he tee'd it up last week. He's got a realistic chance of winning this week, but then so does everyone else.
Every player has got a 1 in 159 chance of doing so.

George1507 wrote:

super_realist wrote:

Davie wrote:Mac - if you were watching the national lottery draw and the first 5 numbers to come out were 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 ... would there be more or less chance of the final number being 6 or 49?

Mac doesn't approve of the lottery, it's a tax on the working class.

There would be more chance of it being 49 than 6. The first 10 balls are white (or whatever colour) and the next ten are blue and so on. So after you have picked five balls, the chances are that the next ball you pick is not white (5 whites left against 45 balls of other colours). Since there are 9 or 10 balls in yellow (or whatever colour the highest number balls are) you would be more likely to pick 49 than 6.

Only once in the UK lottery have all the balls picked been the same colour.

Nope, sorry. The odds of the last ball being 49 or 6 are the same, i.e. 1/44. The odds of the last ball being yellow are of course higher than the odds of it being white, but if it's yellow than the odds of it being 49 are less than the odds of it being 6 if it's white (due to their being more yellow than white balls). Either way, when you make the computation you get 1/44.

Of course the reality is that lottery isn't really a uniform pick of balls anyway, the wheels don't really spin round enough to get a great approximation of the uniform distribution, and it's perfectly possible to find some patterns there. Here's a paper on the subject (which I admittedly haven't actually read, so it could be rubbish):

http://www.oswego.edu/Documents/wac/Math.pdf

George1507 wrote:

super_realist wrote:

Davie wrote:Mac - if you were watching the national lottery draw and the first 5 numbers to come out were 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 ... would there be more or less chance of the final number being 6 or 49?

Mac doesn't approve of the lottery, it's a tax on the working class.

There would be more chance of it being 49 than 6. The first 10 balls are white (or whatever colour) and the next ten are blue and so on. So after you have picked five balls, the chances are that the next ball you pick is not white (5 whites left against 45 balls of other colours). Since there are 9 or 10 balls in yellow (or whatever colour the highest number balls are) you would be more likely to pick 49 than 6.

Only once in the UK lottery have all the balls picked been the same colour.

That's untrue George, the number/colour of the ball is completely irrelevant. The next ball to be drawn is an individual event. It is not influenced by what has gone before or what comes after.

We imbue the balls with significance, but that means nothing to the machine making the draw. There are something like 14 million different combinations of draw, each has precisely the same chance of been drawn out as any other. The balls have no knowledge of what colour they are or what number they have.

The problem you are making is that you are imbuing the balls colour and numbers with significance, that's irrelevant to the machine process. As long as the balls are the same size, shape and material then whatever is painted on them doesn't matter.

super_realist wrote:It doesn't happen very often, but then winning two in a row doesn't happen often, the probability and the realistic chance though aren't the same thing. His chances of winning this week, are the same as before he tee'd it up last week. He's got a realistic chance of winning this week, but then so does everyone else.
Every player has got a 1 in 159 chance of doing so.

That seems a bit odd. I don't think anyone would say golf is a uniform game of chance, and that each player is equally likely to win. Otherwise Westwood would almost certainly have won one by now...

I'm not sure Brian Stuard has the same chance of winning as Rory McIlroy.

5 players have won 3 tour starts in a row since 1980. Therefore it is clearly very very hard. Just by being the best player in the field does not mean you will win. You need a lot of luck on your side aswell. If he wins it will be a remarkable achievement.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

super_realist wrote:It doesn't happen very often, but then winning two in a row doesn't happen often, the probability and the realistic chance though aren't the same thing. His chances of winning this week, are the same as before he tee'd it up last week. He's got a realistic chance of winning this week, but then so does everyone else.
Every player has got a 1 in 159 chance of doing so.

That seems a bit odd. I don't think anyone would say golf is a uniform game of chance, and that each player is equally likely to win. Otherwise Westwood would almost certainly have won one by now...

At the beginning of the week of course it is. Every golfer in that field has a chance where they could theoretically go out and shoot a better score than everyone else.
It doesn't mean that Westwood would have won one by now because all it takes is for someone else to play better, which has frequently happened.
GOlf is littered with unfancied players winning tournaments ahead of supposedly better players.

super_realist wrote:It doesn't happen very often, but then winning two in a row doesn't happen often, the probability and the realistic chance though aren't the same thing. His chances of winning this week, are the same as before he tee'd it up last week. He's got a realistic chance of winning this week, but then so does everyone else.
Every player has got a 1 in 159 chance of doing so.

No they don't because that doesn't take into account ability. Otherwise bookies odds would always be 159-1, which they aren't. Golf isn't a scientific experiment.
You are stripping out all the possible variables which is incorrect. Those variable actually help Coco, ie we know that most of the guys are crap compared to him as we can prove that they are not as good at golf as he is.
But variables also apply to him, like fatigue and pressure as mentioned before.

super_realist wrote:

George1507 wrote:

super_realist wrote:

Davie wrote:Mac - if you were watching the national lottery draw and the first 5 numbers to come out were 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 ... would there be more or less chance of the final number being 6 or 49?

Mac doesn't approve of the lottery, it's a tax on the working class.

There would be more chance of it being 49 than 6. The first 10 balls are white (or whatever colour) and the next ten are blue and so on. So after you have picked five balls, the chances are that the next ball you pick is not white (5 whites left against 45 balls of other colours). Since there are 9 or 10 balls in yellow (or whatever colour the highest number balls are) you would be more likely to pick 49 than 6.

Only once in the UK lottery have all the balls picked been the same colour.

