| |
Main
Date: 19 Mar 2007 14:01:54
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: The TPC
|
I see a lot of posting about this tournament. What exactly is it and who is
it run by? Didn't Craig Perks win it one year? How many times did Bobby
Jones and Jack Nicklaus play?
|
|
| |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 17:42:57
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
On 23, 5:10 pm, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
> A golfer in the heat of competition is supposed to stay focused
> on the task at hand, not on the meta issues of how fairly the
> course rewards good shots and punishes bad ones.
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. First off, how the course
treats your shots is about as far from "meta issues" as it gets. If
mental acuity was not as integral a part of the game as the physical,
tee boxes would be aimed straight down the fairway or at the green on
par threes and would be in the same place every time you played, there
would be no dog legs, no sucker pins, etc. If you aren't equally
aware of where your "good" misses are, you're fucked - and that's the
name of the game.
With that said, when you incorporate artificail forces to create these
"meta issues", and I firmly believe Pete Dye courses are artificial
challenges, it takes away from the purity of the experience. Huge
moguls in fairways are bullshit. False green fronts are more a test
of luck than skill. Greens that slope at 30* angles are crap. And on
it goes. I'll give you an example of one of the sternest (most
stern?), yet most natural tests of golf I have ever experienced,
including all courses on the Pebble Beach rota: Bayonet golf course
in Seaside, CA. Not a single OB on the course. Not a single mogul.
No water on the entire course. Just a few fairway bunkers, a few
greenside bunkers, and a straight ahead balls-out test of your
physical and mental abilities. Lot's of Monterey pines, some narrow
landing areas in places, but the most fair, yet difficult test of golf
I have ever experienced. If you can move the ball when necessary, if
you can keep the ball in play, if you can putt and chip a little,
you'll score.
Bottom line - "meta issues" are integral. Without them, it's a pretty
bland experience. How they are incirporated is another matter.
That's why I hated golf in the bay Area, by and large - lot's of hills
and moguls, lot's of what I call "holes by necessity" rather than
good, logical golf holes. Case in point for all you prospective Bay
Area travelers - Cinnabar Hills. Course is in phenomenal shape, but
is as artificial as Saccharin. But I digress....
|
| | |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 01:10:51
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
Ben. <kombi45@yahoo.com > wrote:
: On 23, 5:10 pm, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
:
: > A golfer in the heat of competition is supposed to stay focused
: > on the task at hand, not on the meta issues of how fairly the
: > course rewards good shots and punishes bad ones.
:
: You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
Sure I could! You haven't seen me try.
: First off, how the course
: treats your shots is about as far from "meta issues" as it gets.
That's only part of the equation here, though. The other part is
how it affects the rest of the field. If you're spending your
round considering how much random bounces and wind gusts are
going to shake up the leaderboard, you're probably not going to
play great golf. That's all I'm saying.
: If
: mental acuity was not as integral a part of the game as the physical,
: tee boxes would be aimed straight down the fairway or at the green on
: par threes and would be in the same place every time you played, there
: would be no dog legs, no sucker pins, etc. If you aren't equally
: aware of where your "good" misses are, you're fucked - and that's the
: name of the game.
As one of my teachers once taught me: "Know where the ball *isn't*
going."
: With that said, when you incorporate artificial forces to create these
: "meta issues", and I firmly believe Pete Dye courses are artificial
: challenges, it takes away from the purity of the experience. Huge
: moguls in fairways are bullshit. False green fronts are more a test
: of luck than skill. Greens that slope at 30* angles are crap. And on
: it goes.
Agreed completely.
: I'll give you an example of one of the sternest (most
: stern?), yet most natural tests of golf I have ever experienced,
: including all courses on the Pebble Beach rota: Bayonet golf course
: in Seaside, CA. Not a single OB on the course. Not a single mogul.
: No water on the entire course. Just a few fairway bunkers, a few
: greenside bunkers, and a straight ahead balls-out test of your
: physical and mental abilities. Lot's of Monterey pines, some narrow
: landing areas in places, but the most fair, yet difficult test of golf
: I have ever experienced. If you can move the ball when necessary, if
: you can keep the ball in play, if you can putt and chip a little,
: you'll score.
Sounds a lot like Colonial CC except that Colonial has some water
(but not much). Or Riviera, for that matter.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 07:38:39
From: me
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
On 22, 10:33 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> On 22 2007 06:59:03 -0700, "me" <oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 22, 8:58 am, "sfb" <s...@spam.net> wrote:
> >> "me" <oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1174566766.644105.253190@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On 21, 11:24 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote:
> >> > [snip]
> >> >> Just curious, Chris...
>
> >> >> What are your criteria for a tournament to be viewed as a major?
>
> >> >> And which of those criteria does The PLAYERS not meet?
> >> > [snip]
>
> >> > Not open to amateurs?
>
> >> The PGA Championship isn't open to anybody except PGA of America members.
> >> Only the Opens - duh - are open to amateurs.
>
> > And the Masters.
>
> Well, not open, but amateurs are invited.
Yeah, technically I believe it's an invitational. Not quite sure
what
differentiates that from the PGA Championship. Can they not invite
anyone they wish?
|
| | |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 14:41:10
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
"me" <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com > wrote in message
news:1174574319.345117.127610@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On 22, 10:33 am, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>> On 22 2007 06:59:03 -0700, "me" <oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 22, 8:58 am, "sfb" <s...@spam.net> wrote:
>> >> "me" <oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:1174566766.644105.253190@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On 21, 11:24 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote:
>> >> > [snip]
>> >> >> Just curious, Chris...
>>
>> >> >> What are your criteria for a tournament to be viewed as a major?
>>
>> >> >> And which of those criteria does The PLAYERS not meet?
>> >> > [snip]
>>
>> >> > Not open to amateurs?
>>
>> >> The PGA Championship isn't open to anybody except PGA of America
>> >> members.
>> >> Only the Opens - duh - are open to amateurs.
>>
>> > And the Masters.
>>
>> Well, not open, but amateurs are invited.
>
>
> Yeah, technically I believe it's an invitational. Not quite sure
> what
> differentiates that from the PGA Championship. Can they not invite
> anyone they wish?
Only professionals can compete in the PGA Championship.
Randy
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 12:50:27
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
On Thu, 22 2007 14:41:10 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>> Yeah, technically I believe it's an invitational. Not quite sure
>> what
>> differentiates that from the PGA Championship. Can they not invite
>> anyone they wish?
>
>Only professionals can compete in the PGA Championship.
Isn't that what the LPGA said about their championship?
|
| | |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 09:34:04
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
On 22 2007 07:38:39 -0700, "me" <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com > wrote:
> Yeah, technically I believe it's an invitational. Not quite sure
>what
>differentiates that from the PGA Championship. Can they not invite
>anyone they wish?
The LPGA has invited an amateur in their championship. Money talks,
I guess.
The Masters does have a set of criteria it uses - it's just their own
set. If its criteria were obnoxious by today's standards (racist),
the tour would sanction it.
|
| |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 06:59:03
From: me
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
On 22, 8:58 am, "sfb" <s...@spam.net > wrote:
> "me" <oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1174566766.644105.253190@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 21, 11:24 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> Just curious, Chris...
>
> >> What are your criteria for a tournament to be viewed as a major?
>
> >> And which of those criteria does The PLAYERS not meet?
> > [snip]
>
> > Not open to amateurs?
>
> The PGA Championship isn't open to anybody except PGA of America members.
> Only the Opens - duh - are open to amateurs.
And the Masters.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 14:33:04
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
On 22 2007 06:59:03 -0700, "me" <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com > wrote:
>On 22, 8:58 am, "sfb" <s...@spam.net> wrote:
>> "me" <oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1174566766.644105.253190@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 21, 11:24 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote:
>> > [snip]
>> >> Just curious, Chris...
>>
>> >> What are your criteria for a tournament to be viewed as a major?
>>
>> >> And which of those criteria does The PLAYERS not meet?
>> > [snip]
>>
>> > Not open to amateurs?
>>
>> The PGA Championship isn't open to anybody except PGA of America members.
>> Only the Opens - duh - are open to amateurs.
>
> And the Masters.
Well, not open, but amateurs are invited.
--
___,
\o
|
| |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 05:32:46
From: me
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
On 21, 11:24 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote:
[snip]
> Just curious, Chris...
>
> What are your criteria for a tournament to be viewed as a major?
>
> And which of those criteria does The PLAYERS not meet?
[snip]
Not open to amateurs?
|
| | |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 14:40:10
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
"me" <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com > wrote in message
news:1174566766.644105.253190@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 21, 11:24 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>> Just curious, Chris...
>>
>> What are your criteria for a tournament to be viewed as a major?
>>
>> And which of those criteria does The PLAYERS not meet?
> [snip]
>
> Not open to amateurs?
You mean like the PGA Championship?
randy
|
| | |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 08:58:39
From: sfb
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
The PGA Championship isn't open to anybody except PGA of America members.
Only the Opens - duh - are open to amateurs.
"me" <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com > wrote in message
news:1174566766.644105.253190@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 21, 11:24 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>> Just curious, Chris...
>>
>> What are your criteria for a tournament to be viewed as a major?
>>
>> And which of those criteria does The PLAYERS not meet?
> [snip]
>
> Not open to amateurs?
>
|
| |
Date: 21 Mar 2007 05:55:46
From: me
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
On 21, 8:19 am, "sfb" <s...@spam.net > wrote:
> "me" <oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
> news:1174479390.064066.106490@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > On 20, 8:36 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
> >> Strongest field of golfers on the planet. Anytime, anywhere. Say
> >> what you will about the Stadium Course's peccadillos, it's stronger in
> >> field than any toonamint - major or otherwise. It is the unofficial
> >> 5th major.
>
> > Fichem would probably appreciate it if you could tell him how
> > to become "official.
> Since the four majors are also unofficial, the TPC must already be an
> official unofficial major.
>
>
The Department of Redundancy Department?
|
| | |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 08:25:19
From: sfb
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
The Department of Redundancy is much too busy sorting out vanity plates on a
Mercedes Benz to worry about a golf tournament.
"me" <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com > wrote in message
news:1174481746.168218.240170@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On 21, 8:19 am, "sfb" <s...@spam.net> wrote:
>> "me" <oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
>> news:1174479390.064066.106490@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> > On 20, 8:36 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>> >> Strongest field of golfers on the planet. Anytime, anywhere. Say
>> >> what you will about the Stadium Course's peccadillos, it's stronger in
>> >> field than any toonamint - major or otherwise. It is the unofficial
>> >> 5th major.
>>
>> > Fichem would probably appreciate it if you could tell him how
>> > to become "official.
>> Since the four majors are also unofficial, the TPC must already be an
>> official unofficial major.
>>
>>
> The Department of Redundancy Department?
>
|
| |
Date: 21 Mar 2007 05:16:30
From: me
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
On 20, 8:36 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On 20, 5:42 pm, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org> wrote:
> > : On Mon, 19 2007 21:22:45 GMT, Chris Bellomy: <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>
> > :
> > :>AKA gray asphalt <goodidea1...@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
> > :>: I see a lot of posting about this tournament. What exactly is it and who is
> > :>: it run by?
> > :>
> > :>It's run by the PGA Tour. What it is, exactly, is open to a lot of
> > :>debate. I would consider it a golf exhibition with a large random
> > :>chance modulator used to determine a winner. Others think I'm crazy.
> > :>They may be right. (Cue Billy Joel, I guess.)
> > :
> > : Oh man, here we go with Bellomy's annual rant about the TPC...... :-)
>
> > It must be the start of spring, huh?
>
> > Here's my latest interpretation: The Players Championship is the
> > XFL of golf. TPC Sawgrass = He Hate Me. And there you go.
>
> Strongest field of golfers on the planet. Anytime, anywhere. Say
> what you will about the Stadium Course's peccadillos, it's stronger in
> field than any toonamint - major or otherwise. It is the unofficial
> 5th major.
Fichem would probably appreciate it if you could tell him how
to become "official".
|
| | |
Date: 21 Mar 2007 08:19:16
From: sfb
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
Since the four majors are also unofficial, the TPC must already be an
official unofficial major.
"me" <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com > wrote in message
news:1174479390.064066.106490@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 20, 8:36 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 20, 5:42 pm, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org> wrote:
>> > : On Mon, 19 2007 21:22:45 GMT, Chris Bellomy:
>> > <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > :
>> > :>AKA gray asphalt <goodidea1...@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>> > :>: I see a lot of posting about this tournament. What exactly is it
>> > and who is
>> > :>: it run by?
>> > :>
>> > :>It's run by the PGA Tour. What it is, exactly, is open to a lot of
>> > :>debate. I would consider it a golf exhibition with a large random
>> > :>chance modulator used to determine a winner. Others think I'm crazy.
>> > :>They may be right. (Cue Billy Joel, I guess.)
>> > :
>> > : Oh man, here we go with Bellomy's annual rant about the TPC......
>> > :-)
>>
>> > It must be the start of spring, huh?
>>
>> > Here's my latest interpretation: The Players Championship is the
>> > XFL of golf. TPC Sawgrass = He Hate Me. And there you go.
>>
>> Strongest field of golfers on the planet. Anytime, anywhere. Say
>> what you will about the Stadium Course's peccadillos, it's stronger in
>> field than any toonamint - major or otherwise. It is the unofficial
>> 5th major.
>
> Fichem would probably appreciate it if you could tell him how
> to become "official".
>
|
| |
Date: 20 Mar 2007 17:36:05
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
On 20, 5:42 pm, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
> John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org> wrote:
> : On Mon, 19 2007 21:22:45 GMT, Chris Bellomy: <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>
> :
> :>AKA gray asphalt <goodidea1...@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
> :>: I see a lot of posting about this tournament. What exactly is it and who is
> :>: it run by?
> :>
> :>It's run by the PGA Tour. What it is, exactly, is open to a lot of
> :>debate. I would consider it a golf exhibition with a large random
> :>chance modulator used to determine a winner. Others think I'm crazy.
> :>They may be right. (Cue Billy Joel, I guess.)
> :
> : Oh man, here we go with Bellomy's annual rant about the TPC...... :-)
>
> It must be the start of spring, huh?
>
> Here's my latest interpretation: The Players Championship is the
> XFL of golf. TPC Sawgrass = He Hate Me. And there you go.
