PGA Tour: All the Presidents (Cup) Men: Notes from the Ballwasher

First topic message reminder :

1).Only exhibitions on this week's schedule so let's look back at an event that has also been charitably described as an exhibition - with the odds heavily weighted towards the organizer.
Ah yes, the Presidents Cup!
The USA comfortably beat the International Team at Muirfield Village in 2013, but the members of each Team have "enjoyed" contrasting fortunes since then.

2).Team USA only have 3 x 2014 PGA Tour wins between them, one (Zach Johnson) in a limited field Tournament of Champions, another (Kuchar) by holing a 72nd hole bunker shot and Hunter Mahan's back-from-oblivion Barclays win. What have you done for me lately Messrs Bradley, Dufner, Haas, Mickelson, Simpson (altho' he did have a nice 2013 win in Las Vegas), Snedeker, Spieth (but what a final round master class he produced last Sunday in Sydney), Stricker, Woods?
Wonder how the Gleneagles US Ryder Cuppers will fare? Good starts by Bubba and Spieth, that's for sure.

3).The Internationals haven't done much better but Day and Scott had good wins on two Tours, Kings Charl & Louis did the business in South Africa, while Matsuyama proved that a second trip to Muirfield Village, for the Memorial, was the charm. For him at least. Whilst the biggest surprise might have been Angel Cabrera's win at The Greenbrier. Steady regression though from the De's Jonge & Laet, Els, Grace and Sterne, while Leishman flattered only to deceive.
Sterne, incidentally, is tied bottom of the PGA Tour's web.com Tour graduate reshuffle and will struggle to get in to many Tour fields, plus has lost his Top 50 status. The early favourite among tourists to lose his PGA Tour card.

4).The leaders for each Team for 2015, in South Korea, are:
*USA:
Watson, Walker, Kirk, Furyk, Moore, Kuchar, ZJohnson, Spieth, Horschel, Simpson + 2 x Capatain's Choices. (Still not quite sure how these points are accumulated . . . . )

*International:
Scott, Day, Matsuyama, Schwartzel, Jaidee, Leishman, Senden, DeLaet, Oda, Oosthuizen + 2.

5).web.com Q-School Finals kick off next week and European Tour members are voting with their passports, American David Lipsky being the most notable exception. Rikard Karlberg will be there, mini-Tour veteran Seamus Power from Ireland and Stefan Jaeger too, but no other Europeans that I can spot. Lots of Aussies but the days of European Tour golfers coming over for Q-School seem to be over for now. Not surprisingly.


PS: Let's hope we never lose a Tour Golfer in the freakish circumstances that Cricket lost Phillip Hughes. But, if we do, I wonder if a colleague will provide quite the quality of eulogy delivered today by Michael Clarke? What a moving tribute. Wish we had a Cricket Bat emoticon.

I'm of the same opinion Navy.
Never liked Torrance either though, as bad as Roe when it came to 9C sycophancy.

We often accuse ex players in the golf media as being sycophantic about tiger, but is it possible they really were in awe of what he was doing. For 10 years he played golf that most of them would have thought impossible. As fans we maybe don't have an incite into just how good he was. These guys like Torrence and Roe maybe just couldn't comprehend how they or anyone else could play like tiger did.

You could argue that even if this was the case they should have remained professional, but if the true thoughts of ex pro's on tiger were "wow this is literally unbelievable" then wouldn't you want to know that as a viewer?

9C won a lot of tournaments, but he didn't do it by pulling off tons of imaginative Ballesteros/Mickelson type shots that were that amazing.

He simply had a relatively complete game compared to the others with no catastrophic weaknesses and a pretty steely mind and good under pressure when a putt needed holed. In other words he was an efficient golfer, Federer like if you will.

Now he's got a shot brain and a weak body and a lot of problems with parts of his game.

I'm watching exactly the same footage as Roe and Torrance. What makes you think I can't see what they can?

