That's not true. They'll mention Rory occasionally

At least when it comes to golf, the overexposure of certain players is deserved because of past accomplishments.

doubled99: That's not true. They'll mention Rory occasionally

Rory the Douche or Wozniacki's boyfriend?

Well, nobody else cares about golf, so why should ESPN?

Tiger will be looking for a date, Phil will be texting the commissioner about fans using phones and Bubba will be looking for black helicopters.

Could get interesting

bmr68: Tiger will be looking for a date, Phil will be texting the commissioner about fans using phones and Bubba will be looking for black helicopters.

Could get interesting

+1
Haha!

And they are setup for Friday early-primetime viewing.

I don't like PGA/USGA decisions often, but when they started designing "premium" groups a few years ago...they made it awesome.

ESPN commercial about the three biggest names in Golf teeing off together

*eyeroll*

Those commercials are going to approach superbowl area if those three are together on sunday.
/PGA the new marketing MACHINE.

I'm actually surprised that ESPN has any of the coverage for the US Open since NBC usually has the coverage. (Maybe there's a different arrangement for the TH/F coverage.)

At any rate, it's not like NBC's coverage is any better. Instead of Chris Berman "back back back back back back back back back"ing it up all afternoon, you would get Bob Costas and cut-aways every 10 minutes so Jim Gray can interview Chris Evert or Bill Gates (or someone else that has nothing to do with the tournament).

I absolutely love the US Open, but I cannot stand NBC's coverage of it. Frankly, CBS and Golf Channel (without the NBC shills) should have exclusive rights to the PGA.

Fark Tiger. Hard.

The US Open is set up to punish the best players; as a result the winner is often some one (or two-) hit wonder who doesn't get more than a soundbite at The Mothership. So that 'star' grouping is a concession to the easy odds that nobody will know or care about who wins Sunday evening.

The_Great_Hambino: I'm actually surprised that ESPN has any of the coverage for the US Open since NBC usually has the coverage. (Maybe there's a different arrangement for the TH/F coverage.)

At any rate, it's not like NBC's coverage is any better. Instead of Chris Berman "back back back back back back back back back"ing it up all afternoon, you would get Bob Costas and cut-aways every 10 minutes so Jim Gray can interview Chris Evert or Bill Gates (or someone else that has nothing to do with the tournament).

I absolutely love the US Open, but I cannot stand NBC's coverage of it. Frankly, CBS and Golf Channel (without the NBC shills) should have exclusive rights to the PGA.

ESPN has had the 1st 2 rounds for years. And they get Berman to do the nightly recap show they have, unfortunately.

/I think NBC does a couple of hours of Th/F coverage too

CognaciousThunk: The US Open is set up to punish the best players; as a result the winner is often some one (or two-) hit wonder who doesn't get more than a soundbite at The Mothership. So that 'star' grouping is a concession to the easy odds that nobody will know or care about who wins Sunday evening.

How?

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Fark Tiger. Hard.

Thanks for sharing your daily Two Minutes Hate with the thread. That's fun and interesting.

CognaciousThunk: The US Open is set up to punish the best players; as a result the winner is often some one (or two-) hit wonder who doesn't get more than a soundbite at The Mothership. So that 'star' grouping is a concession to the easy odds that nobody will know or care about who wins Sunday evening.

I can't agree with that. The US open is one of the few weeks out of the year where the pros struggle to make par like the rest of us. One of my favorite tournaments of the year. I seem to recall quite a few'name' champions that would seem to give the lie to your contention.

Oh my God, guys, did you hear?


Tiger Woods won a tournament last week!! He's back!! This means that he's going to win every tournament he enters until he retires!!

bmr68: Tiger will be looking for a date, Phil will be texting the commissioner about fans using phones and Bubba will be looking for black helicopters.

Could get interesting

I followed a first-round group of Curtis Strange, Hale Irwin and John Daly around Colonial in Fort Worth once. Strange and Irwin were having a nice round and chatting. Daly had his army of white-trash rednecks hooting and hollering all over the place. It was a mini circus. I think Irwin was ready to tell a few people STFU a couple of times.

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Fark Tiger. Hard.

You sound like a Perkins waitress.

Crude: Oh my God, guys, did you hear?


Tiger Woods won a tournament last week!! He's back!! This means that he's going to win every tournament he enters until he retires!!

Seems like he's won two of the ten tourneys he's entered this year. You have a better pick?

Anybody think that Tiger intentionally tanked his game to gain sympathy for his big comeback?

JohnBigBootay: Crude: Oh my God, guys, did you hear?


Tiger Woods won a tournament last week!! He's back!! This means that he's going to win every tournament he enters until he retires!!