Strongest field of golfers on the planet. Anytime, anywhere. Say
what you will about the Stadium Course's peccadillos, it's stronger in
field than any toonamint - major or otherwise. It is the unofficial
5th major.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Mar 2007 19:42:48
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
On 24, 10:26 pm, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
> : Do you hold the same opinion of US Open setups?
>
> A lot of them, yeah.
>
Me too. My point is that the US Open has always been about driving
accuracy and iron play. When Ben Hogan was winning his 5 US Open
medals, nobody bitched that the courses didn't reward scrambling.
I think that if Tiger played the TPC by just hitting his 'stinger" 3-
wood from the tee, he'd probably win by 5.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 17:29:48
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
On 24, 1:53 am, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
> It occurred to me earlier this evening that about the strongest
> emotional case I could make against TPC Sawgrass is that it's a
> course where Arnold Palmer could never have won, where Seve
> Ballesteros never did win, where Phil Mickelson has never won
> and likely never will. The recovery shot was/is the bread and
> butter of these great players, is the most exciting shot in golf,
> and TPC Sawgrass basically doesn't allow it.
Sounds like a perfect venue to hold the US Open!
Do you hold the same opinion of US Open setups?
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Mar 2007 02:26:27
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
: On 24, 1:53 am, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
: > It occurred to me earlier this evening that about the strongest
: > emotional case I could make against TPC Sawgrass is that it's a
: > course where Arnold Palmer could never have won, where Seve
: > Ballesteros never did win, where Phil Mickelson has never won
: > and likely never will. The recovery shot was/is the bread and
: > butter of these great players, is the most exciting shot in golf,
: > and TPC Sawgrass basically doesn't allow it.
:
: Sounds like a perfect venue to hold the US Open!
:
: Do you hold the same opinion of US Open setups?
A lot of them, yeah.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Mar 2007 01:14:40
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
On 24--2007, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
> Sounds like a perfect venue to hold the US Open!
>
> Do you hold the same opinion of US Open setups?
Have you not been paying attention? June is Bellomy's annual ticked up US
open post. And with this year's schedule his Colonial buzz will be history
by then! :-)
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 10:15:10
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
On 24, 11:50 am, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> It occurred to me earlier this evening that about the strongest
> emotional case I could make against TPC Sawgrass is that it's a
> course where Arnold Palmer could never have won, where Seve
> Ballesteros never did win....<snip>
Seve could never have won a US Open...on any course. Seve never won a
PGA. And if ANGC was set up in his day as it is now, he probably
would never have won there, either. Arnie never won a PGA. Probably
the same w/ him and ANGC's current set up, as well. Does this mean
you are against the US Open and the PGA, too? Nonsense. I'll say it
once again - I agree with you on the design of the Stadium Course. I
differ in that it should be a major - strongest field in golf
anywhere, anytime. The Masters cruises on tradition and the weakest
field of the majors. US Open has various amateurs and qualifiers.
PGA has teaching pros. Sawgrass is straight strength of field. No
ams, no teachers, no qualies. Again, I don't like the track, but
whether or not some wild men could have or can win there has no
bearing on my opinion that it should be a major championship.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 09:50:50
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
On 24, 11:28 am, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
> Ben. <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : On 24, 12:53 am, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> :> John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org> wrote:
> :>
> :> [about Augusta]
> :>
> :> : Here's what Jack and Arnie have to say about the new course. I
> :> : suppose you could consider them two of the greatest golfers of all
> :> : time.
> :> :
> :> :http://www.golfdigest.com/majors/masters/index.ssf?/majors/masters/gd...
> :> :
> :> : I find Jack's comment about the introduction of rough and AGNC being a
> :> : "second shot" golf course particularly interesting.
> :>
> :> You're preaching to the choir here.
> :>
> :> It occurred to me earlier this evening that about the strongest
> :> emotional case I could make against TPC Sawgrass is that it's a
> :> course where Arnold Palmer could never have won, where Seve
> :> Ballesteros never did win, where Phil Mickelson has never won
> :> and likely never will. The recovery shot was/is the bread and
> :> butter of these great players, is the most exciting shot in golf,
> :> and TPC Sawgrass basically doesn't allow it.
> :
> : Davis Love's six iron from 190 in pine straw and chilly, wet
> : conditions called - it says "Hi!"
>
> Exception that proves the rule.
Holding on the other line is Fred Couples' "hole in three" wedge. Do
you have time to take a call from the edge of Vijay's putter? Hal
Sutton's eight iron wants a meeting, too. Let me know when you have
some time...
|
| | |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 06:27:32
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
On 24, 12:53 am, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
> John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org> wrote:
>
> [about Augusta]
>
> : Here's what Jack and Arnie have to say about the new course. I
> : suppose you could consider them two of the greatest golfers of all
> : time.
> :
> :http://www.golfdigest.com/majors/masters/index.ssf?/majors/masters/gd...
> :
> : I find Jack's comment about the introduction of rough and AGNC being a
> : "second shot" golf course particularly interesting.
>
> You're preaching to the choir here.
>
> It occurred to me earlier this evening that about the strongest
> emotional case I could make against TPC Sawgrass is that it's a
> course where Arnold Palmer could never have won, where Seve
> Ballesteros never did win, where Phil Mickelson has never won
> and likely never will. The recovery shot was/is the bread and
> butter of these great players, is the most exciting shot in golf,
> and TPC Sawgrass basically doesn't allow it.
Davis Love's six iron from 190 in pine straw and chilly, wet
conditions called - it says "Hi!"
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 16:28:00
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
Ben. <kombi45@yahoo.com > wrote:
: On 24, 12:53 am, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
: > John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org> wrote:
: >
: > [about Augusta]
: >
: > : Here's what Jack and Arnie have to say about the new course. I
: > : suppose you could consider them two of the greatest golfers of all
: > : time.
: > :
: > :http://www.golfdigest.com/majors/masters/index.ssf?/majors/masters/gd...
: > :
: > : I find Jack's comment about the introduction of rough and AGNC being a
: > : "second shot" golf course particularly interesting.
: >
: > You're preaching to the choir here.
: >
: > It occurred to me earlier this evening that about the strongest
: > emotional case I could make against TPC Sawgrass is that it's a
: > course where Arnold Palmer could never have won, where Seve
: > Ballesteros never did win, where Phil Mickelson has never won
: > and likely never will. The recovery shot was/is the bread and
: > butter of these great players, is the most exciting shot in golf,
: > and TPC Sawgrass basically doesn't allow it.
:
: Davis Love's six iron from 190 in pine straw and chilly, wet
: conditions called - it says "Hi!"
Exception that proves the rule.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 13:10:23
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
No offense, but in the context of "proves the rule", prove means puts to the
test. So an exception challenges a rule, not proves it in the sense of
making it true.
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3v68ftIrj4N34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> Ben. <kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : On 24, 12:53 am, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> :> John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org> wrote:
> :>
> :> [about Augusta]
> :>
> :> : Here's what Jack and Arnie have to say about the new course. I
> :> : suppose you could consider them two of the greatest golfers of all
> :> : time.
> :> :
> :>
> :http://www.golfdigest.com/majors/masters/index.ssf?/majors/masters/gd...
> :> :
> :> : I find Jack's comment about the introduction of rough and AGNC being
> a
> :> : "second shot" golf course particularly interesting.
> :>
> :> You're preaching to the choir here.
> :>
> :> It occurred to me earlier this evening that about the strongest
> :> emotional case I could make against TPC Sawgrass is that it's a
> :> course where Arnold Palmer could never have won, where Seve
> :> Ballesteros never did win, where Phil Mickelson has never won
> :> and likely never will. The recovery shot was/is the bread and
> :> butter of these great players, is the most exciting shot in golf,
> :> and TPC Sawgrass basically doesn't allow it.
> :
> : Davis Love's six iron from 190 in pine straw and chilly, wet
> : conditions called - it says "Hi!"
>
> Exception that proves the rule.
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Mar 2007 01:11:24
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
AKA gray asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
:
: No offense, but in the context of "proves the rule", prove means puts to the
: test. So an exception challenges a rule, not proves it in the sense of
: making it true.
No offense, but "the exception that proves the rule" is a phrase
that owes its origin to the lore that every rule has an exception.
Therefore, if it doesn't have an exception, it can't be rule. Hence,
the exception that proves the rule.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 Mar 2007 23:37:34
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
This site says we are both wrong:
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/exception-that-proves-the-rule.html
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:1T3v9rfdIr6kN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> AKA gray asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
> :
> : No offense, but in the context of "proves the rule", prove means puts to
> the
> : test. So an exception challenges a rule, not proves it in the sense of
> : making it true.
>
> No offense, but "the exception that proves the rule" is a phrase
> that owes its origin to the lore that every rule has an exception.
> Therefore, if it doesn't have an exception, it can't be rule. Hence,
> the exception that proves the rule.
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 Mar 2007 22:31:47
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
Imo, that just isn't true, Chris.
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:1T3v9rfdIr6kN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> AKA gray asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
> :
> : No offense, but in the context of "proves the rule", prove means puts to
> the
> : test. So an exception challenges a rule, not proves it in the sense of
> : making it true.
>
> No offense, but "the exception that proves the rule" is a phrase
> that owes its origin to the lore that every rule has an exception.
> Therefore, if it doesn't have an exception, it can't be rule. Hence,
> the exception that proves the rule.
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/
|
| | |
Date: 21 Mar 2007 02:06:34
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
Ben. <kombi45@yahoo.com > wrote:
: On 20, 5:42 pm, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
: > John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org> wrote:
: > : On Mon, 19 2007 21:22:45 GMT, Chris Bellomy: <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: >
: > :
: > :>AKA gray asphalt <goodidea1...@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
: > :>: I see a lot of posting about this tournament. What exactly is it and who is
: > :>: it run by?
: > :>
: > :>It's run by the PGA Tour. What it is, exactly, is open to a lot of
: > :>debate. I would consider it a golf exhibition with a large random
: > :>chance modulator used to determine a winner. Others think I'm crazy.
: > :>They may be right. (Cue Billy Joel, I guess.)
: > :
: > : Oh man, here we go with Bellomy's annual rant about the TPC...... :-)
: >
: > It must be the start of spring, huh?
: >
: > Here's my latest interpretation: The Players Championship is the
: > XFL of golf. TPC Sawgrass = He Hate Me. And there you go.
:
: Strongest field of golfers on the planet. Anytime, anywhere. Say
: what you will about the Stadium Course's peccadillos, it's stronger in
: field than any toonamint - major or otherwise.
OK, it's the Superstars of golf!
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Mar 2007 23:24:15
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3usorsIi2iN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> Ben. <kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : On 20, 5:42 pm, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> :> John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org> wrote:
> :> : On Mon, 19 2007 21:22:45 GMT, Chris Bellomy:
> <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> :>
> :> :
> :> :>AKA gray asphalt <goodidea1...@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
> :> :>: I see a lot of posting about this tournament. What exactly is it
> and who is
> :> :>: it run by?
> :> :>
> :> :>It's run by the PGA Tour. What it is, exactly, is open to a lot of
> :> :>debate. I would consider it a golf exhibition with a large random
> :> :>chance modulator used to determine a winner. Others think I'm crazy.
> :> :>They may be right. (Cue Billy Joel, I guess.)
> :> :
> :> : Oh man, here we go with Bellomy's annual rant about the TPC......
> :-)
> :>
> :> It must be the start of spring, huh?
> :>
> :> Here's my latest interpretation: The Players Championship is the
> :> XFL of golf. TPC Sawgrass = He Hate Me. And there you go.
> :
> : Strongest field of golfers on the planet. Anytime, anywhere. Say
> : what you will about the Stadium Course's peccadillos, it's stronger in
> : field than any toonamint - major or otherwise.
>
> OK, it's the Superstars of golf!
Just curious, Chris...
What are your criteria for a tournament to be viewed as a major?
And which of those criteria does The PLAYERS not meet?
Randy
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 06:55:34
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
"\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
: "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
: news:0T3usorsIi2iN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
: > Ben. <kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > : On 20, 5:42 pm, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: > :> John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org> wrote:
: > :> : On Mon, 19 2007 21:22:45 GMT, Chris Bellomy:
: > <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
: > :>
: > :> :
: > :> :>AKA gray asphalt <goodidea1...@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
: > :> :>: I see a lot of posting about this tournament. What exactly is it
: > and who is
: > :> :>: it run by?
: > :> :>
: > :> :>It's run by the PGA Tour. What it is, exactly, is open to a lot of
: > :> :>debate. I would consider it a golf exhibition with a large random
: > :> :>chance modulator used to determine a winner. Others think I'm crazy.
: > :> :>They may be right. (Cue Billy Joel, I guess.)
: > :> :
: > :> : Oh man, here we go with Bellomy's annual rant about the TPC......
: > :-)
: > :>
: > :> It must be the start of spring, huh?
: > :>
: > :> Here's my latest interpretation: The Players Championship is the
: > :> XFL of golf. TPC Sawgrass = He Hate Me. And there you go.
: > :
: > : Strongest field of golfers on the planet. Anytime, anywhere. Say
: > : what you will about the Stadium Course's peccadillos, it's stronger in
: > : field than any toonamint - major or otherwise.
: >
: > OK, it's the Superstars of golf!
:
: Just curious, Chris...
:
: What are your criteria for a tournament to be viewed as a major?
- Tradition
- Must be a test of golf
- Attracts best players in the world
That's a good start. The Players wins on 1 of the 3.
: And which of those criteria does The PLAYERS not meet?
The first two.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 12:47:38
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
On Thu, 22 2007 06:55:34 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>: What are your criteria for a tournament to be viewed as a major?
>
>- Tradition
>- Must be a test of golf
>- Attracts best players in the world
>
>That's a good start. The Players wins on 1 of the 3.
>
>: And which of those criteria does The PLAYERS not meet?
>
>The first two.
Another criterion is that there can't be too many majors. Some
people think 4 is the right number - mainly for reasons of tradition.
But nobody proposes that we have 20 majors - even if there are 20
events which meet the criteria above.
We had a thread about having majors too close together. One solution
for that would be to have fewer than 4 majors. Actually, if the
FedEx cup achieves its objective, there is no need for any majors at
all. After all, American Football doesn't have any majors - because
it has a championship.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 02:35:25
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:lij5031jl2dbc21e6ilodghgrhpfnfdf0v@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 2007 06:55:34 GMT, Chris Bellomy
> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>
>>: What are your criteria for a tournament to be viewed as a major?