So, Tom Doak (an architect whose courses I thoroughly enjoy), has just published a new "Confidential Guide", focusing on GB/I only in this edition. It's been a fun read.

I found this review well written and insightful:
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/golf/top-stories/tom-doak-hands-top-marks-to-three-scottish-courses-1-3633824

(Super - I know TOC accolades will wind you up some!)

Couldn't give a toss about what Doak says. His opinions have no more worth than anyone else, simply because they are in print, doesn't give them credibility.
To give The Castle 0 out of 10 just shows what an imbecile he is.

Super

I agree that the argument from authority isn't valid but we can apply evidence to strengthen the case for valuing someones opinions.

What doak says isn't true just because he said it but because we can use evidence to evaluate his reasoning for the assertions he makes. Having read his books, played his courses, heard other peoples take on his opinions (informal peer review, we are only assessing golf courses so this seems ok) and using some basic statistics about enjoyment of golf we can see that h
is arguments do hold up well enough for the subject matter we are discussing.

No, Mac, Doaks assessment are based on his subjective opinion and not evidence.

One mans meat is another man's poison.

Wow are you one of those people that argue everything is relative and subjective. Good luck with that.

No, Doaks opinions are his, they have no bearing on my opinion and his opinion have no more value than mine.

I find John Huggan an infuriating writer - he's the Scot-in-residence at many US publications but seems to abuse that position by failing to bridge the gap between intelligent commentary and subjective opinion.
Perfect examples here - he likes what he likes about Doak, but tread on his parochial East Lothian toes and he mocks him.

Interesting article though, Shotrock, Thanks.

McLaren wrote:Super

I agree that the argument from authority isn't valid but we can apply evidence to strengthen the case for valuing someones opinions.

What doak says isn't true just because he said it but because we can use evidence to evaluate his reasoning for the assertions he makes.  Having read his books, played his courses, heard other peoples take on his opinions (informal peer review, we are only assessing golf courses so this seems ok) and using some basic statistics about enjoyment of golf we can see that h
is arguments do hold up well enough for the subject matter we are discussing.  

That hardly constitutes a gold standard of "evidence" does it Mac? Read his books - so, opinion then, played his courses - so, opinion then, heard other peoples take on his opinions - so, opinion then, basic stats about enjoyment of golf - what stats are these then?

Navy

I did qualify it by saying "we are only assessing golf courses", were it a more important issue then the level of evidence I would require would be substantially higher. It would be beyond impractical to use a proper scientific peer reviewed method to decide who was best qualified to speak on the merits of a golf course.

I am not suggesting there are objective facts about golf course design but it is possible to evaluate what evidence exists and decide who is better placed - more likely - to accurately asses a course. Do you think Doak or super are more likely to produce a better review of a golf course?

Do you really not have varying degrees of required evidence depending on what you are evaluating?

Mac, no one cares for my review or Doaks review. What matters is what makes a good course to you.

Mac,
Don't want to get involved in another of your rhetorical circle-jerks, but at least super_, or any of the rest of us presumably, can offer an objective view, whereas Doak and Huggan clearly have the proverbial subjective interest, especially in evaluating contemporary architecture. (To put it mildly.)

We're all "victims of our experiences" (as Sartre might opine), but as I hurtle through life I absolutely seek varying opinions on what sort of golf courses to play, places to visit, etc.

I respect everyone's opinion (my mother-in-law, may she rest in peace, liked wine that I thought would be better described as cough syrup, but it worked for her) yet some opinions I value more.

I enjoy playing different golf courses in different parts of the world. I found this book a fun and interesting read -- and fully realize in most cases it's a bit like reading Playboy magazine as a lad: I get to look a beautiful pictures of places I will never visit.

Kwini

In his latest offering Doak has the opinions of 2 other authors published alongside his own.  Which again if I were evaluating an idea about science that would not be enough, but when it comes to a trivial matte of choosing which course to play this book would be a decent source of ideas.  I would certainly use this book over something like the golf monthly top 100 courses.

