PGA Tour: THE PLAYERS Championship: Notes from the Ballwasher

First topic message reminder :

1).THE PLAYERS? Well, that's what they call it, capital letters included; perhaps to convince Commish Timmy that it's really a Major? But lots of American touring pros regard it at least as a small "m" major so let's treat it as such here.

2).We're all familiar with the TPC Sawgrass course, warts 'n all. It is tweaked every year but is receiving a face lift after this year's tournament, the most obvious change being to rework the 12th hole from a short dog-leg left Par-4 to a driveable Par-4. Not sure why they would do that but driveable Par-4's are fashionable, anything to favour length over finesse, and Sawgrass doesn't have a reachable Par-4 as things currently stand.

3).An interesting take on length over finesse was brought up by Faldo during last week's broadcast from Quail Hollow - the amount of money/tournaments won by the longest guys on Tour compared to the straightest. Can't remember the exact numbers he used but here's what he was looking at in terms of 2014/15 stats:

4).Long:
318 yds: Dustin Johnson: Won $5.5M and one tournament
315 yds: Bubba Watson: Won $6.9M and two tournaments (plus one this season)
314 yds: Jason Day: Won $9.4M and five tournaments (plus two)
312 yds: Adam Scott: Won $1.3M, no wins (but two this year)
310 yds: JB Holmes: Won $4.0M, one win

5).Straight:
First five, you can find the stats, imagine the arithmetic: Molinari, Toms, Reavie, Leonard, Bohn.
One winner in the top ten was Zach Johnson (8th in %age of fairways hit), and that was at St.Andrews where any poster knows he should have gone round in 4 x 59's.
Only other winners among the straightest 48 were Ryan Moore (in Malaysia) and Furyk (Harbour Town).

6).It's a sign of the genius of Pete Dye, then, that TPC Sawgrass rewards all golfers if they're good enough with recent winners including long-ballers such as Norman, Couples, Scott, Mickelson, Love, Woods, Garcia and even Fowler. And shorties like Tim Clark and Fred Funk.
Having said which, don't invest your life savings on:
DJ: 6 appearances, no top 30 finishes, only one round in the 60's.
or:
Bubba: 8 trips, nothing better than T37 and only five rounds in the 60's.

7).But, who really knows??!! Two weeks ago Brian Stuard surprised us (and him?), whilst James Hahn came in to Quail Hollow on a roll - eight consecutive missed cuts.
With those thoughts in mind, has there ever been a more surprising winner of The Players than Craig Perks? He won't be troubling us this week, unless he's droning on in the Golf Channel commentary box, but his win was a shocker.

8).Ryder Cup wannabes, from both sides of the Atlantic, have pretty much been treading water since the Masters, but that will doubtless change as big tournaments are in prospect on both Tours.
The Players is seldom kind to European golfers who haven't embraced the PGA Tour, though one could say that Kaymer's win two years ago was an exception. (I see Kaymer has said he's finished after this week with his 2016 US commitments except for Majors, next season tba.)
But Sergio has a fantastic record here, Stenson's a winner, Luke Donald, Padraig Harrington and Martin Laird have all runnered up, and I fancy Molinari to have a good week now that he's showing some form.

9).Rory has never seemed to care for Sawgrass but perhaps he's getting the hang of it. Missed the cut on his first three visits, Top Ten finishes the next three. The impartial observer in me hopes for another Top Ten!
Whilst Justin Rose's "ball-striking" was terrific at Quail Hollow, only to see his putter desert him. This week will be warm and the greens could get baked out so a dodgy putting stroke won't help one bit.
Lowry and Willett missed the cut last year on their Players debut, but Russell Knox earned a top twenty finish and local knowledge will hopefully help him contend this year.
And it'll be interesting to see how Fitzpatrick and Sullivan play on their debut.

10).There seems to be a school (OK, NBC's Johnny Miller/Mark Rolfing) of thought that Jordan Spieth will have a hard time getting over his Augusta setback. Don't see it myself, think he's that good he'll be back in the winning saddle soon, perhaps in Texas the next week or two.
But just as Spieth seems to have a perfect game for Sawgrass, so does Danny Willett. He's been enjoying some time off - though probably not enough to warrant the Beef-like inference of golfchannel.com's headline: "Lots of drinking" post-Masters.
But is this the year that the Casey/Donald/Howell/Poulter/Rose/Westwood generation of English golfers, despite the continued excellence of some of them, is finally shoved aside by the twenty-somethings?
Danny Willett is certainly leading by example, and I like this quote from Golf Digest:
"I've got my own set of expectations of what I want to do for myself, so I'm not really too fussed about what everybody else thinks. If I do my bit, and what I've done over the last 18 months, two years, then it's proved to myself that I can do some pretty special things."  
Pretty special so far.

Navy

Describe what the "reverse" scenario would be please?

A female only golf club. As explained in the very next sentence of Navy's post. Handily following the words "reverse scenario" to effectively (I thought) proffer an example of what Navy was talking about.