>>
>>- Tradition
>>- Must be a test of golf
>>- Attracts best players in the world
>>
>>That's a good start. The Players wins on 1 of the 3.
>>
>>: And which of those criteria does The PLAYERS not meet?
>>
>>The first two.
>
> Another criterion is that there can't be too many majors. Some
> people think 4 is the right number - mainly for reasons of tradition.
> But nobody proposes that we have 20 majors - even if there are 20
> events which meet the criteria above.
This is the best argument I know of. Not that 4 is the right number. I've
always felt that many people clung to the number four because some newspaper
man coined the term "grand slam," and every baseball fan knows that a grand
slam covers four bases and scores four runs. (Many of these same people who
buy that are among the first to resist any attemps by newspaper men -- the
media -- to shape public opinion now, although they buy this one hook, line
and sinker.) But who's to say what the right number is? 3? 4? 5? 6?
Hell if I know. But I will grant you that there can't be too many, or they
wouldn't be "special."
The bottom line to me is pretty simple. The term "major championship"
traces back to a more generic definition of the word "major." When the term
was first used to describe certain events, it was applied to those
tournaments that players felt were the most "important" ones of the year,
for whatever reason they thought it to be the case.
There's no question that The PLAYERS is one of the five most "important"
events on the schedule. Why else would all the best players in the world
show up for it? There was really no other litmus test than that back in the
'30s. A tournament that attracted the best players was important because it
really meant something special if you could win it -- it meant you beat the
best.
Randy
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 09:17:57
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:JK6dnWGHhYS16J7bnZ2dnUVZ_oKnnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
> news:lij5031jl2dbc21e6ilodghgrhpfnfdf0v@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 22 2007 06:55:34 GMT, Chris Bellomy
>> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>: What are your criteria for a tournament to be viewed as a major?
>>>
>>>- Tradition
>>>- Must be a test of golf
>>>- Attracts best players in the world
>>>
>>>That's a good start. The Players wins on 1 of the 3.
>>>
>>>: And which of those criteria does The PLAYERS not meet?
>>>
>>>The first two.
>>
>> Another criterion is that there can't be too many majors. Some
>> people think 4 is the right number - mainly for reasons of tradition.
>> But nobody proposes that we have 20 majors - even if there are 20
>> events which meet the criteria above.
>
> This is the best argument I know of. Not that 4 is the right number.
> I've always felt that many people clung to the number four because some
> newspaper man coined the term "grand slam," and every baseball fan knows
> that a grand slam covers four bases and scores four runs. (Many of these
> same people who buy that are among the first to resist any attemps by
> newspaper men -- the media -- to shape public opinion now, although they
> buy this one hook, line and sinker.) But who's to say what the right
> number is? 3? 4? 5? 6? Hell if I know. But I will grant you that
> there can't be too many, or they wouldn't be "special."
>
> The bottom line to me is pretty simple. The term "major championship"
> traces back to a more generic definition of the word "major." When the
> term was first used to describe certain events, it was applied to those
> tournaments that players felt were the most "important" ones of the year,
> for whatever reason they thought it to be the case.
>
> There's no question that The PLAYERS is one of the five most "important"
> events on the schedule. Why else would all the best players in the world
> show up for it? There was really no other litmus test than that back in
> the '30s. A tournament that attracted the best players was important
> because it really meant something special if you could win it -- it meant
> you beat the best.
>
> Randy
That is hard to disagree with, really. 5 most important, yes.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 14:39:48
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:1T3uvu58Imt8N34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
> : "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> : news:0T3usorsIi2iN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> :> Ben. <kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote:
> :> : On 20, 5:42 pm, Chris Bellomy <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> :> :> John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspa...@bite.org> wrote:
> :> :> : On Mon, 19 2007 21:22:45 GMT, Chris Bellomy:
> :> <p...@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :> :
> :> :> :>AKA gray asphalt <goodidea1...@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
> :> :> :>: I see a lot of posting about this tournament. What exactly is it
> :> and who is
> :> :> :>: it run by?
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :>It's run by the PGA Tour. What it is, exactly, is open to a lot of
> :> :> :>debate. I would consider it a golf exhibition with a large random
> :> :> :>chance modulator used to determine a winner. Others think I'm
> crazy.
> :> :> :>They may be right. (Cue Billy Joel, I guess.)
> :> :> :
> :> :> : Oh man, here we go with Bellomy's annual rant about the TPC......
> :> :-)
> :> :>
> :> :> It must be the start of spring, huh?
> :> :>
> :> :> Here's my latest interpretation: The Players Championship is the
> :> :> XFL of golf. TPC Sawgrass = He Hate Me. And there you go.
> :> :
> :> : Strongest field of golfers on the planet. Anytime, anywhere. Say
> :> : what you will about the Stadium Course's peccadillos, it's stronger
> in
> :> : field than any toonamint - major or otherwise.
> :>
> :> OK, it's the Superstars of golf!
> :
> : Just curious, Chris...
> :
> : What are your criteria for a tournament to be viewed as a major?
>
> - Tradition
> - Must be a test of golf
> - Attracts best players in the world
>
> That's a good start. The Players wins on 1 of the 3.
>
> : And which of those criteria does The PLAYERS not meet?
>
> The first two.
Okay, this gives us a basis for discussion.
On the first one -- tradition -- would you say The Masters had sufficient
tradition in 1960 when Arnold Palmer won it? That was when he and Bob Drum
coined the term "majors," referring to his wins at the tournaments we now
refer to as the four majors. So at least in Arnie's mind, and I'm sure many
others, The Masters was already a major by 1960.
How much tradition did it have by 1960? Almost ten years less than The
PLAYERS Championship does today. The Masters was in its 27th year in 1960.
The PLAYER Championship is celebrating its 34th year in existence with the
playing of this May's event.
Next question...
On the second one -- a test of golf -- I would opine that TOUR players are
in a far better position to judge the sternness and completeness of the test
provided by any particular course than you and I are. The players will tell
you (many of them told me, and I asked specifically about this very thing
for some feature interviews we did on this tournament) that while the TPC at
Sawgrass may have seemed a bit peculiar to some players when it first
opened, the vast majority of them have come to believe over time, with all
the modifications made the the course through the years, that it has become
one of the most complete tests of golf they face every year. These are
their their words, not mine.
I have no horse in this race. I don't work for the TOUR any more, so I have
no reason to act as an agent to repeat their spin. Like you, I was
skeptical about this event being a major, as it just seemed a little too
convenient to me that the TOUR was pushing it on us as the so-called "fifth
major" when it was obvious they wanted their own signature event to gain
such status.
But the simple fact is, it meets all the criteria of a major -- tradition,
test, prestige, field, exemption and purse.
Whether you and I like it or not.
Randy
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 20:20:48
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
"\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
: On the first one -- tradition -- would you say The Masters had sufficient
: tradition in 1960 when Arnold Palmer won it?
By dint of Bobby Jones and the lack of credible alternatives, yeah.
The Western Open had a longer history but it didn't have that track
and it didn't have Jones.
: Next question...
:
: On the second one -- a test of golf -- I would opine that TOUR players are
: in a far better position to judge the sternness and completeness of the test
: provided by any particular course than you and I are.
I think that's clearly insane, a bit like saying that guys who can't
play have no business teaching. Guys who know how to play, know how
to play. They don't necessarily know much about weighing how different
courses test different aspects of their games, nor do they necessarily
have the wherewithal to think though what the element of luck does to
dilute skill as a determinant of a champion in any given event. Poker
players would be better that last thing than golfers, for instance.
But note my use of the word "necessarily." Some golfers can and do
know these things. But not knowing them is not much of an impediment
to being a pro golfer.
Finally, Tour players have a financial incentive to preserve the image
of the Players Championship as a legitimate test of golf. I can set
hyperbole aside for a moment and concede that it is a test of golf,
but the element of luck so influences the scores that I have no reason
to assume that the golfer with the lowest score after 72 holes actually
played the best golf.
: The players will tell
: you (many of them told me, and I asked specifically about this very thing
: for some feature interviews we did on this tournament) that while the TPC at
: Sawgrass may have seemed a bit peculiar to some players when it first
: opened, the vast majority of them have come to believe over time, with all
: the modifications made the the course through the years, that it has become
: one of the most complete tests of golf they face every year. These are
: their their words, not mine.
Well, I don't expect them to badmouth their tour's signature event.
For whatever reason, though, they're simply wrong about this. Anybody
with a television can see the enormous difference a bad bounce, a
gust of wind, or simply a one-foot miss can make at that place. Any
course that overemphasizes penalty drops has got serious fairness
issues.
: I have no horse in this race. I don't work for the TOUR any more, so I have
: no reason to act as an agent to repeat their spin. Like you, I was
: skeptical about this event being a major, as it just seemed a little too
: convenient to me that the TOUR was pushing it on us as the so-called "fifth
: major" when it was obvious they wanted their own signature event to gain
: such status.
Bingo.
: But the simple fact is, it meets all the criteria of a major -- tradition,
: test, prestige, field, exemption and purse.
I respectfully disagree, you DICK.
Oops, the spirit of Stemmer overtook me. Sorry.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 02:27:39
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote
> : On the second one -- a test of golf -- I would opine that TOUR players
> are
> : in a far better position to judge the sternness and completeness of the
> test
> : provided by any particular course than you and I are.
>
> I think that's clearly insane, a bit like saying that guys who can't
> play have no business teaching. Guys who know how to play, know how
> to play. They don't necessarily know much about weighing how different
> courses test different aspects of their games, nor do they necessarily
> have the wherewithal to think though what the element of luck does to
> dilute skill as a determinant of a champion in any given event. Poker
> players would be better that last thing than golfers, for instance.
Sorry, but I would argue that the best players in the world are, indeed,
more qualified than you or I at determining what kind of a test the TPC at
Sawgrass provides.
First of all, have you ever played it? Have you ever even seen it in
person?
Didn't think so.
So you're basing your judgement solely on what you see on TV. Which is a
little like judging a golf course based on how it looks on Tiger Woods 2002.
E-A Sports. It's in the game.
> Finally, Tour players have a financial incentive to preserve the image
> of the Players Championship as a legitimate test of golf.
Well, that's simply not true.
If The PLAYERS Championship went away tomorrow, it wouldn't affect TOUR
players' earnings one iota. Another tournament would come along to take its
spot on the schedule, and the purses would rise over time. I fail to see
any connection here. Players are not paid a commission based upon how
people perceive the TPC at Sawgrass. Where did you come up with that
ridiculous argument?
> I can set hyperbole aside for a moment and concede that it is a test of
> golf,
> but the element of luck so influences the scores that I have no reason
> to assume that the golfer with the lowest score after 72 holes actually
> played the best golf.
Please name one example where luck has played a factor in the outcome of The
PLAYERS Championship in a way that luck couldn't have had a similar impact
of any other major championship, or any other round of golf, for that
matter.
Luck is part of golf. Always has been. Always will be. On ANY course.
> : The players will tell
> : you (many of them told me, and I asked specifically about this very
> thing
> : for some feature interviews we did on this tournament) that while the
> TPC at
> : Sawgrass may have seemed a bit peculiar to some players when it first
> : opened, the vast majority of them have come to believe over time, with
> all
> : the modifications made the the course through the years, that it has
> become
> : one of the most complete tests of golf they face every year. These are
> : their their words, not mine.
>
> Well, I don't expect them to badmouth their tour's signature event.
> For whatever reason, though, they're simply wrong about this.
So let me get this straight. Your fallback argument here, essentially, is
that you are more knowledgeable and are a better judge of what kind of test
the TPC at Sawgrass provides than the best players in the world, despite the
fact that you've never played it or never even walked its fairways. You are
saying you can make this better-informed judgement from the comfortable
position of your couch.
Is that about it?
Interesting.
> Anybody with a television can see the enormous difference a bad bounce, a
> gust of wind, or simply a one-foot miss can make at that place.
Anybody with a television can see the enormous difference a bad bounce, a
gust of wind, or simply a one-foot miss can make at Augusta National, any US
Open venue, or any British Open venue. (Maybe not so much at any PGA
Championship venue, but at many, it's true there, too.)
So what's the difference?
> Any course that overemphasizes penalty drops has got serious fairness
> issues.
The only hole where this is true is the island green 17th. But consider, if
you've ever actually seen this hole in person (not the replica at Tour 18,
which is nothing like the real thing), you'll realize that for the pros,
it's just a 9-iron, and they're hitting to a very generous green.
Windy? Tough shit. Ask the folks at the British Open about wind. Ne'er
wind, ne'er gawf.
> : I have no horse in this race. I don't work for the TOUR any more, so I
> have
> : no reason to act as an agent to repeat their spin. Like you, I was
> : skeptical about this event being a major, as it just seemed a little too
> : convenient to me that the TOUR was pushing it on us as the so-called
> "fifth
> : major" when it was obvious they wanted their own signature event to gain
> : such status.
>
> Bingo.
>
> : But the simple fact is, it meets all the criteria of a major --
> tradition,
> : test, prestige, field, exemption and purse.
>
> I respectfully disagree, you DICK.
>
> Oops, the spirit of Stemmer overtook me. Sorry.
Fuck Stemmer.
There, I said it.
Randy
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 16:53:48
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
"\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
: "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote
:
: > : On the second one -- a test of golf -- I would opine that TOUR players
: > are
: > : in a far better position to judge the sternness and completeness of the
: > test
: > : provided by any particular course than you and I are.
: >
: > I think that's clearly insane, a bit like saying that guys who can't
: > play have no business teaching. Guys who know how to play, know how
: > to play. They don't necessarily know much about weighing how different
: > courses test different aspects of their games, nor do they necessarily
: > have the wherewithal to think though what the element of luck does to
: > dilute skill as a determinant of a champion in any given event. Poker
: > players would be better that last thing than golfers, for instance.
:
: Sorry, but I would argue that the best players in the world are, indeed,
: more qualified than you or I at determining what kind of a test the TPC at
: Sawgrass provides.
Well then we'll have to just disagree.
Can you produce a list of other things that great golfers must
be inherently more qualified at than me just because they're
great golfers? I don't understand why they're not inherently
better teachers than Hank Haney if they're inherently better
judges of golf architecture than, say, Robert Trent Jones.
: First of all, have you ever played it? Have you ever even seen it in
: person?
:
: Didn't think so.
