1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Running 2013 Golf Thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Small Town Guy, Jan 18, 2013.

  1. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    As long as Tiger is happy being arguably the best golfer in the world at a given time -- say, in a range somewhere in the top 10 -- this award is meaningful. It's particularly meaningful if you accept that majors outcomes are a somewhat random occurrence and carry no more weight or pressure than any other tournament. Certainly there is some backing for that thought.

    And maybe that's just the new post-Elin, post-knee Tiger. But that isn't the Tiger we saw for the first 13 years of his career.
     
  2. JackReacher

    JackReacher Well-Known Member

    Does that include the players who voted on this?
     
  3. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    Scott, surely one of the contenders for this award, said a month ago he'd vote for Tiger. He also said he'd rather have his Masters win than five other victories. I can see both points.
     
  4. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    I'm sure any golfer would, it doesn't mean Tiger didn't have the better overall year.
     
  5. BitterYoungMatador2

    BitterYoungMatador2 Well-Known Member

    At that time it's very conceivable that Faldo was that hated. It wasn't until '96 when he put his arm around Norman after his Sunday Masters unraveled that people started softening on the guy.
     
  6. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    JC, my point was that SCOTT thought Tiger had the better year. He voted for the award, not me.
     
  7. MileHigh

    MileHigh Moderator Staff Member

    I would have gone with Scott, with his Masters win and contending at the British (T3) and the PGA (T5).

    Tiger had an excellent year, but he won on four courses where he's got 28 of his 79 wins, so other than the Players, he didn't have a "wow" win. And you never got the sense he was going to pull out a win in any of the majors: T4, T32, T6, T40.
     
  8. Birdscribe

    Birdscribe Active Member

    This.

    You could make a very good argument for Tiger, given the five wins. But Mile's argument holds a lot of water, given the fact his wins -- save the Players' -- were on courses he's dominated on in the past.

    And SmallTownGuy, yes, Faldo was not thought upon fondly in the early '90s. He was very aloof. That said, to deny him POY in place of Wayne Levi that year was criminal.
     
  9. Mark2010

    Mark2010 Active Member

    The tournaments that Tiger won --- Bay Hill, Memorial, The Players, Firestone --- had very good fields. Almost as good of fields as the majors. So that is what tilted the award in my mind.
     
  10. JC

    JC Well-Known Member

    Why does the venue matter more than the field?
     
  11. Key

    Key Well-Known Member

    I waited on Wayne Levi and his wife once. At least, I think it was his wife. I didn't recognize him, but I definitely knew who he was. At one brief time he was probably in the running for best golfer without a major. I was surprised to see his woeful record in the majors. Never played the British...no top 10s...best finish was a T11 at Augusta.

    In that magical 1990 season, he went Cut, Cut, DNP, DNP in the majors.
     
  12. Rhody31

    Rhody31 Well-Known Member

    Weighing the Majors more than other tourneys for POTY is akin to the BBWAA guys voting for players who "played in more important games"
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page