I can't believe all these people talking about how courses were "Tiger-proofed" by lengthening them. As a matter of fact, it seems to play more into his hands (i.e. Torrey Pines - 3 of his 4 wins since the South course was lengthened). Also, he has won the Masters twice since "Tiger proofing". The people who used the term really looked like idiots. Notice it is not used anymore with regards to lengthening. The pros were smart when they said that "Tiger proofing" played more into his hands.
A side note...Courses like Westchester and Harbour Town are more difficult for Tiger to win.
Lengthening was not for Tiger proofing, but was necessary, because the pro's (not just Tiger) are hitting their clubs so far (not just Drivers). Many pro's are hitting 6 irons from 200+ today and rarely ever have to hit a long iron into a green.
Tiger proofing to me is make the Par 5's reachable for most everyone in the fairway, but only have 2 or 3 Par 5's. Also, make the rough a penalty or have Trees that block wide shots.
I hate to say it, but Tiger should be a 50% chance of winning at the new Augusta.
Trying to limit Tiger by making courses longer was just lunacy. Today's young tour player is longer than anyone dreamed of 20 years ago. I wonder how much of the lengthening and toughening of courses is due to people in my age group (60's) being very envious of their talent.
Trying to limit Tiger by making courses longer was just lunacy. Today's young tour player is longer than anyone dreamed of 20 years ago. I wonder how much of the lengthening and toughening of courses is due to people in my age group (60's) being very envious of their talent.
To some extent some courses have to be lengthened to challenge the pros. If you can hit driver consistently 320 to 350 yards then any par 5 that is between 550 to 580 yards becomes in essence a par 4 to a long hitters.
Unforntunately what is does to some courses is take some of the guys that can't bomb it out of contention. At the very least if you're not a long hitter you'd better be pretty accurate to have a chance to compete.
Instead of lengthening the holes, put some break in the greens. Its rare to see a putt by the pros that has more than two feet of break in it. More greens should be like Augusta National. One course I think it was B.C. Open I never saw a putt break more than two inches.
Instead of lengthening the holes, put some break in the greens. Its rare to see a putt by the pros that has more than two feet of break in it. More greens should be like Augusta National. One course I think it was B.C. Open I never saw a putt break more than two inches.
Neither did I... but that's because I was watching the Open Championship.
It's quite ironic when you consider that video games have got the idea of "tiger proofing" when the real course modifiers haven't a clue.
In PGA Tour 2006 you can tiger proof the holes by making the greens really fast with lots of borrows, and you can make the rough really punishing, as far as I'm aware you can't lengthen the holes! Making holes longer simply plays right into Tigers hands.
I can't believe all these people talking about how courses were "Tiger-proofed" by lengthening them. As a matter of fact, it seems to play more into his hands (i.e. Torrey Pines - 3 of his 4 wins since the South course was lengthened). Also, he has won the Masters twice since "Tiger proofing". The people who used the term really looked like idiots. Notice it is not used anymore with regards to lengthening. The pros were smart when they said that "Tiger proofing" played more into his hands.
A side note...Courses like Westchester and Harbour Town are more difficult for Tiger to win.
You're right on the first part, but I think he'd compete at westchester or Harbour Town as well. He's a phenomenal short iron player, and with his short game you can never count hime out.
I would say he is an improved short iron player, but can be outplayed by many with equal short irons. The stats from last year prove that despite his 10 - 20 yards on many of the pros, he was actually further from the hole than many others on Par 3 and Par 4's. In fact, take Par 5's out of the game, and he is not the player he is.
However, most of the guys with better iron games can not hit it as far as Tiger and do not have his putter, short game, course intelligence, or mind. The last 2 may be the most important.
Let's face it, we are probably on the verge to see another few years of Tiger dominance. I do not hear of anyone on the horizon who can play with him. That can change, but Tiger has to step back for Phil, Ernie, or Vijay to win these days. I think a hot DiMarco or a hot Garcia can give him a run for a championship. When they get hot, they play at an exceptional level. This is what makes the two of them great Ryder cup players.
Lengthening a course does NOT Tiger-proof it. It plays to one of his greatest strengths. Not only that, it effectively makes the course a lot tougher for the guys that aren't so long off the tee.
To be a little more accurate, instead of Tiger-proofing a course, they've effectively Furyk-proofed it, or Faxon-proofed it.
You can't make a course that doesn't suit Tiger's game. Part of his greatness is that he can win anywhere, at any time. Besides, why would anyone want to damage the chances of the only player the general public cares about winning?
The whole Tiger-proofing concept came about after his record-breaking Masters win, if I recall. IMO, the idea wasn't so much to make it harder for Tiger to win, but to try and sustain the notion that there was something special or demanding about Augusta aside from the tricked up greens. The prospect of -25 winning the Masters simply wouldn't do. As many have pointed out, keeping it in the fairway off of the tee is probably the only part of the game where Tiger doesn't excel and 10 yard wide fairways with 10" rough is the only way to make accuracy off the tee important enough to hurt him more than others. Even if they did that, it wouldn't take him long to find a way to get it done.
February 11th, 2006, 01:19 PM
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