I haven't seen Augusta in person, either, but I can tell you
that Augusta is a much fairer test tee-to-green (or was, until
Hootie fucked with it) than TPC Sawgrass.
I *have* seen/played Pebble Beach twice, and I can tell you that
my impression of its quality/fairness didn't change from playing
there.
: So you're basing your judgement solely on what you see on TV. Which is a
: little like judging a golf course based on how it looks on Tiger Woods 2002.
: E-A Sports.
See above.
: > Finally, Tour players have a financial incentive to preserve the image
: > of the Players Championship as a legitimate test of golf.
:
: Well, that's simply not true.
:
: If The PLAYERS Championship went away tomorrow, it wouldn't affect TOUR
: players' earnings one iota.
If the public perception of the Tour's signature event were damaged,
it would in turn damage perception of professional golf as a whole,
in turn damaging endorsement opportunities for pros.
: > I can set hyperbole aside for a moment and concede that it is a test of
: > golf,
: > but the element of luck so influences the scores that I have no reason
: > to assume that the golfer with the lowest score after 72 holes actually
: > played the best golf.
:
: Please name one example where luck has played a factor in the outcome of The
: PLAYERS Championship in a way that luck couldn't have had a similar impact
: of any other major championship, or any other round of golf, for that
: matter.
Just about every year a long list of would-be contenders takes
some sort of weird bounce off a railroad tie either into a hazard
or back to the fairway/green. I'm not just talking about #17,
either, I'm talking about the entire course. (Though of course
#17 is a stupid golf hole.)
: Luck is part of golf. Always has been. Always will be. On ANY course.
Luck is part of poker, too, but that doesn't mean they should
hold a lottery to determine the WSOP champion.
: > : The players will tell
: > : you (many of them told me, and I asked specifically about this very
: > thing
: > : for some feature interviews we did on this tournament) that while the
: > TPC at
: > : Sawgrass may have seemed a bit peculiar to some players when it first
: > : opened, the vast majority of them have come to believe over time, with
: > all
: > : the modifications made the the course through the years, that it has
: > become
: > : one of the most complete tests of golf they face every year. These are
: > : their their words, not mine.
: >
: > Well, I don't expect them to badmouth their tour's signature event.
: > For whatever reason, though, they're simply wrong about this.
:
: So let me get this straight. Your fallback argument here, essentially, is
: that you are more knowledgeable and are a better judge of what kind of test
: the TPC at Sawgrass provides than the best players in the world, despite the
: fact that you've never played it or never even walked its fairways.
I'm older than most of those guys, have studied golf history and
golf architecture for most of my adult life, and have walked the
fairways of a few of the greatest courses in the country. (Walked
the rough, too, I had a ball to chase!) Keep in mind, Randy, that
you and I have consistently been on the same side of the argument
whenever the USGA has gone overboard with a course setup. Remember
the endless arguments about Shinnecock last time around? Sawgrass
plays like that *every* *year*. There's no outrage about it anymore
because everybody simply accepts it as the personality of the golf
course -- and it's not as extreme. But it has the same problem.
: You are
: saying you can make this better-informed judgement from the comfortable
: position of your couch.
:
: Is that about it?
Like I said above, when you can produce a list of things that great
golfers can do better than I can because they're great golfers, I'm
all ears. I'm sure they can hit the high draw better than I can,
and I'm sure they can putt circles around me. I don't think these
things make them inherently better informed about golf architecture
than you or me, though.
: > Anybody with a television can see the enormous difference a bad bounce, a
: > gust of wind, or simply a one-foot miss can make at that place.
:
: Anybody with a television can see the enormous difference a bad bounce, a
: gust of wind, or simply a one-foot miss can make at Augusta National, any US
: Open venue, or any British Open venue.
Exactly. When the USGA does it, rsg goes nuts (and you and I are
there leading the charge). Otherwise, nobody produces a luckfest
like the TPC.
: So what's the difference?
See above.
: > Any course that overemphasizes penalty drops has got serious fairness
: > issues.
:
: The only hole where this is true is the island green 17th.
No, the entire course has this problem. Golfers are constantly
presented with a choice between sand/trees on one side and water
on the other. There's rarely any safe bailout area, anywhere.
It's penal architecture at its most extreme.
: > I respectfully disagree, you DICK.
: >
: > Oops, the spirit of Stemmer overtook me. Sorry.
:
: Fuck Stemmer.
:
: There, I said it.
Don't you feel better already?
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 14:54:54
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote
>
> Can you produce a list of other things that great golfers must
> be inherently more qualified at than me just because they're
> great golfers?
Not really. The list isn't all that long at all. And I find your defensive
reaction quite revealing.
But to answer your question, I would say that anyone who has spent their
entire life studying the game of golf, learning things about it that you and
I don't even know exist, honing their skills enough to become among the most
skilled in the world, and more importantly, have, themselves, played on
most, if not all, of the greatest courses in the world in professional
competition, surely have a better frame of reference from which to compare
the relative tests offered by each one.
How you could possibly argue that point defies all reason and good
judgement.
Honestly, Chris, how can you, from the comfort of your living room sofa,
possibly have a better frame of reference from which to judge whether one
golf courses offers a more complete test than another than the players who
have actually played on it and most others in the world? That's just silly.
And you know it.
> I don't understand why they're not inherently
> better teachers than Hank Haney if they're inherently better
> judges of golf architecture than, say, Robert Trent Jones.
Apples and oranges.
We're not talking about instruction. And we're not talking about golf
course architecture.
We're talking about whether a course offers a more complete test of one's
game than other courses. If players know nothing else, they would certainly
know THAT, because its their own games that have been tested.
Really, how can you argue this point and keep a straight face?
> : First of all, have you ever played it? Have you ever even seen it in
> : person?
> :
> : Didn't think so.
>
> I haven't seen Augusta in person, either, but I can tell you
> that Augusta is a much fairer test tee-to-green (or was, until
> Hootie fucked with it) than TPC Sawgrass.
Okay, Mr. Course Architect. Tell me precisely what Hootie did to the course
that makes it a less fair test of golf, or any specific changes he made that
materially changed whether the course remains one of the 3 or 4 finest in
the world.
> I *have* seen/played Pebble Beach twice, and I can tell you that
> my impression of its quality/fairness didn't change from playing
> there.
Pebble Beach is among those 3 or 4 that are the best in the world.
> : So you're basing your judgement solely on what you see on TV. Which is
> a
> : little like judging a golf course based on how it looks on Tiger Woods
> 2002.
> : E-A Sports.
>
> See above.
>
> :> Finally, Tour players have a financial incentive to preserve the image
> :> of the Players Championship as a legitimate test of golf.
> :
> : Well, that's simply not true.
> :
> : If The PLAYERS Championship went away tomorrow, it wouldn't affect TOUR
> : players' earnings one iota.
>
> If the public perception of the Tour's signature event were damaged,
> it would in turn damage perception of professional golf as a whole,
> in turn damaging endorsement opportunities for pros.
An easy assertion to make, but totally unprovable, and based upon a lot of
assumptions which also are based totally upon hypotheticals. As such, it
remains a useless assertion without any weight in a debate of any kind.
Try again.
> :> I can set hyperbole aside for a moment and concede that it is a test of
> :> golf,
> :> but the element of luck so influences the scores that I have no reason
> :> to assume that the golfer with the lowest score after 72 holes actually
> :> played the best golf.
> :
> : Please name one example where luck has played a factor in the outcome of
> The
> : PLAYERS Championship in a way that luck couldn't have had a similar
> impact
> : of any other major championship, or any other round of golf, for that
> : matter.
>
> Just about every year a long list of would-be contenders takes
> some sort of weird bounce off a railroad tie either into a hazard
> or back to the fairway/green. I'm not just talking about #17,
> either, I'm talking about the entire course. (Though of course
> #17 is a stupid golf hole.)
The same can be said of every other championship course in the world. A
ball lands 2 inches either way and it spells the difference between
releasing up near the cup and rolling into a hazard, water or sand. A ball
hits the wrong side of a green and it won't hold, and rolls into a position
where an up and down is next to impossible. A gust of wind kicks up at just
the wrong time and the ball is carried off-line to a watery grave. The list
goes on and on. These types of breaks are what are known as "the rub of the
green," and are even mentioned in the USGA's official rule book.
In other words, they're part of the game.
As far as the 17th is concerned, many players agreed with you when the
course first opened. Over time, however, many of those players have
concluded that the hole is, in fact, ideal for major tournament play, as it
forces even a leader with a commanding lead to test his sphincter muscle a
bit in order to reach the finish line.
> : Luck is part of golf. Always has been. Always will be. On ANY course.
>
> Luck is part of poker, too, but that doesn't mean they should
> hold a lottery to determine the WSOP champion.
Read it again, Chris, and stop trying to spin this. You know what I said.
Luck is PART of golf. No one is recommended that it be the WHOLE of golf,
as a lottery determining the winner would make it.
Your silly eggagerations in an attempt to further your argument do exactly
the opposite.
> :> : The players will tell
> :> : you (many of them told me, and I asked specifically about this very
> :> thing
> :> : for some feature interviews we did on this tournament) that while the
> :> TPC at
> :> : Sawgrass may have seemed a bit peculiar to some players when it first
> :> : opened, the vast majority of them have come to believe over time,
> with
> :> all
> :> : the modifications made the the course through the years, that it has
> :> become
> :> : one of the most complete tests of golf they face every year. These
> are
> :> : their their words, not mine.
> :>
> :> Well, I don't expect them to badmouth their tour's signature event.
> :> For whatever reason, though, they're simply wrong about this.
> :
> : So let me get this straight. Your fallback argument here, essentially,
> is
> : that you are more knowledgeable and are a better judge of what kind of
> test
> : the TPC at Sawgrass provides than the best players in the world, despite
> the
> : fact that you've never played it or never even walked its fairways.
>
> I'm older than most of those guys, have studied golf history and
> golf architecture for most of my adult life, and have walked the
> fairways of a few of the greatest courses in the country. (Walked
> the rough, too, I had a ball to chase!) Keep in mind, Randy, that
> you and I have consistently been on the same side of the argument
> whenever the USGA has gone overboard with a course setup. Remember
> the endless arguments about Shinnecock last time around? Sawgrass
> plays like that *every* *year*. There's no outrage about it anymore
> because everybody simply accepts it as the personality of the golf
> course -- and it's not as extreme. But it has the same problem.
Yes, I'm quite aware of the arguments about some of the US Open courses.
But there's a key difference that you're not acknowledging.
The US Open courses in question were not designed to play the way they do
when the USGA tricks them up. The TPC at Sawgrass was, in fact, designed
(and has since been tweaked, little by little through the years) to play
EXACTLY like it does at The PLAYERS Championship. It's not *changed* JUST
for this golf tournament.
As a result, you don't see shots at The PLAYERS where the ball lands on the
front of the green and rolls off the back into never-never land. You don't
see putts from ten feet away at the TPC at Sawgrass veer off line and wind
up 60 feet from the hole, or worse, in a hazard, as you have seen on
numerous occasions at US Opens. Why? Because the TPC was designed to play
this way, while US Open courses were not designed to accommodate the speed
of the greens, the rough, the par designations, etc. to play the way they do
once the USGA comes in and turns the place upside down.
That's an inherant difference. And frankly, your failure to acknowledge it
suggests a lack of understanding of a fundamental aspect of golf course
design -- namely, whether holes were designed to accept the types of shots
called for in championship play.
> : You are
> : saying you can make this better-informed judgement from the comfortable
> : position of your couch.
> :
> : Is that about it?
>
> Like I said above, when you can produce a list of things that great
> golfers can do better than I can because they're great golfers, I'm
> all ears. I'm sure they can hit the high draw better than I can,
> and I'm sure they can putt circles around me. I don't think these
> things make them inherently better informed about golf architecture
> than you or me, though.
I'll say it one more time.
They can't play guitar better than you. They can't program computers better
than you. They can't perform administrator tasks for an internet service
provider better than you. And with as much traveling as they do, they
probably can't even be as good a dad as you are.
But because they grasp a level of performance in golf that is completely
foreign to players like you and me (I once observed that even mini-tour
players who first arrive at the PGA TOUR are shocked to discover there's a
different "shelf of good" than any they were aware of), and because they
have actually competed in world-class events on most, if not all, of the
world's finest golf courses, I would have to say they have a more informed
frame of reference from which to judge which golf courses offer the most
complete tests of a professional player's game. Hell, you and I don't
really even have a full appreciation for what a professional player's game
is. We don't own one.
> :> Anybody with a television can see the enormous difference a bad bounce,
> a
> :> gust of wind, or simply a one-foot miss can make at that place.
> :
> : Anybody with a television can see the enormous difference a bad bounce,
> a
> : gust of wind, or simply a one-foot miss can make at Augusta National,
> any US
> : Open venue, or any British Open venue.
>
> Exactly. When the USGA does it, rsg goes nuts (and you and I are
> there leading the charge). Otherwise, nobody produces a luckfest
> like the TPC.
I honestly don't know how you can say that. When it comes to lucky bounces,
no course is immune from providing them. You know that, and I know that.
And yes, we are among the leaders of the charge whenever we see it happen in
spades, which most often happens at US Open venues (which is why I have
concluded that the US Open is the least attractive of all major
championships -- by far).
> :> Any course that overemphasizes penalty drops has got serious fairness
> :> issues.
> :
> : The only hole where this is true is the island green 17th.
>
> No, the entire course has this problem. Golfers are constantly
> presented with a choice between sand/trees on one side and water
> on the other. There's rarely any safe bailout area, anywhere.
> It's penal architecture at its most extreme.
Look, as a matter of preference, I much prefer the Bob Jones/Allister
MacKenzie style of design -- one that rewards good shots -- over the Robert
Trent Jones style of design that penalizes bad shots. So I would not, for a
moment, say that the TPC of Sawgrass is in the same class as Augusta
National. They're completely different kinds of golf courses.
But there are many examples at the TPC at Sawgrass where a good shot rewards
a player with an easier second shot, or feeds the ball toward the hole if
the shot is missed in the correct spot. (Who can forget Mickelson's
hole-in-one when he missed the green and the ball rolled down the hill,
clear across the green, and went in the cup?) And to say there's no
bail-out on any holes is just wrong. Take the par five 16th for example. A
drive down the right side of the fairway offers the player a path to the
green where he can play away from the tree on the left, and bail out long
and left behind the green, away from the water. Or he can run the ball up
through the neck of the green in front, as some do. The risk is there. The
reward is there. And the bail-out is there. And of course, they always
have the option of laying up. There are other examples as well.