That's untrue George, the number/colour of the ball is completely irrelevant. The next ball to be drawn is an individual event. It is not influenced by what has gone before or what comes after.

We imbue the balls with significance, but that means nothing to the machine making the draw. There are something like 14 million different combinations of draw, each has precisely the same chance of been drawn out as any other. The balls have no knowledge of what colour they are or what number they have.

The problem you are making is that you are imbuing the balls colour and numbers with significance, that's irrelevant to the machine process. As long as the balls are the same size, shape and material then whatever is painted on them doesn't matter.

So, if you had a bag with 5 white balls, 10 green, 10 red, 10 green, 10 yellow and 10 blue, do you think there's as much chance of drawing a white ball as a ball of any other colour?

super_realist wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

super_realist wrote:It doesn't happen very often, but then winning two in a row doesn't happen often, the probability and the realistic chance though aren't the same thing. His chances of winning this week, are the same as before he tee'd it up last week. He's got a realistic chance of winning this week, but then so does everyone else.
Every player has got a 1 in 159 chance of doing so.

That seems a bit odd. I don't think anyone would say golf is a uniform game of chance, and that each player is equally likely to win. Otherwise Westwood would almost certainly have won one by now...

At the beginning of the week of course it is. Every golfer in that field has a chance where they could theoretically go out and shoot a better score than everyone else.
It doesn't mean that Westwood would have won one by now because all it takes is for someone else to play better, which has frequently happened.

I think you're confusing the statement: "every player has a chance of winning" which is true with "every player is equally likely to win" which isn't.

Bookies odds are also a result of previous form, fans favourites, how much money has been placed etc, whereas having everyone at 159-1 wouldn't make them a penny.
It is entirely feasible that anyone in that field, could win the event.

George1507 wrote:

super_realist wrote:

George1507 wrote:

super_realist wrote:

Davie wrote:Mac - if you were watching the national lottery draw and the first 5 numbers to come out were 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 ... would there be more or less chance of the final number being 6 or 49?

Mac doesn't approve of the lottery, it's a tax on the working class.

There would be more chance of it being 49 than 6. The first 10 balls are white (or whatever colour) and the next ten are blue and so on. So after you have picked five balls, the chances are that the next ball you pick is not white (5 whites left against 45 balls of other colours). Since there are 9 or 10 balls in yellow (or whatever colour the highest number balls are) you would be more likely to pick 49 than 6.

Only once in the UK lottery have all the balls picked been the same colour.

That's untrue George, the number/colour of the ball is completely irrelevant. The next ball to be drawn is an individual event. It is not influenced by what has gone before or what comes after.

We imbue the balls with significance, but that means nothing to the machine making the draw. There are something like 14 million different combinations of draw, each has precisely the same chance of been drawn out as any other. The balls have no knowledge of what colour they are or what number they have.

The problem you are making is that you are imbuing the balls colour and numbers with significance, that's irrelevant to the machine process. As long as the balls are the same size, shape and material then whatever is painted on them doesn't matter.

So, if you had a bag with 5 white balls, 10 green, 10 red, 10 green, 10 yellow and 10 blue, do you think there's as much chance of drawing a white ball as a ball of any other colour?

no but if you numbered the balls, you would have as much chance of drawing n°1 white as n°1 blue... (see my previous post).

super_realist wrote:Bookies odds are also a result of previous form, fans favourites, how  much money has been placed etc, whereas having everyone at 159-1 wouldn't make them a penny.
It is entirely feasible that anyone in that field, could win the event.

No it's not, you have to use form. It is not the same as a lottery draw or even remotely close.
You cannot strip variables out of an event to prove a point, that's just nonsense.
You could have a paraplegic blind person whose never played golf before starting, by your logic they have the same chance of winning as Coco. Its bollox.

George1507 wrote:

super_realist wrote:

George1507 wrote:

super_realist wrote:

Davie wrote:Mac - if you were watching the national lottery draw and the first 5 numbers to come out were 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 ... would there be more or less chance of the final number being 6 or 49?

Mac doesn't approve of the lottery, it's a tax on the working class.

There would be more chance of it being 49 than 6. The first 10 balls are white (or whatever colour) and the next ten are blue and so on. So after you have picked five balls, the chances are that the next ball you pick is not white (5 whites left against 45 balls of other colours). Since there are 9 or 10 balls in yellow (or whatever colour the highest number balls are) you would be more likely to pick 49 than 6.

Only once in the UK lottery have all the balls picked been the same colour.

That's untrue George, the number/colour of the ball is completely irrelevant. The next ball to be drawn is an individual event. It is not influenced by what has gone before or what comes after.

We imbue the balls with significance, but that means nothing to the machine making the draw. There are something like 14 million different combinations of draw, each has precisely the same chance of been drawn out as any other. The balls have no knowledge of what colour they are or what number they have.

The problem you are making is that you are imbuing the balls colour and numbers with significance, that's irrelevant to the machine process. As long as the balls are the same size, shape and material then whatever is painted on them doesn't matter.

So, if you had a bag with 5 white balls, 10 green, 10 red, 10 green, 10 yellow and 10 blue, do you think there's as much chance of drawing a white ball as a ball of any other colour?

Absolutely, because the issue is that it's a ball, not what's on it. You are trying to imbue significance to a completely random event. The numbers are irrelevant to what will happen. ALl the machine does is select a ball with individual actions. The machine will draw a ball, that's it. The numbers mean nothing.

If I toss 500 heads in a row, it doesn't mean that the chance of a tails coming up is increased.