Edit: If a source of golf course reviews consistently offers me a duff experience I can always disregard it in the future. (so it is not as if no evidence is being used)

And all the above is perfectly true (tho' one wonders what's been holding Shotrock back(!)).
But so is super_'s opinion and, for most of us hackers, his may be more relevant than someone who's got some (and I hate THIS phrase) skin in the game, which Doak and Huggan clearly have.

Age and commitment, Kwin ... age and commitment ... (sigh)

Conversely Mac, you could have a tremendous golfing experience at a course that Doak and his minions think is garbage.

It's a bit like being critical of a work of art. What is nice in someones eye is not always nice to someone else.
What course is great experience for a 20 handicapper, might not be for someone off scratch. What's a great course for someone who has the benefit of playing thousands of courses for free like Doak, might be very different from those of someone who only plays a few cheap courses a year.

Horses for courses, and if you listened to Doak, there's a lot of courses you simply wouldn't play.

Better to keep an open mind isn't it? Play the course, make your own mind up.
Have you never played a course, thought it was rubbish, played it again and changed your mind? Or vice versa?

Doak's opinion on courses would carry more weight because of his background. No-one can give opinion evidence in a criminal trial unless they are experts in their field, isn't this more or less the same as what Doak is doing?

He isn't giving evidence Inco, he's simply giving his opinion.

Opinion evidence super (look at my post again). My point being that a court of law will accept an expert's opinion as evidence, which is basically what Doak is providing with his guide.

It's a bit of an argument to authority though.
Doak, as a course designer is "qualified" to give an opinion on course design, whether that is remotely relevant to what your experience of the course will be is what is in dispute.

Doak knows nothing about your opinion about what makes a good golf course, doesn't know how your ability will translate to the course.

As an example, Doak gave The Castle as low a mark as you can get, however, I'd disagree with it wholeheartedly and I could give just as many reasons for why I think it's good as to why Doak thinks it's bad.
When it comes to giving a personal opinion on a matter which is open to debate, such as a work of art, course design, etc then the credentials of the person involved are irrelevant.

It isn't a matter of fact whether a course is a good design, it's a matter of opinion.
THe courtroom analogy doesn't work in this instance.

I've never played The Castle, but the author of that article seems to agree with Doak:

The lowest mark is applied to “a course so contrived and unnatural it may poison your mind, which I cannot recommend under any circumstances. Reserved for courses that wasted ridiculous sums of money in their construction and probably shouldn’t have been built in the first place”. Happily, only one course, the near unplayable David McLay Kidd-designed Castle Course just outside St Andrews, is regarded with such disdain – and rightly so.

Why is he describing it as "near unplayable" super?

Super - The only point I will disagree with you is when you state "no one cares for my review or Doak's". Obviously, lots care enough about Doak's review to pay for it and -- speaking for myself -- I'm interested in your take on golf courses. (It's one of the reasons I hang around here.)

Who cares whether a course is un-natural. Courses aren't remotely natural things so we should stop pretending they are. Greens, bunkers, ponds, manicured fairways are not natural.

The Castle looks just like any other links course, it's only the location that makes it appear odd, not sure how that would take away from the playing aspect.
No idea why he would call it unplayable, perhaps he played it from tees beyond his ability, perhaps he played it in bad weather, perhaps he didn't play it at all and just imagined it couldn't be good. Who knows. Maybe he is just upset that the St.Andrews links trust built something with a bit of imagination and not just another copy of TOC.

Sounds like a bad workman blaming his tools to me.  I've played The Castle perhaps 25 times, sometimes having bad rounds, sometimes good, occasionally blistering, it certainly isn't unplayable,  what is for sure is there is greater variety in holes, more challenge and more ways to play holes than The Old Course which they are so keen to cream over.

The irony being in that they praise the genius bunkering of TOC on 12, but it wasn't even designed to be played in the direction he says makes it so good and that you can't see them making it interesting.
It was designed to be played the other way.