Truth is, while I think most serious golf fans can conjure up images of just
about every hole at Augusta National, I doubt seriously if they can describe
more than a handful of holes at the TPC at Sawgrass without looking them up
online. I'm betting the same is true for you.
> :> I respectfully disagree, you DICK.
> :>
> :> Oops, the spirit of Stemmer overtook me. Sorry.
> :
> : Fuck Stemmer.
> :
> : There, I said it.
>
> Don't you feel better already?
I do.
Thanks for asking.
Seriously, I respect your opinion more than most here in RSG. On most
occasions, I agree with you, and I find your ability to articulate your
opinions to be among the most polished here. On this one issue, we may just
have to agree to disagree.
So with that said, I can retire from this exchange knowing that once again
(and as usual), I'm right.
Randy ;-)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 22:10:42
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
"\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
: "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote
: >
: > Can you produce a list of other things that great golfers must
: > be inherently more qualified at than me just because they're
: > great golfers?
:
: Not really. The list isn't all that long at all. And I find your defensive
: reaction quite revealing.
I don't think I'm being defensive. I just don't understand your
logic. We've already determined that the best teachers -- the best
keepers of knowledge of the golf swing -- are not usually the best
players. I do not see why knowledge of golf architecture would be
any different than knowledge of the golf swing. In fact, one would
think that a great golfer would by necessity need to understand
the swing more than he would need to understand the nuances of
architecture. Maybe that's just me.
: > I don't understand why they're not inherently
: > better teachers than Hank Haney if they're inherently better
: > judges of golf architecture than, say, Robert Trent Jones.
:
: Apples and oranges.
:
: We're not talking about instruction. And we're not talking about golf
: course architecture.
No, Randy, golf course architecture is *exactly* what I'm talking
about. It's something I've studied for a long time and I think I
know more about it than you assume.
: We're talking about whether a course offers a more complete test of one's
: game than other courses. If players know nothing else, they would certainly
: know THAT, because its their own games that have been tested.
A golfer in the heat of competition is supposed to stay focused
on the task at hand, not on the meta issues of how fairly the
course rewards good shots and punishes bad ones. Some pros
certainly are more than capable of both but I do not presuppose
that being skilled at golf makes one skilled at assessing the
fairness of a golf course.
: Really, how can you argue this point and keep a straight face?
I don't think it's an especially difficult argument to accept.
I think it's considerably more difficult to accept yours.
: > : First of all, have you ever played it? Have you ever even seen it in
: > : person?
: > :
: > : Didn't think so.
: >
: > I haven't seen Augusta in person, either, but I can tell you
: > that Augusta is a much fairer test tee-to-green (or was, until
: > Hootie fucked with it) than TPC Sawgrass.
:
: Okay, Mr. Course Architect. Tell me precisely what Hootie did to the course
: that makes it a less fair test of golf, or any specific changes he made that
: materially changed whether the course remains one of the 3 or 4 finest in
: the world.
Growing the "second cut" was a huge mistake. It took Mackenzie
and Jones' concept of a course that offered multiple choices to
the golfer and turned it into a standard-issue station-to-station
target golf course. It also effectively took the trees out of
play on several holes. That's by far my biggest complaint.
The lengthening of the course serves to make it more Tiger-friendly,
of course, but given the evolution of equipment that doesn't bother
me that much. If they would just mow the grass as the designers
intended much of the character of the course would return.
: > :> Finally, Tour players have a financial incentive to preserve the image
: > :> of the Players Championship as a legitimate test of golf.
: > :
: > : Well, that's simply not true.
: > :
: > : If The PLAYERS Championship went away tomorrow, it wouldn't affect TOUR
: > : players' earnings one iota.
: >
: > If the public perception of the Tour's signature event were damaged,
: > it would in turn damage perception of professional golf as a whole,
: > in turn damaging endorsement opportunities for pros.
:
: An easy assertion to make, but totally unprovable, and based upon a lot of
: assumptions which also are based totally upon hypotheticals. As such, it
: remains a useless assertion without any weight in a debate of any kind.
Without *any* weight? I wouldn't go that far. But maybe you're
essentially right. I'll let the reader decide.
: > :> I can set hyperbole aside for a moment and concede that it is a test of
: > :> golf,
: > :> but the element of luck so influences the scores that I have no reason
: > :> to assume that the golfer with the lowest score after 72 holes actually
: > :> played the best golf.
: > :
: > : Please name one example where luck has played a factor in the outcome of
: > The
: > : PLAYERS Championship in a way that luck couldn't have had a similar
: > impact
: > : of any other major championship, or any other round of golf, for that
: > : matter.
: >
: > Just about every year a long list of would-be contenders takes
: > some sort of weird bounce off a railroad tie either into a hazard
: > or back to the fairway/green. I'm not just talking about #17,
: > either, I'm talking about the entire course. (Though of course
: > #17 is a stupid golf hole.)
:
: The same can be said of every other championship course in the world. A
: ball lands 2 inches either way and it spells the difference between
: releasing up near the cup and rolling into a hazard, water or sand.
True, but for most of those courses the bounce forces the golfer
to make a good recovery shot. Sawgrass doesn't offer recovery
shots. It only offers penalty drops. That's the problem.
: As far as the 17th is concerned, many players agreed with you when the
: course first opened. Over time, however, many of those players have
: concluded that the hole is, in fact, ideal for major tournament play, as it
: forces even a leader with a commanding lead to test his sphincter muscle a
: bit in order to reach the finish line.
I think Augusta #12 does the same thing but at least offers the
golfer a way to play it safe.
: > : Luck is part of golf. Always has been. Always will be. On ANY course.
: >
: > Luck is part of poker, too, but that doesn't mean they should
: > hold a lottery to determine the WSOP champion.
:
: Read it again, Chris, and stop trying to spin this. You know what I said.
: Luck is PART of golf. No one is recommended that it be the WHOLE of golf,
: as a lottery determining the winner would make it.
But that's the crux of the argument, Randy. Luck is part of golf;
luck is part of poker as well. But ultimately skill rules the day
in poker and should also rule the day in golf. If the TPC were
played over 180 holes instead of 72 I would probably accept that
the data sample was large enough to mitigate the effect of luck
in determining a champion. With that course, though, there's too
much statistical noise at 72 holes to read much meaning into the
scores. In poker, the anomalous streaks attributable to luck over
a smallish number of hands is called "variance." I think the amount
of variance in the TPC is too high to identify the best golfer
over 72 holes. YMMV and probably does. :)
: Your silly eggagerations in an attempt to further your argument do exactly
: the opposite.
That's not an exaggeration, it's merely a reductio ad absurdum
argument. Luck is part of the game but in order to determine a
champion one wants to mitigate its effects to the fullest extent
reasonably possible. BTW, in case you misread the meaning, the
WSOP is the World Series of Poker -- I was saying that even in
the poker world, where luck plays a huge role in tournaments,
they would object to choosing a champion based on pure luck. I'm
not saying that the TPC is settled by pure luck.
: > I'm older than most of those guys, have studied golf history and
: > golf architecture for most of my adult life, and have walked the
: > fairways of a few of the greatest courses in the country. (Walked
: > the rough, too, I had a ball to chase!) Keep in mind, Randy, that
: > you and I have consistently been on the same side of the argument
: > whenever the USGA has gone overboard with a course setup. Remember
: > the endless arguments about Shinnecock last time around? Sawgrass
: > plays like that *every* *year*. There's no outrage about it anymore
: > because everybody simply accepts it as the personality of the golf
: > course -- and it's not as extreme. But it has the same problem.
:
: Yes, I'm quite aware of the arguments about some of the US Open courses.
: But there's a key difference that you're not acknowledging.
:
: The US Open courses in question were not designed to play the way they do
: when the USGA tricks them up. The TPC at Sawgrass was, in fact, designed
: (and has since been tweaked, little by little through the years) to play
: EXACTLY like it does at The PLAYERS Championship. It's not *changed* JUST
: for this golf tournament.
I'm not sure why that's relevant.
: As a result, you don't see shots at The PLAYERS where the ball lands on the
: front of the green and rolls off the back into never-never land. You don't
: see putts from ten feet away at the TPC at Sawgrass veer off line and wind
: up 60 feet from the hole, or worse, in a hazard, as you have seen on
: numerous occasions at US Opens. Why? Because the TPC was designed to play
: this way, while US Open courses were not designed to accommodate the speed
: of the greens, the rough, the par designations, etc. to play the way they do
: once the USGA comes in and turns the place upside down.
OK, essentially what you're saying is that TPC Sawgrass isn't as
extreme. I agree with that.
: That's an inherant difference. And frankly, your failure to acknowledge it
: suggests a lack of understanding of a fundamental aspect of golf course
: design -- namely, whether holes were designed to accept the types of shots
: called for in championship play.
How could I acknowledge something before you said it? I acknowledge
your point now.
: > : You are
: > : saying you can make this better-informed judgement from the comfortable
: > : position of your couch.
: > :
: > : Is that about it?
: >
: > Like I said above, when you can produce a list of things that great
: > golfers can do better than I can because they're great golfers, I'm
: > all ears. I'm sure they can hit the high draw better than I can,
: > and I'm sure they can putt circles around me. I don't think these
: > things make them inherently better informed about golf architecture
: > than you or me, though.
:
: I'll say it one more time.
:
: They can't play guitar better than you.
Oh, you clearly haven't heard me play guitar. :)
: They can't program computers better
: than you. They can't perform administrator tasks for an internet service
: provider better than you. And with as much traveling as they do, they
: probably can't even be as good a dad as you are.
I bet several of them are better at solving Windows issues than I am,
though. My knowledge is very specialized in that way.
: But because they grasp a level of performance in golf that is completely
: foreign to players like you and me (I once observed that even mini-tour
: players who first arrive at the PGA TOUR are shocked to discover there's a
: different "shelf of good" than any they were aware of), and because they
: have actually competed in world-class events on most, if not all, of the
: world's finest golf courses, I would have to say they have a more informed
: frame of reference from which to judge which golf courses offer the most
: complete tests of a professional player's game. Hell, you and I don't
: really even have a full appreciation for what a professional player's game
: is. We don't own one.
Didn't we once have a thread where you opined that most really
good golfers weren't actually that bright, and it was in fact that
lack of overthinking that enabled them to stay out of their own
ways and play consistently good golf? I could swear I remember
you saying something like that once. Do you remember this, or am
I just imagining things?
My assumption about great golfers is that they are, by necessity,
so consumed with staying in condition, keeping their putting sharp,
their swings sharp, etc., that they don't have a lot of time to
ponder larger "meta" issues of course architecture and setup. They
pretty much have to accept whatever they're given to play anyway,
right?
: > :> Anybody with a television can see the enormous difference a bad bounce,
: > a
: > :> gust of wind, or simply a one-foot miss can make at that place.
: > :
: > : Anybody with a television can see the enormous difference a bad bounce,
: > a
: > : gust of wind, or simply a one-foot miss can make at Augusta National,
: > any US
: > : Open venue, or any British Open venue.
: >
: > Exactly. When the USGA does it, rsg goes nuts (and you and I are
: > there leading the charge). Otherwise, nobody produces a luckfest
: > like the TPC.
:
: I honestly don't know how you can say that. When it comes to lucky bounces,
: no course is immune from providing them. You know that, and I know that.
: And yes, we are among the leaders of the charge whenever we see it happen in
: spades, which most often happens at US Open venues (which is why I have
: concluded that the US Open is the least attractive of all major
: championships -- by far).
I'm pretty much with you here. We disagree about Sawgrass, but
that's ok.
: > :> Any course that overemphasizes penalty drops has got serious fairness
: > :> issues.
: > :
: > : The only hole where this is true is the island green 17th.
: >
: > No, the entire course has this problem. Golfers are constantly
: > presented with a choice between sand/trees on one side and water
: > on the other. There's rarely any safe bailout area, anywhere.
: > It's penal architecture at its most extreme.
:
: Look, as a matter of preference, I much prefer the Bob Jones/Allister
: MacKenzie style of design -- one that rewards good shots -- over the Robert
: Trent Jones style of design that penalizes bad shots. So I would not, for a
: moment, say that the TPC of Sawgrass is in the same class as Augusta
: National. They're completely different kinds of golf courses.
Yay. Agreement. :)
: But there are many examples at the TPC at Sawgrass where a good shot rewards
: a player with an easier second shot, or feeds the ball toward the hole if
: the shot is missed in the correct spot. (Who can forget Mickelson's
: hole-in-one when he missed the green and the ball rolled down the hill,
: clear across the green, and went in the cup?) And to say there's no
: bail-out on any holes is just wrong. Take the par five 16th for example. A
: drive down the right side of the fairway offers the player a path to the
: green where he can play away from the tree on the left, and bail out long
: and left behind the green, away from the water. Or he can run the ball up
: through the neck of the green in front, as some do. The risk is there. The
: reward is there. And the bail-out is there. And of course, they always
: have the option of laying up. There are other examples as well.
True. I have to concede this one -- #16 is a pretty good golf hole.
: Truth is, while I think most serious golf fans can conjure up images of just
: about every hole at Augusta National, I doubt seriously if they can describe
: more than a handful of holes at the TPC at Sawgrass without looking them up
: online. I'm betting the same is true for you.
I've played that course dozens of times... sorta. :)
Seriously, I do have more than a passing knowledge of the entire
course.
: > :> I respectfully disagree, you DICK.
: > :>
: > :> Oops, the spirit of Stemmer overtook me. Sorry.
: > :
: > : Fuck Stemmer.
: > :
: > : There, I said it.
: >
: > Don't you feel better already?
:
: I do.
:
: Thanks for asking.
It's the universal truths that bind us. And sometimes gag us.
: Seriously, I respect your opinion more than most here in RSG. On most
: occasions, I agree with you, and I find your ability to articulate your
: opinions to be among the most polished here. On this one issue, we may just
: have to agree to disagree.
Thanks for the kind words, consider them reciprocated in full!
: So with that said, I can retire from this exchange knowing that once again
: (and as usual), I'm right.
That's the main thing, that we both think we're right, and fuck
Stemmer. Right?