Seems like he's won two of the ten tourneys he's entered this year. You have a better pick?

exactly.

and he tied nicklaus' record for wins with what, 200 or more fewer starts? overall he's won what, 27 per cent of the tourneys he's entered. he won the us open with a broken leg... there's no better pick.

stir22: and he tied nicklaus' record for wins with what, 200 or more fewer starts? overall he's won what, 27 per cent of the tourneys he's entered. he won the us open with a broken leg... there's no better pick.

Which doesn't mean he'll win of course. But his odds should be as low as anyone.

JohnBigBootay: But his odds should be as low as anyone.

His odds are low because the mouthbreathers who bet on golf don't know anyone besides Tiger so the bookies don't need to give people any extra incentive to put money on him.

ElwoodCuse: His odds are low because the mouthbreathers who bet on golf don't know anyone besides Tiger so the bookies don't need to give people any extra incentive to put money on him.

Right. That he won his last start and this tournament three times are probably not factors. Who are you picking? Personally I think picking the winner of a golf tournament is blind luck - all I said is that Tiger is deserving of low odds for this tourney because he's won it before and is playing well lately - that's it. If there were another 3 time winner in the field who had won his last start against a strong field I'd say he was also deserving of low odds.

JohnBigBootay stir22: and he tied nicklaus' record for wins with what, 200 or more fewer starts? overall he's won what, 27 per cent of the tourneys he's entered. he won the us open with a broken leg... there's no better pick.

Which doesn't mean he'll win of course. But his odds should be as low as anyone.

Not really. The game doesn't have a dominant player right now. There are at least ten or twelve players who have just as good a shot next week as Woods.

Botkin of the Yard: Not really. The game doesn't have a dominant player right now. There are at least ten or twelve players who have just as good a shot next week as Woods.

Right - like I said. Woods odds should be as low as anyone's right now.

JohnBigBootay: Right - like I said. Woods odds should be as low as anyone's right now.

Um, no. He's not as good as most those guys now. Mickelson, Westwood, McIlroy, and Donald are all more consistent players than Woods. They are better players now. Was this the case four years ago? Of course not, but things have changed. There's probably a better chance of one of the younger South Africans winning next week than Woods.

JohnBigBootay: Right - like I said. Woods odds should be as low as anyone's right now.

Um, no. He's not as good as most of those guys now. Mickelson, Westwood, McIlroy, and Donald are all more consistent players than Woods. They are better players now. Was this the case four years ago? Of course not, but things have changed. There's probably a better chance of one of the younger South Africans winning next week than Woods.

Botkin of the Yard: JohnBigBootay: Right - like I said. Woods odds should be as low as anyone's right now.

Um, no. He's not as good as most of those guys now. Mickelson, Westwood, McIlroy, and Donald are all more consistent players than Woods. They are better players now. Was this the case four years ago? Of course not, but things have changed. There's probably a better chance of one of the younger South Africans winning next week than Woods.

Weird. Because only one of those guys is ahead of tiger on the money list right now - mcilroy, and he's only one spot higher and coming off two consecutive missed cuts. None have more wins than woods this year. None of them are ahead of woods in fedex cup points. If you were saying this last year I'd agree but the fact is tiger has played pretty well this year. World golf rankings right now say...

Donald
Mcilroy
Westwood
Woods

... in that order. I guess they bumped woods up to 4th in the world based on tv ratings, not because he's played well this year.

JohnBigBootay

Look, I get that you're a huge Tiger Woods fan. But having the sort of intense loyalty you exhibit in every golf thread can lead to errors in judgement.

Now, why would Westwood, McIlroy, and Luke Donald be ahead of Woods in fedex points? They spend at least half their time playing outside the United States.

As for Woods playing well, it depends on which tournaments you watched. He's been somewhat inconsistent, to put it mildly. In between the two very impressive wins, Woods has a missed cut and a couple T40s. He seems to have become more willing to sacrifice some distance to get more accuracy off the tee, which is good. But it's likely he's going to miss more fairways than usual next week. Big hitters often do at the Open. If that happens, he's not going to win.

I don't know if it's age and injuries, or everything 'post-fire hydrant', or a bit of both, but he hasn't been the same player over the last four years. When he's up against Mickelson he loses, often badly. I'm impressed that he's fought his way back a bit but he's an old 36. It's much more likely that someone else wins next week.

Botkin of the Yard: Look, I get that you're a huge Tiger Woods fan. But having the sort of intense loyalty you exhibit in every golf thread can lead to errors in judgement.

More like I recognize the achievements. It's not like I have a poster or anything. He's kind of a boring douche. But his golf achievements are so far beyond any other player playing it's hard not to notice.

Now, why would Westwood, McIlroy, and Luke Donald be ahead of Woods in fedex points?

Donald has played the same number of pga events as woods has. Westwood and mcilroy two less.