Sounds like Doak et al, are simply after ancient courses, which fit their eye and idea of history, but we all have our own ideas what makes a good course, despite being a course designer, Doak's opinion on what makes a good course are no more valid than anyone elses.

It's the same reason we all have our own tastes in aesthetic and functional things. We make our own minds up about something, whether that be cars, women, sport, golf courses, music, clothes etc etc.

super_realist wrote:9C won a lot of tournaments, but he didn't do it by pulling off tons of imaginative Ballesteros/Mickelson type shots that were that amazing.

Seriously?   One thing I've always enjoyed most out of your comments is despite your often scathing commentary on any player, you've usually been able to give credit where credit is due... even to TW. But I have NO CLUE where the above statement comes from.  

Here's just a few... 1997 Phoenix Hole in one.. 2000 Canadian Open 220 out of the FW bunker... 2001 Players Championship "Better than most" putt... 200? Pebble Beach 6th hole iron out of the rough "not a fair fight shot" ... 2005 16th hole "In your life" chip in the Masters... 1999 or 2004 14th hole or 2012 16th hole flop shot hole outs at the Memorial.... Bay Hill 72nd hole, pick almost any year...  ALL of these weren't necessarily in wins... but most of them were.

Now granted... if you're only talking "I hit it so poorly I have to stand on my head to get out of here" shots.... Yeah... TW's no Seve or Phil in that regard... but then again, for the most part he's not needed to be.

Super

I acknowledged earlier that the argument from authority was not valid. But it is possible that doak is more likely than other people to make a good course recommendation. By playing the courses he recommends you can then decide whether or not to trust his judgement.

robo

I will add the fairway bunker shot at the 2000 canadian open.

Spoiler:

2000 Canadian Open shot the best of that lot in my book - a shot very few would even have attempted let alone pull it off so successfully. And given the circumstances too.

Surprising he's made so few competitive holes-in-one - the movement of the rock at Phoenix far more memorable in my book!

2005 chip at Augusta just a copy of one DLIII had produced, but Verne (what an idiot, doesn't know what he doesn't know) exploded.

Would say a collection of his get-out-of-jail shots to win the US Open in 2008 should be exhibit A - all sorts of miracles, from all sorts of distances, especially important given some of the not-so-good'uns. His long game more exceptional than his short game as you suggest robo.

Mac,
I think he mentioned it . . . .

So he did.

Kwini... agree that it is surprising TW hasn't had more hole's in one... but he did get off to a hot start... 1996 Milwaukee in his 1st "Hello World" tournament as a pro... then just 10 PGAT events later in Phoenix '97, but since then... not so many... I don't even know....

Oh well... I guess being the one and only Tiger Woods has probably paid better than being the next Mancil Davis anyway..

Yes, Speaking of which, it was poignant to listen to Scott McCarron's interview with Jon Brendle last week.
Asked him if there were any rulings he regretted and he mentioned the Taylor Smith incident, in terms of regretting the ruling they had to make.

How careers diverged, somewhat tragically, after that . . . . . . .

(But a nice interview - don't know any of the Rules Officials, but Brendle came across very well. Don't also know if I mentioned that in my annual visit to Hartford this year, we were up close and personal for three contentious rulings - very pleasantly surprised at the respect shown (by Messrs Stroud, Wi, Cauley, but sure it could have been 90% of 'em) to the Rules Guys.)

robopz wrote:

super_realist wrote:9C won a lot of tournaments, but he didn't do it by pulling off tons of imaginative Ballesteros/Mickelson type shots that were that amazing.

Seriously?   One thing I've always enjoyed most out of your comments is despite your often scathing commentary on any player, you've usually been able to give credit where credit is due... even to TW. But I have NO CLUE where the above statement comes from.  