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 21:41:17
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
On Fri, 23 2007 22:10:42 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>: We're talking about whether a course offers a more complete test of one's
>: game than other courses. If players know nothing else, they would certainly
>: know THAT, because its their own games that have been tested.
>
Here's what Jack and Arnie have to say about the new course. I
suppose you could consider them two of the greatest golfers of all
time.
http://www.golfdigest.com/majors/masters/index.ssf?/majors/masters/gd200604augustachanges2.html
I find Jack's comment about the introduction of rough and AGNC being a
"second shot" golf course particularly interesting.
--
jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Mar 2007 05:53:11
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspammy@bite.org > wrote:
[about Augusta]
: Here's what Jack and Arnie have to say about the new course. I
: suppose you could consider them two of the greatest golfers of all
: time.
:
: http://www.golfdigest.com/majors/masters/index.ssf?/majors/masters/gd200604augustachanges2.html
:
: I find Jack's comment about the introduction of rough and AGNC being a
: "second shot" golf course particularly interesting.
You're preaching to the choir here.
It occurred to me earlier this evening that about the strongest
emotional case I could make against TPC Sawgrass is that it's a
course where Arnold Palmer could never have won, where Seve
Ballesteros never did win, where Phil Mickelson has never won
and likely never will. The recovery shot was/is the bread and
butter of these great players, is the most exciting shot in golf,
and TPC Sawgrass basically doesn't allow it.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 19:54:33
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:2T3v44tdI7nvN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
> : "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote
> :>
> :> Can you produce a list of other things that great golfers must
> :> be inherently more qualified at than me just because they're
> :> great golfers?
> :
> : Not really. The list isn't all that long at all. And I find your
> defensive
> : reaction quite revealing.
>
> I don't think I'm being defensive. I just don't understand your
> logic. We've already determined that the best teachers -- the best
> keepers of knowledge of the golf swing -- are not usually the best
> players. I do not see why knowledge of golf architecture would be
> any different than knowledge of the golf swing. In fact, one would
> think that a great golfer would by necessity need to understand
> the swing more than he would need to understand the nuances of
> architecture. Maybe that's just me.
If you call this logic, then there's not much way we're going to get
anywhere.
We're not talking about teaching the golf swing. We're talking about
whether a golf course provides a thorough test. A teacher can teach a golf
swing without being able to execute it with world-class precision. But no
one is in a better position to judge what a course does to test one's game
(and one's nerves, and one's thought process, etc.) than a player who's
actually played it. Furthermore (and this is important), only a player
who's played on a variety of world-class golf courses can really have the
perspective needed to compare the relative tests different courses offer.
Certainly they're in an infinitely better position to make that judgement
than is someone who's never even seen the courses in person, let alone
played them.
What's so hard to understand about that?
> :> I don't understand why they're not inherently
> :> better teachers than Hank Haney if they're inherently better
> :> judges of golf architecture than, say, Robert Trent Jones.
> :
> : Apples and oranges.
> :
> : We're not talking about instruction. And we're not talking about golf
> : course architecture.
>
> No, Randy, golf course architecture is *exactly* what I'm talking
> about. It's something I've studied for a long time and I think I
> know more about it than you assume.
Frankly, I don't think Pete Dye is in as good a position to judge what type
of test his courses provide than are players who've played it in
competition.
It's not a question of how the holes are laid out. It's a matter of how
players have to play them, what choices they're presented with, how
circumstances dictate their tactics, etc. A course designer can have the
INTENT to present the player with certain choices, but only a player can
know what choices he considered when he played the hole.
The course designers who I think are in a far better position to judge how
their courses challenge players are designers who have actually played at a
championship level -- like Nicklaus, Palmer and Norman, to name three.
That's not to say I think they're the best course designers in the world.
They might be. They might not be. That's not the debate.
> : We're talking about whether a course offers a more complete test of
> one's
> : game than other courses. If players know nothing else, they would
> certainly
> : know THAT, because its their own games that have been tested.
>
> A golfer in the heat of competition is supposed to stay focused
> on the task at hand, not on the meta issues of how fairly the
> course rewards good shots and punishes bad ones. Some pros
> certainly are more than capable of both but I do not presuppose
> that being skilled at golf makes one skilled at assessing the
> fairness of a golf course.
The best way I ever heard it articulated is when someone once told me that a
player's job is to solve problems. Every round of golf presents a player
with a set of problems. His job is to figure out the solution, and to
execute the solution to the best of his ability.
So the question becomes, which golf courses present players with the most
problems to solve, the widest variety of different types of problems to
solve, and does not let up in its constant pressure to solve another one at
every turn.
There are different ways of categorizing different types of golf courses.
The two I like best are these:
A. The kind that rewards good shots. Versus B. The kind that penalizes bad
shots.
And the other way of categorizing courses that I like is:
A. The kind that never ceases to present new and different problems.
Versus B. The kind that occasionally, if only rarely, gives players a
breather. (Like when you see driveable par fours that are almost certain
birdie holes, but present a very real risk/reward equation, such as the 15th
at the TPC at River Highlands in Hartford, CT.)
In the first instance, my personal preference is A over B. I like courses
that reward good shots more than they penalize bad shots. It's the classic
Allister MacKenzie philosophy versus the Robert Trent Jones philosophy. As
far as I'm concerned, MacKenzie got it right, and Jones just took too much
pleasure from causing pain.
But both styles of course can provide a perfectly acceptable test of golf.
They do, however, dictate a somewhat different mindset with the player.
In the second instance, while I would personally much prefer playing a
course that fits the B criteria (because I suck at golf and need an easy
hole now and then just to regain my equilibrium on a golf course), I think A
is better suited as a venue upon which to contest a major championship.
Those guys are good enough that they'll still make their share of birdies,
even if there's never a let-up in the course's demands.
> : Really, how can you argue this point and keep a straight face?
>
> I don't think it's an especially difficult argument to accept.
> I think it's considerably more difficult to accept yours.
>
> :> : First of all, have you ever played it? Have you ever even seen it in
> :> : person?
> :> :
> :> : Didn't think so.
> :>
> :> I haven't seen Augusta in person, either, but I can tell you
> :> that Augusta is a much fairer test tee-to-green (or was, until
> :> Hootie fucked with it) than TPC Sawgrass.
> :
> : Okay, Mr. Course Architect. Tell me precisely what Hootie did to the
> course
> : that makes it a less fair test of golf, or any specific changes he made
> that
> : materially changed whether the course remains one of the 3 or 4 finest
> in
> : the world.
>
> Growing the "second cut" was a huge mistake. It took Mackenzie
> and Jones' concept of a course that offered multiple choices to
> the golfer and turned it into a standard-issue station-to-station
> target golf course. It also effectively took the trees out of
> play on several holes. That's by far my biggest complaint.
It's a fair criticism. I would have preferred that he leave the "second
cut" alone. But with today's equipment, it really doesn't change the way
the course is played. It does, however, add an element of uncertainty in
the player's mind. On Sunday at the Masters, that can cost a critical
stroke or two, even if the ball's reaction isn't much different than if
there'd been no rough at all.
As for the second cut taking the trees out of play, that's just not
accurate. There are plenty of trees. What you're really saying is that the
second cut is preventing golf balls from rolling into the trees. And while
I'm sure that's probably true to some extent, with the "second cut" being no
more than 3/4-inch in length (if that), it's hard to argue that it's
prevented the balls from rolling at all.
> The lengthening of the course serves to make it more Tiger-friendly,
> of course, but given the evolution of equipment that doesn't bother
> me that much. If they would just mow the grass as the designers
> intended much of the character of the course would return.
If you really want the Jones-MacKenzie character of the course to return,
you should lobby to have the nines reversed (back to their original
configuration) and to dig up the bentgrass greens and return to bermuda.
But I doubt if you'd get much support for either idea.
It's hard to argue with Hootie's changes. The winning scores in recent years
have been about the same as in the past. What has happened is that there
hasn't been a runaway winner since the changes. But that could happen this
year, so you never know.
> :> :> Finally, Tour players have a financial incentive to preserve the
> image
> :> :> of the Players Championship as a legitimate test of golf.
> :> :
> :> : Well, that's simply not true.
> :> :
> :> : If The PLAYERS Championship went away tomorrow, it wouldn't affect
> TOUR
> :> : players' earnings one iota.
> :>
> :> If the public perception of the Tour's signature event were damaged,
> :> it would in turn damage perception of professional golf as a whole,
> :> in turn damaging endorsement opportunities for pros.
> :
> : An easy assertion to make, but totally unprovable, and based upon a lot
> of
> : assumptions which also are based totally upon hypotheticals. As such,
> it
> : remains a useless assertion without any weight in a debate of any kind.
>
> Without *any* weight? I wouldn't go that far. But maybe you're
> essentially right. I'll let the reader decide.
I just think the minute you start making conclusions on what you think might
happen if A, B and C were to occur, you put yourself in the same boat as the
present Administration in Washington. From what I've been able to see in
the last few years, nobody's been very good at predicting the future. So I
prefer to not deal in hypotheticals and base predictions upon them. It's a
dead-end business to be in.
> :> :> I can set hyperbole aside for a moment and concede that it is a test
> of
> :> :> golf,
> :> :> but the element of luck so influences the scores that I have no
> reason
> :> :> to assume that the golfer with the lowest score after 72 holes
> actually
> :> :> played the best golf.
> :> :
> :> : Please name one example where luck has played a factor in the outcome
> of
> :> The
> :> : PLAYERS Championship in a way that luck couldn't have had a similar
> :> impact
> :> : of any other major championship, or any other round of golf, for that
> :> : matter.
> :>
> :> Just about every year a long list of would-be contenders takes
> :> some sort of weird bounce off a railroad tie either into a hazard
> :> or back to the fairway/green. I'm not just talking about #17,
> :> either, I'm talking about the entire course. (Though of course
> :> #17 is a stupid golf hole.)
> :
> : The same can be said of every other championship course in the world. A
> : ball lands 2 inches either way and it spells the difference between
> : releasing up near the cup and rolling into a hazard, water or sand.
>
> True, but for most of those courses the bounce forces the golfer
> to make a good recovery shot. Sawgrass doesn't offer recovery
> shots. It only offers penalty drops. That's the problem.
Well, it offers penalty drops if the bounce ends up in the water. Just as
it does at any other course. But not all wayward shots end up in the water.
> : As far as the 17th is concerned, many players agreed with you when the
> : course first opened. Over time, however, many of those players have
> : concluded that the hole is, in fact, ideal for major tournament play, as
> it
> : forces even a leader with a commanding lead to test his sphincter muscle
> a
> : bit in order to reach the finish line.
>
> I think Augusta #12 does the same thing but at least offers the
> golfer a way to play it safe.
Augusta's 12th green is about one-sixth the size of the 17th at the
TPC-Sawgrass. Yet players typically hit 7-iron on #12 at Augusta, while
they're hitting 9-iron or wedge at the 17th at TPC. There is more than
ample room. And if the wind is up, then by God, allow for it.
> :> : Luck is part of golf. Always has been. Always will be. On ANY
> course.
> :>
> :> Luck is part of poker, too, but that doesn't mean they should
> :> hold a lottery to determine the WSOP champion.
> :
> : Read it again, Chris, and stop trying to spin this. You know what I
> said.
> : Luck is PART of golf. No one is recommended that it be the WHOLE of
> golf,
> : as a lottery determining the winner would make it.
>
> But that's the crux of the argument, Randy. Luck is part of golf;
> luck is part of poker as well. But ultimately skill rules the day
> in poker and should also rule the day in golf.
Luck plays a much bigger role in poker than it does in golf, and you know
it.
> If the TPC were
> played over 180 holes instead of 72 I would probably accept that
> the data sample was large enough to mitigate the effect of luck
> in determining a champion. With that course, though, there's too
> much statistical noise at 72 holes to read much meaning into the
> scores. In poker, the anomalous streaks attributable to luck over
> a smallish number of hands is called "variance." I think the amount
> of variance in the TPC is too high to identify the best golfer
> over 72 holes. YMMV and probably does. :)
We disagree on this. And I'll leave it at that.
Now I'm bored with this.
Randy
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 22:33:25
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
On Fri, 23 2007 22:10:42 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>:> Like I said above, when you can produce a list of things that great
>:> golfers can do better than I can because they're great golfers, I'm
>:> all ears. I'm sure they can hit the high draw better than I can,
>:> and I'm sure they can putt circles around me. I don't think these
>:> things make them inherently better informed about golf architecture
>:> than you or me, though.
I've read this discourse between you and Randy and I think that you're
talking apples and oranges. Your stance is about the architecture,
Randy's is that most pro golfers know that a hole is difficult....but
don't always even consider architecture..
>That's the main thing, that we both think we're right, and fuck
>Stemmer. Right?
Well, some things are universal. :-)
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 19:55:11
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:k2l803dgpv99tuoh414btlg0b9fm708jvg@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 2007 22:10:42 GMT, Chris Bellomy
> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>:> Like I said above, when you can produce a list of things that great
>>:> golfers can do better than I can because they're great golfers, I'm
>>:> all ears. I'm sure they can hit the high draw better than I can,
>>:> and I'm sure they can putt circles around me. I don't think these
>>:> things make them inherently better informed about golf architecture
>>:> than you or me, though.
>
> I've read this discourse between you and Randy and I think that you're
> talking apples and oranges. Your stance is about the architecture,
> Randy's is that most pro golfers know that a hole is difficult....but
> don't always even consider architecture..
Good. Someone gets it.
Randy
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 15:40:34
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
On Fri, 23 2007 14:54:54 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>>
>> I haven't seen Augusta in person, either, but I can tell you
>> that Augusta is a much fairer test tee-to-green (or was, until
>> Hootie fucked with it) than TPC Sawgrass.
>
>
>
>Okay, Mr. Course Architect. Tell me precisely what Hootie did to the course
>that makes it a less fair test of golf, or any specific changes he made that
>materially changed whether the course remains one of the 3 or 4 finest in
>the world.
How about adding a forest of trees on #11 to take away strategic
options off the tee?
How about lengthening #4 so far that now even the long hitters have to
hit a fairway wood to the green?
There is also another hole (a par 4) -- sorry I don't remember which
-- that has been lengthened so far it needs a long iron into it when
the green was designed for a short iron.
How about adding rough -- screw this "second cut" BS -- that takes
away the strategic angles available?
Note -- I don't necessarily have a dog in this fight and I am by no
means an expert but I don't like some of the stuff they've done.