At least Kwini can take comfort that it's not only his posts you don't read Mac

Roller

I am exposing that the female only club at St Andrews is NOT the reverse of the big male only clubs. When Navy describes the reverse scenario I hope he will see this.

Mac, you're a plank. St Regulus is a ladies only club, as is Lundin Ladies. Muirfield is a men only club. Please explain the difference.

In the words of Dragon's Den.

I'm out.

Back on topic - what were the greens (supposedly) running at on the stimp on the "unplayable" day of the Players?

I would assume any ladies only golf clubs, came in to being after the men only clubs, and probably in relatively close proximity. Thats all just a guess. But if Men Only (golf clubs not the bongo mags) are banned so should women only. Though on the other side, the way women claim to be treated in most clubs, such as restricted times etc, would most men be happy if they stayed on their own>

McLaren wrote:Navy

Describe what the "reverse" scenario would be please?

I refer you to the honourable S_R's comment concerning 'planks'...

The point being that Men can't join women only clubs, women can't join men only clubs.

It's irrelevant which came first, and which followed. It's an outdated format, and shouldn't require a vote in which to dissolve it. It should simply be a statute of law that single sex clubs are not permitted in an egalitarian society.

super_realist wrote:The point being that Men can't join women only clubs, women can't join men only clubs.

It's irrelevant which came first, and which followed. It's an outdated format, and shouldn't require a vote in which to dissolve it. It should simply be a statute of law that single sex clubs are not permitted in an egalitarian society.

Bingo. Do you need that interpreted Mac? For the record, I don't think he means individual clubs of dubious repute in Soho...

I thought this was obvious but maybe not.

The reverse would be having female only clubs run by the sex that have subjugated the other for many centuries. These clubs make the rules and have all the power at a local and national level. They decide how the course is set up, who plays when, how funds are apportioned and so on.

So the reverse of Muirfield isn't a small female only club with no real say in the important matters of the game.

This issue comes up in arguments of race all the time, you cannot just flip an example without flipping the whole history and cultural norms of the situation.

Mav, you're deliberately being an OAF.

It doesn't matter who subjugated who first, it doesn't matter who were not allowed to be members. What is relevant is TODAY.

There is no place for clubs which exclude anyone. It shouldn't require a vote, it should be simple common sense.

Really, your harking down the "past" route is like blaming todays Bristolians for the slave market of the past.

Grow up, stop being deliberately contrary, or actually go and sign up to the Socialist Worker, because you're being a deliberate moron.

By the way, for your information. Lundin Ladies is a LADIES ONLY CLUB AND COURSE. It is EXACTLY the same as Muirfield. It doesn't matter a jot HOW or WHY it came about.

McLaren wrote:I thought this was obvious but maybe not.

The reverse would be having female only clubs run by the sex that have subjugated the other for many centuries.  These clubs make the rules and have all the power at a local and national level.  They decide how the course is set up, who plays when, how funds are apportioned and so on.

So the reverse of Muirfield isn't a small female only club with no real say in the important matters of the game.  

This issue comes up in arguments of race all the time, you cannot just flip an example without flipping the whole history and cultural norms of the situation.

Last from me on this. Sadly Mac, it's you that's talking nonsense. You're conflating other, wider issues. Let's extrapolate your logic into other spheres...

Jews can murder/exterminate whom they like, just because of centuries of oppression and the Holocaust? Nope.
Kurds/Armenians can murder Turks with impunity, just because the Turks might have actively oppressed them for centuries? Nope.
Blacks can enslave whites just because that's what happened to them for centuries? Nope, that doesn't work either.
Disabled can discriminate against the able-bodied, because they've been discriminated against for centuries? Nope. Sorry.
Women can discriminate against men, just because for centuries the opposite has been accepted? Nope. See what's going on here?

You can't simply allow an oppressed group, whomever that is, to do something that's been outlawed for the oppressors. That's called being absurd and you'll eventually reap a nasty backlash. If you fail to see that, there's little hope for you I'm afraid. Sorry to bring it up again, but for a 'scientist', you're remarkably selective/biased in how you treat data and employ reason.

Navy

You have missed the point.  Under your analogy women would be allowed to set up a golf club which perpetuates a known bias and discrimination both within golf and the wider society.

Although your last example almost does hit on the point "Women can discriminate against men, just because for centuries the opposite has been accepted? Nope.".  Nope they can't because it isn't possible.  If it isn't possible then how can you compare the formally all male R&a and a female only club?

This isn't about letting any group do something immoral or illegal to make up for past errors but accepting that an all female club does not reflect a current systemic sexism in our society.

I would love to see the data that shows the UK does not currently have systemic or institutional sexism? Go on blow my assertions out the water with all the science you can chuck at me. Something makes me think it will be you who has to twist data to suit a personal bias.

He's clearly not an employed Scientist Navy. Someone with such a contrived and "right on" fake attitude would fail any HR personality test because their answers would look too scripted and would be exactly what they expect the company wants to hear.