Here's just a few... 1997 Phoenix Hole in one.. 2000 Canadian Open 220 out of the FW bunker... 2001 Players Championship "Better than most" putt... 200? Pebble Beach 6th hole iron out of the rough "not a fair fight shot" ... 2005 16th hole "In your life" chip in the Masters... 1999 or 2004 14th hole or 2012 16th hole flop shot hole outs at the Memorial.... Bay Hill 72nd hole, pick almost any year...  ALL of these weren't necessarily in wins... but most of them were.

Now granted... if you're only talking "I hit it so poorly I have to stand on my head to get out of here" shots.... Yeah... TW's no Seve or Phil in that regard... but then again, for the most part he's not needed to be.

Most players hit lots of very good shots, but without the sycophancy surrounding them, we seldom here about them. I bet everyone on here has played at least a few truly stunning shots that wouldn't look out of place in 9C's career clips.
9C might have played some good shots, his "in your life" wasn't that impressive, it was simply a holed chip. Davis Love did it the year before, without the fanfare. You have to ask, how or why he was in that position in the first place, missing a straight forward green on a par 3.

My point was not that 9C hasn't played lots of good shots, of course he has, and I'd be a moron to claim he hasn't, simply that most other players have also done so, and many players have played many more outstanding shots. 9C's main strength in his day was holing putts. Impressive, but not astonishing, photogenic or worthy of a trouser climax like Torrance and Roe were partial to. There seems to be some sort of adoration that there were shots that only Baldy 9C played that no one else could, I don't believe that's true.

9C didn't really do any individual part of the game better than anyone else, he just was very good at putting them all together without the destructive weaknesses that are in his post 2008 game.

You could put a montage of great shots and of course 9C would be in there, but there would be plenty by others too.

The Seve and Phil amazing recovery shots -- as Robo points out -- were due to really poor approach shots. Something lots lose sight of.

As opposed to Tiger's "amazing recovery shots" I suppose? Something one or two "lose sight of"!

McLaren wrote:Super

I acknowledged earlier that the argument from authority was not valid.  But it is possible that doak is more likely than other people to make a good course recommendation.  By playing the courses he recommends you can then decide whether or not to trust his judgement.

Do you not think YOU are the best person to look at a course and see if is good to play?
Of course it's a matter of opinion, but if I listened to Doak, I'd never play The Castle, which is an incredibly well designed course for all abilities, with a number of ways to play it, designed for the prevailing wind in mind.
His objection seems to be it's unnatural and his criticism unwarranted and prejudicial. So what, no course is natural. I care about how good a course is to play, not whether or not it was sculpted by nature.

Super

"My point was not that 9C hasn't played lots of good shots, of course he has, and I'd be a moron to claim he hasn't, simply that most other players have also done so"

Could you not replace 9C with seve or faldo in that statement? Sort of making your original point voidl

Mac, the insinuation from Torrance and Roe's gushing ejaculation in regards to 9C was that 9C was the only one who can play astonishing shots hence their over the top childish adulation of the man.

You could fill a day with clips of every other pro making as many fantastic shots.

If someone plays a good shot, none of us need commentators acting like teenage girls at a One Dimension gig, we can all see the shot for ourselves, we don't need the sickening sycophancy when any player makes a good shot.

McLaren wrote:...Do you think Doak or super are more likely to produce a better review of a golf course?...

Actually, I'm inclined to think Super's opinion of at least equal validity. He plays, regularly, and to a good standard.

Since TW has 80+ wins of course he has made more 'astonishing shots when mattered' compared to most of his peers. Almost by definition, only players who win or are in contention make 'astonshing shots', even if some no-name had pulled off the same shot in Round 1.

TW's main strength was that he rarely choked and that he made putts when needed.

super_realist wrote:You could put a montage of great shots and of course 9C would be in there, but there would be plenty by others too.

Well of course there would be... and we know even the likes of a Craig Perks is capable of stringing a bunch of them for at least one glorious day... the only part i was disputing was that TW didn't have his share of spectacular shots to match up to the likes of Seve and Phil... or anybody else for that matter.

pedro wrote:Since TW has 80+ wins of course he has made more 'astonishing shots when mattered' compared to most of his peers. Almost by definition, only players who win or are in contention make 'astonshing shots', even if some no-name had pulled off the same shot in Round 1.