--
jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 19:27:09
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
"John van der Pflum" <nowhammymyspammy@bite.org > wrote in message
>
>>Okay, Mr. Course Architect. Tell me precisely what Hootie did to the
>>course
>>that makes it a less fair test of golf, or any specific changes he made
>>that
>>materially changed whether the course remains one of the 3 or 4 finest in
>>the world.
>
> How about adding a forest of trees on #11 to take away strategic
> options off the tee?
How does it take away strategic options off the tee? You hit a fade down
the middle and let it drift to the right side of the fairway.
All the trees did was to minimize the possibility that missing the fairway
to the right would leave a clear shot to the green.
> How about lengthening #4 so far that now even the long hitters have to
> hit a fairway wood to the green?
Only when the wind is up. Most players are hitting long irons. And there
are longer par threes in major championship golf.
> There is also another hole (a par 4) -- sorry I don't remember which
> -- that has been lengthened so far it needs a long iron into it when
> the green was designed for a short iron.
The only par four that's been lengthened so far that it requires a long iron
into it is 18. And for the record, most players are now hitting about a
6-iron (instead of the 9-iron they were hitting before the change). The
hole was designed to accept shots from a mid-iron. The 18th is one of the
deepest greens on the course.
> How about adding rough -- screw this "second cut" BS -- that takes
> away the strategic angles available?
You call 3/4 inch of grass "rough?" Please.
There's a reason why they call it "second cut" -- because it's not "rough"
by anybody's standards...and certainly not by major championship standards.
Personally, I'd rather Hootie left the "second cut" as is. But most players
can still get the ball to spin out of the second cut. All it really does is
add an element of unpredictability to the shots. It plays with their heads
more than it plays with the ball's reaction.
Randy
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 15:49:53
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
>
>There is also another hole (a par 4) -- sorry I don't remember which
>-- that has been lengthened so far it needs a long iron into it when
>the green was designed for a short iron.
>
Ah, found it after some more research. #7
--
jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 18:13:35
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
On Fri, 23 2007 16:53:48 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>Can you produce a list of other things that great golfers must
>be inherently more qualified at than me just because they're
>great golfers? I don't understand why they're not inherently
>better teachers than Hank Haney if they're inherently better
>judges of golf architecture than, say, Robert Trent Jones.
That's an interesting comparison. While it is true that teaching is
different from doing - it is also true that Tiger's latest swing
adjustment is not what I need to concentrate on now.
A great golf course has to be designed so that it is great for
everybody - not just for great golfers. And great teachers need to
be able to find the way to communicate what mediocre and poor golfers
need as well as good and great golfers.
We are different and have different areas of greatest need.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2007 09:16:39
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:z-6dnSQDUtLK7p7bnZ2dnUVZ_v2knZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote
>
>> : On the second one -- a test of golf -- I would opine that TOUR players
>> are
>> : in a far better position to judge the sternness and completeness of the
>> test
>> : provided by any particular course than you and I are.
>>
>> I think that's clearly insane, a bit like saying that guys who can't
>> play have no business teaching. Guys who know how to play, know how
>> to play. They don't necessarily know much about weighing how different
>> courses test different aspects of their games, nor do they necessarily
>> have the wherewithal to think though what the element of luck does to
>> dilute skill as a determinant of a champion in any given event. Poker
>> players would be better that last thing than golfers, for instance.
>
>
> Sorry, but I would argue that the best players in the world are, indeed,
> more qualified than you or I at determining what kind of a test the TPC at
> Sawgrass provides.
>
> First of all, have you ever played it? Have you ever even seen it in
> person?
>
> Didn't think so.
>
> So you're basing your judgement solely on what you see on TV. Which is a
> little like judging a golf course based on how it looks on Tiger Woods
> 2002. E-A Sports. It's in the game.
>
>
>> Finally, Tour players have a financial incentive to preserve the image
>> of the Players Championship as a legitimate test of golf.
>
>
> Well, that's simply not true.
>
> If The PLAYERS Championship went away tomorrow, it wouldn't affect TOUR
> players' earnings one iota. Another tournament would come along to take
> its spot on the schedule, and the purses would rise over time. I fail to
> see any connection here. Players are not paid a commission based upon how
> people perceive the TPC at Sawgrass. Where did you come up with that
> ridiculous argument?
>
>
>> I can set hyperbole aside for a moment and concede that it is a test of
>> golf,
>> but the element of luck so influences the scores that I have no reason
>> to assume that the golfer with the lowest score after 72 holes actually
>> played the best golf.
>
>
> Please name one example where luck has played a factor in the outcome of
> The PLAYERS Championship in a way that luck couldn't have had a similar
> impact of any other major championship, or any other round of golf, for
> that matter.
>
> Luck is part of golf. Always has been. Always will be. On ANY course.
>
>
>> : The players will tell
>> : you (many of them told me, and I asked specifically about this very
>> thing
>> : for some feature interviews we did on this tournament) that while the
>> TPC at
>> : Sawgrass may have seemed a bit peculiar to some players when it first
>> : opened, the vast majority of them have come to believe over time, with
>> all
>> : the modifications made the the course through the years, that it has
>> become
>> : one of the most complete tests of golf they face every year. These are
>> : their their words, not mine.
>>
>> Well, I don't expect them to badmouth their tour's signature event.
>> For whatever reason, though, they're simply wrong about this.
>
>
> So let me get this straight. Your fallback argument here, essentially, is
> that you are more knowledgeable and are a better judge of what kind of
> test the TPC at Sawgrass provides than the best players in the world,
> despite the fact that you've never played it or never even walked its
> fairways. You are saying you can make this better-informed judgement from
> the comfortable position of your couch.
>
> Is that about it?
>
> Interesting.
>
>
>
>> Anybody with a television can see the enormous difference a bad bounce, a
>> gust of wind, or simply a one-foot miss can make at that place.
>
>
> Anybody with a television can see the enormous difference a bad bounce, a
> gust of wind, or simply a one-foot miss can make at Augusta National, any
> US Open venue, or any British Open venue. (Maybe not so much at any PGA
> Championship venue, but at many, it's true there, too.)
>
> So what's the difference?
>
>
>> Any course that overemphasizes penalty drops has got serious fairness
>> issues.
>
>
> The only hole where this is true is the island green 17th. But consider,
> if you've ever actually seen this hole in person (not the replica at Tour
> 18, which is nothing like the real thing), you'll realize that for the
> pros, it's just a 9-iron, and they're hitting to a very generous green.
>
> Windy? Tough shit. Ask the folks at the British Open about wind. Ne'er
> wind, ne'er gawf.
>
>
>> : I have no horse in this race. I don't work for the TOUR any more, so I
>> have
>> : no reason to act as an agent to repeat their spin. Like you, I was
>> : skeptical about this event being a major, as it just seemed a little
>> too
>> : convenient to me that the TOUR was pushing it on us as the so-called
>> "fifth
>> : major" when it was obvious they wanted their own signature event to
>> gain
>> : such status.
>>
>> Bingo.
>>
>> : But the simple fact is, it meets all the criteria of a major --
>> tradition,
>> : test, prestige, field, exemption and purse.
>>
>> I respectfully disagree, you DICK.
>>
>> Oops, the spirit of Stemmer overtook me. Sorry.
>
>
> Fuck Stemmer.
>
> There, I said it.
>
> Randy
I can only speak for myself and the TPC will never be a tournament, that as
a kid, I stood over a 3 foot putt, on a practice green, and for hours said,
"If I make this putt I win the TPC." Maybe the next generation will. sorry
if this is repeating what I already said but one of my posts didn't appear
on my box.
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 03:29:20
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
On Wed, 21 2007 23:24:15 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>Just curious, Chris...
>
>What are your criteria for a tournament to be viewed as a major?
>
>And which of those criteria does The PLAYERS not meet?
>
>Randy
Hogan never played in it. :-)
--
___,
\o
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 08:30:45
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
On Thu, 22 2007 03:29:20 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:
>On Wed, 21 2007 23:24:15 -0400, "\"R&B\""
><noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
>
>>Just curious, Chris...
>>
>>What are your criteria for a tournament to be viewed as a major?
>>
>>And which of those criteria does The PLAYERS not meet?
>>
>>Randy
>
>Hogan never played in it. :-)
Ooooh, ouch. Now *that* was below the belt. (but hillarious).
--
jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 00:20:43
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:pqt303pmvs6r13ruju8le6tb6dirij02fl@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 2007 23:24:15 -0400, "\"R&B\""
> <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
>
>>Just curious, Chris...
>>
>>What are your criteria for a tournament to be viewed as a major?
>>
>>And which of those criteria does The PLAYERS not meet?
>>
>>Randy
>
> Hogan never played in it. :-)
Hogan only played in the British Open once. Does that make it the least
significant of the four majors?
Randy :-)
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 13:00:16
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
On Thu, 22 2007 00:20:43 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:pqt303pmvs6r13ruju8le6tb6dirij02fl@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 21 2007 23:24:15 -0400, "\"R&B\""
>> <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Just curious, Chris...
>>>
>>>What are your criteria for a tournament to be viewed as a major?
>>>
>>>And which of those criteria does The PLAYERS not meet?
>>>
>>>Randy
>>
>> Hogan never played in it. :-)
>
>
>Hogan only played in the British Open once. Does that make it the least
>significant of the four majors?
>
>Randy :-)
>
Probably, to Chris.
--
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 22 Mar 2007 10:32:11
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
The majors are what I grew up with. If the TPC really is going to be a
major, it will be in the minds of the kids growing up now. Tiger didn't grow
up thinking about the TPC. No one I know stood on a putting green, as a kid,
and said "I have this putt for the TPC." in their imaginations. No matter
how much corporate money or how strong the field or who's management company
wants what, a major doesn't spring up in one generation. And the newly
created, ie pulled out of the ass of big money golf, whatever those
tournaments with the cumulative points are called ... is is the Anderson
Consulting, we helped Enron CUP, whatever.
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:6dv403tmlpilb6qdn7e989j1nhn5mt2crl@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 2007 00:20:43 -0400, "\"R&B\""
> <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
>
>>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>>news:pqt303pmvs6r13ruju8le6tb6dirij02fl@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 21 2007 23:24:15 -0400, "\"R&B\""
>>> <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Just curious, Chris...
>>>>
>>>>What are your criteria for a tournament to be viewed as a major?
>>>>
>>>>And which of those criteria does The PLAYERS not meet?
>>>>
>>>>Randy
>>>
>>> Hogan never played in it. :-)
>>
>>
>>Hogan only played in the British Open once. Does that make it the least
>>significant of the four majors?
>>
>>Randy :-)
>>
> Probably, to Chris.
> --
> ___,
> \o
>
|
| |
Date: 20 Mar 2007 08:42:07
From: me
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
On 19, 7:33 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote:
[snip]
> Starting in 2007, the tournament has moved on the schedule from ch to
> May, a move that had been considered for over a decade (because May was the
> one month from April to August that didn't have a Major tournament
> scheduled). But the idea was dismissed due to concerns about the grass not
> being in as ideal condition in the warmer May weather in Florida (and I
> suspect with warmer weather comes a greater threat of humidity and rain in
> the Sunshine State).
The serious summer rains don't start until June. May can be a tad
rainy, especially in the early evening. But this is "mid" May and I
suspect they'll do alright. The risk they are taking is that when you
do get significant summer rains, it usually comes because of
blisteringly hot weather with humidity to match. The flip side is
they
tend to only last an hour or so, maybe less. Since Sawgrass put
in them underground vacuum cleaners beneath their greens, they'd
probably be back in action pretty fast if the lighting goes away.
> Evidently, certain advancements in agronomy have made
> the move more feasible, at least as far as the grass is concerned.
>
> This year, it will be held May 10-13.
>
> Randy
|
| |
Date: 20 Mar 2007 04:52:18
From: cja
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
On 19, 7:33 pm, "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusin...@all.com > wrote:
> The PLAYERS Championship, which began in 1974, roughly two and a half years
> after Bobby Jones' death, was launched under the name "Tournament Players
> Championship." The name was changed in 1988 to The PLAYERS Championship.
>
Now it looks like they're trying to drop 'Championship' and call it
THE PLAYERS.
- cja
|
| |
Date: 19 Mar 2007 17:43:09
From: capri142@usa.com
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
Good Post Randy, Thanks!
|
| |
Date: 19 Mar 2007 19:33:37
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
"AKA gray asphalt" wrote ...
>
>I see a lot of posting about this tournament.
> What exactly is it and who is it run by? Didn't\
> Craig Perks win it one year? How many times
> did Bobby Jones and Jack Nicklaus play?
You're kidding, right?
The PLAYERS Championship, which began in 1974, roughly two and a half years
after Bobby Jones' death, was launched under the name "Tournament Players
Championship." The name was changed in 1988 to The PLAYERS Championship.
Sometimes it is referred to (incorrectly) as the TPC, although virtually no
one in the golf world calls it that, since the initials TPC usually refer to
the Tournament Players Courses, all of which are either owned by or licensed
by the PGA TOUR. The first of the TPC courses was built at Ponte Vedra
Beach, FL (the TPC at Sawgrass - Stadium Course), and has hosted The PLAYERS
Championship since it opened in 1982.
Jack Nicklaus won the inaugural event, staged at Atlanta CC in 1974,
defeating J.C. Snead by 2 strokes. Subsequently, he won the tournament two
more times, in 1976 at Inverrary G&CC (again beating J.C. Snead, this time
by 3 strokes). Then Nicklaus won it again in 1978, edging Lou Graham by one
stroke at Sawgrass Country Club, which hosted the event for five years
before the tournament moved to its permanent home at the new TPC at Sawgrass
Stadium Course (so named because of the mounding built around many of the
holes, allowing for an "amphitheatre" type setting from which spectators
could gain a good vantage point to watch without the unseemly addition of
bleachers.
Players absolutely hated Sawgrass Country Club, which hosted the event from
1977 to 1981. Sawgrass Country Club is built practically right on the shore
line in Ponte Vedra Beach, FL where the weather (most importantly, the wind)
is extremely unpredictable. The last year the event was played there, in
1981, the winds kicked up so high, the winning score was 5-over par (Raymond
Floyd, who won in a playoff over Barry Jaeckel and Curtis Strange). I'd
have to do some digging to get the specifics, but I remember some players
telling me horror stories about one round they played there when the lowest
score posted that day was something ridiculous like 80. They just hated
that place.
