• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2013 GRAND SLAM CONTEST - cville wins PGA; NFDeac wins Grand Slam!

He's won 14 majors and only missed 11 cuts in his PGA Tour career. Just an insane stat.
 
I have a list of 15 players from the 150 list where I would bet at least half of them make the cut.
 
cville deac said:
Ian Baker Finch, Todd Hamilton, Wayne Grady, Rich Beem and Ben Curtis all say hello - in harmony. Paul Lawrie, YE Yang and Geoff Ogilvy may whisper hello too.
Click to expand...

None of those are as bad as Micheel. All are multiple time winners on their respective tours.

And I've gotta shake my head at your inclusion of Ogilvy on the list. Dude is a 7 time winner on tour, with 2 WGCs to go with his US Open.
 
Liquid Karma said:
Beem won at Hazeltine. The golfer I'm referencing is Shaun Micheel, who can't sniff Beem's career results.
Click to expand...

That's right. Well we agree then that Beem is better than Micheel hah. I was thinking Beem won in 2003 for some reason rather than 2002.

I'm pretty sure Oak Hill in 2003 is where Tiger put up his worst four round total ever (292).
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Geoff Ogilvy definitely doesn't belong on that list IMO. I think Hamilton, Beem, Lawrie, and Yang all definitely do, but Yang gets a ton of credit since he beat Tiger heads up for the first time ever in a major. Lawrie snuck in to his major in the first place and so did Curtis, but I think Curtis has actually played pretty well in other majors.
Click to expand...

Agree Lawrie snuck in to his major, but the guy made a Ryder Cup team 13 years after winning the Open. Also thumped Snedeker as part of Sunday's comeback. Doesn't belong on the list IMO.
 
Ben Curtis played on a winning US Ryder Cup Team, which elevates him in my book.
 
Liquid Karma said:
None of those are as bad as Micheel. All are multiple time winners on their respective tours.

And I've gotta shake my head at your inclusion of Ogilvy on the list. Dude is a 7 time winner on tour, with 2 WGCs to go with his US Open.
Click to expand...

Agree about Ogilvy. He was good before he won the US and it seemed like he was building to a good career. Only reason I put him in is he has really disappeared the last few years. And I agree about Curtis. You still see him on the occasional leaderboard. But I don't remember Baker Finch, Hamilton, Grady or Beem doing much of anything after their majors, and not a ton before, so I'd lump them right in there with Micheel.
 
Liquid Karma said:
Let's not forget that this course gave us the worst major champion of the last 30 years.
Click to expand...

Possible this happens again, but unlikely. Other notable winners there are Nicklaus, Trevino, Strange, Middlecoff, and Haas. And, despite his lack of other success, Micheel did not just back into his win. He played a damn good back 9 in a duel against Chad Campbell; the last 5-6 holes were fantastic golf. That was also during a run of unknown major winners. Tiger was working through his Haney swing changes and there just weren't as many top players during that time (Els finished 5th in 2003).

The course is not tailor made for Tiger, but I think he could play it well this week. He will hit a lot of non-drivers, which will help him keep it in play. He likes hitting a controlled fade right now, which is preferred on many tees, and especially with irons given the greens are small, firm, and slope back to front. The variable is his putting, but when fast, the greens are very true and not overly undulating. He has as good a shot as anyone this week.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of Haases, Bill has a real shot this week. He has the most top-10s this year, has won, and tends to play well on older parkland courses (including a Ross at East Lake). He drives it in play and works the ball well. Despite not having competed at Oak Hill, he will get good inside knowledge from Billy Harmon (Bill's coach and Jay's former long-time caddy), who was an assistant there for several years and whose brother Craig is the head pro. Hopefully he can get through the major jitters and really contend this week.
 
Haas' best shots at a major are Augusta and the PGA. He's never going to win the British Open with his style IMO and the US Open hasn't treated him well in the past. He's 4 for 4 in cuts at Augusta.
 
deacz said:
Possible this happens again, but unlikely. Other notable winners there are Nicklaus, Trevino, Strange, Middlecoff, and Haas. And, despite his lack of other success, Micheel did not just back into his win. He played a damn good back 9 in a duel against Chad Campbell; the last 5-6 holes were fantastic golf. That was also during a run of unknown major winners. Tiger was working through his Haney swing changes and there just weren't as many top players during that time (Els finished 5th in 2003).

The course is not tailor made for Tiger, but I think he could play it well this week. He will hit a lot of non-drivers, which will help him keep it in play. He likes hitting a controlled fade right now, which is preferred on many tees, and especially with irons given the greens are small, firm, and slope back to front. The variable is his putting, but when fast, the greens are very true and not overly undulating. He has as good a shot as anyone this week.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the early 2000s was a period when Tiger didn't have the stiff competition he has today. Vijay was good, Els up and down, Mickelson wildly inconsistent, Goosen occasionally around and Furyk. Today's top-30 would be better than some of the guys in the top-10 a decade ago. I think that helps explain 2 things. First, why there were so many no names winning majors in that 2-3 year period, and second, part of the reason Tiger finds it harder winning majors since he came back from the injuries and divorce. And it's why I favor chalk to win this week over the no names - too much chalk these days.
 
Tiger has played against much better fields though.

Both are extremely impressive.
 
because golf is slower paced and a lot easier to take up than say... tackle football?
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Tiger has played against much better fields though.

Both are extremely impressive.
Click to expand...

I don't know that I'd agree with that. Just going down the list of Nicklaus contemporaries with at least three majors you get:

Gary Player 9
Tom Watson 8
Arnold Palmer 7
Lee Trevino 6
Raymond Floyd 4
Billy Casper 3
Julius Boros 3
Larry Nelson 3
Hale Irwin 3

I don't think there are as many players today who match the Sunday-at-a-major toughness of those guys. I think that's one reason why Tiger has won all of his majors after holding the 54 hole lead. There are no Gary Players or Tom Watsons to run him down.

But I agree that both Jack's and Tiger's record are in another stratosphere compared with everyone else.
 
Jack had more star players to face in his era. Tiger has had much deeper fields. It's hard to judge whose era proved tougher. Let's just say they both are/were great.
 
bobknightfan said:
Actually, the opposite is true. Young people want faster sports...not slower ones... as evidenced by their lack of interest in baseball and preference for basketball, football & soccer. And because of the costs involved, golf is not easier to take up than football. (Costs may not be a concern for most posters on a WF board, but posters on this board do not represent most people.)
Click to expand...

wait, how young are we talking? i'm talking like twenties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top