Exactly... and for a while there, I think it really was true that he had an arsenal of shots that other players just didn't have.   What go tiresome was that was true for only so long but he still got the same accolades, when the truth of the matter was others had caught up and that clearly was no longer the case... perhaps the only difference being maybe the others couldn't do them as often.

pedro wrote:Since TW has 80+ wins of course he has made more 'astonishing shots when mattered' compared to most of his peers. Almost by definition, only players who win or are in contention make 'astonshing shots', even if some no-name had pulled off the same shot in Round 1.

TW's main strength was that he rarely choked and that he made putts when needed.

not necessarily, a win isn't contingent upon astonishing shots, you could play extremely conservatively (Zach Johnson Masters), or 9C 2005 Open and simply plot your way around the course.

super_realist wrote:

pedro wrote:Since TW has 80+ wins of course he has made more 'astonishing shots when mattered' compared to most of his peers. Almost by definition, only players who win or are in contention make 'astonshing shots', even if some no-name had pulled off the same shot in Round 1.

TW's main strength was that he rarely choked and that he made putts when needed.

not necessarily, a win isn't contingent upon astonishing shots, you could play extremely conservatively (Zach Johnson Masters), or 9C 2005 Open and simply plot your way around the course.

Of course. In fact most of his win were a walk in the park. But being in contention so many times, obviously some 'astonishing shots' would have had to be produced to make it 80+ and not 70+.

YEah, just as those throughout the field will have pulled off "astonishing shots" to make the cut, not come last etc etc.

The notion that only the winner plays astonishing shots is what I'm arguing against. So if Torrance and Roe are getting carried away with 9C's shots, they should be doing the same to the other amazing shots which are inevitably being played. It's the disgusting sycophancy towards 9C I dislike.
Thank goodness Torrance isn't on commentary much any more.

For me the endless Tiger "debate" on the board is generally entertaining but the whole thing can be summarised:

1. TW has been the most successful tournament golfer of the last 15 years.  Fact.  

2. That doesn't mean we have to like him or even respect him, but as golfers we should respect his achievements.

3. Nothing in that respect should prevent us in also pointing out his failings and the things that irritate us about him.

4. Now of course some will say his opposition through this period wasn't great.  Doesn't matter - he could only play who he could play.  But it also makes comparisons with golfers from other generations who had different opposition purely theoretical and speculative, and the outcome of that speculation personal and subjective.  I.e. not a fact.

5. Tiger hits great shots.  Fact.  Tiger hits horrible shots.  Fact.  In this regard, Tiger is just like every other golfer. Fact

6. Some/most commentators love Tiger.  Fact.  

7. Some commentators elevate Tiger to levels lots of other people think overstates how good a golfer he is or is otherwise unjustified.  Not a fact, just a matter of opinion.

8. Regardless of the reason, or the validity of it, Tiger still dominates the general and golfing public's interest in golf.  Fact.

9. That is a good thing or a bad thing - opinion.

10. I'm bored with Tiger. Fact.

super_realist wrote:Mac, the insinuation from Torrance and Roe's gushing ejaculation in regards to 9C was that 9C was the only one who can play astonishing shots hence their over the top childish adulation of the man.

You could fill a day with clips of every other pro making as many fantastic shots.

If someone plays a good shot, none of us need commentators acting like teenage girls at a One Dimension gig, we can all see the shot for ourselves, we don't need the sickening sycophancy when any player makes a good shot.

And you don't think the puke fest that the golf media offers us about seve isn't "sickening sycophancy"?

There is far less Seve coverage Mac.
I don't see nauseating slo mo repeats of Seve scratching his backside like we do with 9C, but yes, it is annoying, just as the constant Help for Heroes is trying too hard.