The tournament is now in its 34th year, and its past champions read like an
honor roll of golf's greatest names during the era since the tournament's
inception: Nicklaus (3 times), Geiberger, Wadkins, Trevino, Floyd, Jerry
Pate, Sutton (twice), Couples (twice), Peete, Mahaffey, Lyle, McCumber,
Kite, Mudd, Elkington (twice), Love (twice), Price, Norman, Janzen, Leonard,
Duval, Woods, Love, Adam Scott, Fred Funk and Stephen Ames.
Yes, there are some "who's that?" names on that list, too. But that's true
of every golf tournament. Of the elite names who haven't won this event,
several have finished as runners-up. Among them are Dave Stockton, Lou
Graham, Tom Watson, Ben Crenshaw, Scott Simpson, Larry Mize, k
Calcavecchia, Fuzzy Zoeller, Ian Baker-Finsh, Nick Faldo, Bernhard Langer,
Colin Montgomerie, Scott Hoch, Tom Lehman, Vijay Singh and Padraig
Harrington. But the most memorable runner-up was Jeff Sluman, who found
himself in a sudden-death playoff with Sandy Lyle in 1987. While standing
over a critical putt on the island green 17th that would have extended the
playoff, Sluman's concentration was broken when some damn fool in the crowd
jumped into the water surrounding the green. Sluman missed the putt, and
Lyle won the tournament. I'm sure the spectator was escored by authorities
to the gray-bar hotel to sober up.
Though the TPC at Sawgrass was met with criticism when it first opened,
players have since warmed to it and admit it is one of the best tests of
golf (and nerves) they see every year. The island green 17th, once a
lightning rod for criticism, is now considered one of the great par threes
in the world. The fact that the leader must get through it (and with the
island green, no lead is safe), maintains a level of suspense about the
outcome that even some of the greatest courses in the world cannot match.
Having walked the course (and most other TOUR courses) myself, I can tell
you first-hand that the TPC at Sawgrass is pretty narrow by TOUR standards,
and demands that players work the ball on almost every hole. There is
trouble everywhere you look. Clearly, a thinking man's golf course. And
the greens routinely stimp at or near Augusta speeds, and have severe
undulations that rival those at The Masters.
The tournament is run by the PGA TOUR, the only "major" tournament that is.
It is, in fact, the TOUR's signature event each year. The course itself is
built on the same property that houses the national headquarters of PGA
TOUR, Inc. (The TOUR's offices look out on to one of the holes, but I
couldn't tell you which one, and in fact, the offices might even be on the
other course at the TPC-Sawgrass complex.) Because this is the PGA TOUR's
signature event, it should come as no surprise that it has, for most of its
time in existence, offered the richest purse of any event in golf. As a
result, it also attracts one of the strongest fields of the year, if not THE
strongest.
What the tournament lacks in history (it will never be as old as the four
majors) it makes up for in drama and suspense. Those who pooh-pooh the
notion of it being a "fifth major" on account of its lack of maturity fail
to acknowledge that The PLAYERS Championship is now seven years older than
The Masters was in 1960 when Arnold Palmer won at Augusta. I don't think
anyone was suggesting that The Masters didn't have enough history by that
time to be considered a major.
I have personally heard dozens of players refer to The PLAYERS Championship
as "the first major of the year" when it was still being held in ch and
they were getting their games ready to play in it. So I know they view it
as a major, even if the press and most fans still do not. I believe that
will slowly change over time. The tournament has all the ingredients of a
major -- the purse, the strength of field, the prestige, the extended
exemption for the winner, the quality venue, and yes, even the history. The
only thing it lacks is acceptance by the press and the fans. It already has
it from the players, who, in my opinion, are in a better position to judge
its importance.
Starting in 2007, the tournament has moved on the schedule from ch to
May, a move that had been considered for over a decade (because May was the
one month from April to August that didn't have a Major tournament
scheduled). But the idea was dismissed due to concerns about the grass not
being in as ideal condition in the warmer May weather in Florida (and I
suspect with warmer weather comes a greater threat of humidity and rain in
the Sunshine State). Evidently, certain advancements in agronomy have made
the move more feasible, at least as far as the grass is concerned.
This year, it will be held May 10-13.
Randy
|
| | |
Date: 19 Mar 2007 22:38:16
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
Oh yeah. That one. I guess it's the 5th major now, or is it going to be
those other tournaments where they get points for each one ... what's that
called? The 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th majors?
""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:joudnRGUEb5cgGLYnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "AKA gray asphalt" wrote ...
>>
>>I see a lot of posting about this tournament.
>> What exactly is it and who is it run by? Didn't\
>> Craig Perks win it one year? How many times
>> did Bobby Jones and Jack Nicklaus play?
>
>
> You're kidding, right?
>
> The PLAYERS Championship, which began in 1974, roughly two and a half
> years after Bobby Jones' death, was launched under the name "Tournament
> Players Championship." The name was changed in 1988 to The PLAYERS
> Championship. Sometimes it is referred to (incorrectly) as the TPC,
> although virtually no one in the golf world calls it that, since the
> initials TPC usually refer to the Tournament Players Courses, all of which
> are either owned by or licensed by the PGA TOUR. The first of the TPC
> courses was built at Ponte Vedra Beach, FL (the TPC at Sawgrass - Stadium
> Course), and has hosted The PLAYERS Championship since it opened in 1982.
>
> Jack Nicklaus won the inaugural event, staged at Atlanta CC in 1974,
> defeating J.C. Snead by 2 strokes. Subsequently, he won the tournament
> two more times, in 1976 at Inverrary G&CC (again beating J.C. Snead, this
> time by 3 strokes). Then Nicklaus won it again in 1978, edging Lou Graham
> by one stroke at Sawgrass Country Club, which hosted the event for five
> years before the tournament moved to its permanent home at the new TPC at
> Sawgrass Stadium Course (so named because of the mounding built around
> many of the holes, allowing for an "amphitheatre" type setting from which
> spectators could gain a good vantage point to watch without the unseemly
> addition of bleachers.
>
> Players absolutely hated Sawgrass Country Club, which hosted the event
> from 1977 to 1981. Sawgrass Country Club is built practically right on
> the shore line in Ponte Vedra Beach, FL where the weather (most
> importantly, the wind) is extremely unpredictable. The last year the
> event was played there, in 1981, the winds kicked up so high, the winning
> score was 5-over par (Raymond Floyd, who won in a playoff over Barry
> Jaeckel and Curtis Strange). I'd have to do some digging to get the
> specifics, but I remember some players telling me horror stories about one
> round they played there when the lowest score posted that day was
> something ridiculous like 80. They just hated that place.
>
> The tournament is now in its 34th year, and its past champions read like
> an honor roll of golf's greatest names during the era since the
> tournament's inception: Nicklaus (3 times), Geiberger, Wadkins, Trevino,
> Floyd, Jerry Pate, Sutton (twice), Couples (twice), Peete, Mahaffey, Lyle,
> McCumber, Kite, Mudd, Elkington (twice), Love (twice), Price, Norman,
> Janzen, Leonard, Duval, Woods, Love, Adam Scott, Fred Funk and Stephen
> Ames.
>
> Yes, there are some "who's that?" names on that list, too. But that's
> true of every golf tournament. Of the elite names who haven't won this
> event, several have finished as runners-up. Among them are Dave Stockton,
> Lou Graham, Tom Watson, Ben Crenshaw, Scott Simpson, Larry Mize, k
> Calcavecchia, Fuzzy Zoeller, Ian Baker-Finsh, Nick Faldo, Bernhard Langer,
> Colin Montgomerie, Scott Hoch, Tom Lehman, Vijay Singh and Padraig
> Harrington. But the most memorable runner-up was Jeff Sluman, who found
> himself in a sudden-death playoff with Sandy Lyle in 1987. While standing
> over a critical putt on the island green 17th that would have extended the
> playoff, Sluman's concentration was broken when some damn fool in the
> crowd jumped into the water surrounding the green. Sluman missed the
> putt, and Lyle won the tournament. I'm sure the spectator was escored by
> authorities to the gray-bar hotel to sober up.
>
> Though the TPC at Sawgrass was met with criticism when it first opened,
> players have since warmed to it and admit it is one of the best tests of
> golf (and nerves) they see every year. The island green 17th, once a
> lightning rod for criticism, is now considered one of the great par threes
> in the world. The fact that the leader must get through it (and with the
> island green, no lead is safe), maintains a level of suspense about the
> outcome that even some of the greatest courses in the world cannot match.
>
> Having walked the course (and most other TOUR courses) myself, I can tell
> you first-hand that the TPC at Sawgrass is pretty narrow by TOUR
> standards, and demands that players work the ball on almost every hole.
> There is trouble everywhere you look. Clearly, a thinking man's golf
> course. And the greens routinely stimp at or near Augusta speeds, and
> have severe undulations that rival those at The Masters.
>
> The tournament is run by the PGA TOUR, the only "major" tournament that
> is. It is, in fact, the TOUR's signature event each year. The course
> itself is built on the same property that houses the national headquarters
> of PGA TOUR, Inc. (The TOUR's offices look out on to one of the holes, but
> I couldn't tell you which one, and in fact, the offices might even be on
> the other course at the TPC-Sawgrass complex.) Because this is the PGA
> TOUR's signature event, it should come as no surprise that it has, for
> most of its time in existence, offered the richest purse of any event in
> golf. As a result, it also attracts one of the strongest fields of the
> year, if not THE strongest.
>
> What the tournament lacks in history (it will never be as old as the four
> majors) it makes up for in drama and suspense. Those who pooh-pooh the
> notion of it being a "fifth major" on account of its lack of maturity fail
> to acknowledge that The PLAYERS Championship is now seven years older than
> The Masters was in 1960 when Arnold Palmer won at Augusta. I don't think
> anyone was suggesting that The Masters didn't have enough history by that
> time to be considered a major.
>
> I have personally heard dozens of players refer to The PLAYERS
> Championship as "the first major of the year" when it was still being held
> in ch and they were getting their games ready to play in it. So I know
> they view it as a major, even if the press and most fans still do not. I
> believe that will slowly change over time. The tournament has all the
> ingredients of a major -- the purse, the strength of field, the prestige,
> the extended exemption for the winner, the quality venue, and yes, even
> the history. The only thing it lacks is acceptance by the press and the
> fans. It already has it from the players, who, in my opinion, are in a
> better position to judge its importance.
>
> Starting in 2007, the tournament has moved on the schedule from ch to
> May, a move that had been considered for over a decade (because May was
> the one month from April to August that didn't have a Major tournament
> scheduled). But the idea was dismissed due to concerns about the grass
> not being in as ideal condition in the warmer May weather in Florida (and
> I suspect with warmer weather comes a greater threat of humidity and rain
> in the Sunshine State). Evidently, certain advancements in agronomy have
> made the move more feasible, at least as far as the grass is concerned.
>
> This year, it will be held May 10-13.
>
> Randy
>
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Mar 2007 19:38:54
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
AKA gray asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
:
: Oh yeah. That one. I guess it's the 5th major now,
Please, post warnings before things that are likely to make me vomit.
Thanks.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| |
Date: 19 Mar 2007 21:22:45
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
AKA gray asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
: I see a lot of posting about this tournament. What exactly is it and who is
: it run by?
It's run by the PGA Tour. What it is, exactly, is open to a lot of
debate. I would consider it a golf exhibition with a large random
chance modulator used to determine a winner. Others think I'm crazy.
They may be right. (Cue Billy Joel, I guess.)
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | |
Date: 20 Mar 2007 09:17:56
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
On Mon, 19 2007 21:22:45 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>AKA gray asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>: I see a lot of posting about this tournament. What exactly is it and who is
>: it run by?
>
>It's run by the PGA Tour. What it is, exactly, is open to a lot of
>debate. I would consider it a golf exhibition with a large random
>chance modulator used to determine a winner. Others think I'm crazy.
>They may be right. (Cue Billy Joel, I guess.)
Oh man, here we go with Bellomy's annual rant about the TPC...... :-)
--
jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Mar 2007 22:42:48
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspammy@bite.org > wrote:
: On Mon, 19 2007 21:22:45 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
:
: >AKA gray asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
: >: I see a lot of posting about this tournament. What exactly is it and who is
: >: it run by?
: >
: >It's run by the PGA Tour. What it is, exactly, is open to a lot of
: >debate. I would consider it a golf exhibition with a large random
: >chance modulator used to determine a winner. Others think I'm crazy.
: >They may be right. (Cue Billy Joel, I guess.)
:
: Oh man, here we go with Bellomy's annual rant about the TPC...... :-)
It must be the start of spring, huh?
Here's my latest interpretation: The Players Championship is the
XFL of golf. TPC Sawgrass = He Hate Me. And there you go.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Mar 2007 08:24:34
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
On Tue, 20 2007 22:42:48 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>John van der Pflum <nowhammymyspammy@bite.org> wrote:
>: On Mon, 19 2007 21:22:45 GMT, Chris Bellomy
>: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>:
>:>AKA gray asphalt <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>:>: I see a lot of posting about this tournament. What exactly is it and who is
>:>: it run by?
>:>
>:>It's run by the PGA Tour. What it is, exactly, is open to a lot of
>:>debate. I would consider it a golf exhibition with a large random
>:>chance modulator used to determine a winner. Others think I'm crazy.
>:>They may be right. (Cue Billy Joel, I guess.)
>:
>: Oh man, here we go with Bellomy's annual rant about the TPC...... :-)
>
>It must be the start of spring, huh?
>
>Here's my latest interpretation: The Players Championship is the
>XFL of golf. TPC Sawgrass = He Hate Me. And there you go.
Hey, even He Hate Me made it to the NFL.
--
jvdp
RSG Cincinnati July 13-15, 2007
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Mar 2007 08:57:16
From: Kenn Smith
Subject: Re: The TPC
|
Great post, Randy, thanks.
My son and I will be attending The Player's Championship this year.
We're meeting in Jacksonville on May 6th, him flying in from Seattle and
me from Texas and have season clubhouse passes for the tournament and a
stay and play package at the Renaissance Inn - his birthday present to
me for my 74th.
We have confirmed AM tee times at The Slammer and Squire, The King and
Bear courses at WGV and at St Johns Country Club, blood matches all! My
kid hasn't beaten me that many times but he really, really wants to do
it more often. It makes for a fun outing when we get to play.
|
|