As for Woods playing well, it depends on which tournaments you watched. He's been somewhat inconsistent, to put it mildly.

So sort of like Mcilroy and Mickelson then?

I don't know if it's age and injuries, or everything 'post-fire hydrant', or a bit of both, but he hasn't been the same player over the last four years.

No shiat. Nevertheless there's not a player on tour who has more wins than Woods THIS YEAR. Look - I don't think it's 2000 anymore. I'm just reminding you that the 2012 woods is playing somewhat better than the last two years.

I'm impressed that he's fought his way back a bit but he's an old 36.

But Mickelson is a young 42?

It's much more likely that someone else wins next week

Of course. It's golf. No one is 'likely' (50% chance or better) to win any tournament. It's a big talented field. I simply said Woods has as good a chance to win as anyone - based on performance history in this tournament (3 wins) and performance this year (2 wins and a #4 world rank). Why that would rankle, I have no idea.

JohnBigBootay: More like I recognize the achievements. It's not like I have a poster or anything. He's kind of a boring douche. But his golf achievements are so far beyond any other player playing it's hard not to notice.

Over the last five years? No, his achievements are not overwhelmingly better than any number of other players.

So sort of like Mcilroy and Mickelson then?

Again, it's more than just this season. Both of those guys are better players than Woods now and have been for some time. Woods pretty much always gets beat by Mickelson head to head nowadays. That's unlikely to change.

I don't know if it's age and injuries, or everything 'post-fire hydrant', or a bit of both, but he hasn't been the same player over the last four years.

But Mickelson is a young 42?

Compared to Woods, yes. And Mickelson has a particularly bad condition that isn't going away. His body has held up a lot better than Woods though.

Of course. It's golf. No one is 'likely' (50% chance or better) to win any tournament. It's a big talented field. I simply said Woods has as good a chance to win as anyone - based on performance history in this tournament (3 wins) and performance this year (2 wins and a #4 world rank). Why that would rankle, I have no idea.

He doesn't have as good a chance to win as anyone. He has a better chance than some and a lesser chance than others. And it doesn't rankle. I just think it's odd that you have this habit of objecting to every mild criticism of Woods' game, his chances of winning, or anything that sounds remotely less than pro-Woods. But like I said, you're obviously a huge Woods fan, and I suppose the sport still needs that.

Oh, and I would term any other player who was a past champion, 4th ranked player who had won his last start against a strong field, 'as good a bet as anyone'.. I think mcilroy is as good a bet a anyone despite his 2 consecutive MCs. I'll let you know what I think about Mickelson as soon as I see if he is over the rabbit ears.

JohnBigBootay

Yes, I get it. It's very important to you to see him win.

Botkin of the Yard: Yes, I get it. It's very important to you to see him win.

I haven't liked Tiger Woods since pretty much ever, but he has "as good a chance as anyone" to win. Those words were chosen specifically and those words are accurate. It's not "as good as anyone" as in "Tiger vs The Field is a 50/50 proposition" but as in "Tiger is as legitimate a threat to win as any other single person in this field."

/I wish Mickelson would win more

Botkin of the Yard: Yes, I get it. It's very important to you to see him win.

You would not believe how unimportant it is to me. But clearly it will bum you out if he does. I doubt I watch a minute until Sunday, which I will do no matter who is on the leaderboard.

Over the last five years?

I was unaware we had moved the goal post to five years. And frankly, after watching golf for over 40 years I can't see what the five year mark has to do with anything. What do you have against the world golf rankings? It's this thing where they take the players' results, then rank them according to those results. Your basic argument seems to be that they are wrong.

I must admit I don't get the mickelson thing at all. He has a win this year. And one win last year and one win the year before that. He peaked in 2009 and he'll never top it. As a golf fan you must admit that 'head to head' is media created minutiae at its finest. Neither one of those guys gives two shiats who else is in the field, and neither would have had the success they've had if it was any other way. If there is anything to it it seems like Memorial would have washed that away in any event.

In short I have no farking idea who will win the us open. Based on numbers and numbers alone Woods has a decent shot as do several others. Or it could be some schmuck we never heard of. I do enjoy arguing on the internet though.

IAmRight: It's not "as good as anyone" as in "Tiger vs The Field is a 50/50 proposition" but as in "Tiger is as legitimate a threat to win as any other single person in this field."

And that is most certainly all I meant to say. And if it were one year ago I would most certainly not have said it. And I'd not have said it if his two wins were in january. But he won his last farking tournament - hardly going out on a limb there.

/picking the guy who will win the next major is a fool's errand AT BEST. it will not be at all shocking if Phil wins. Or if Tiger wins. Or if they both miss the freakin' cut.

JohnBigBootay: I was unaware we had moved the goal post to five years. And frankly, after watching golf for over 40 years I can't see what the five year mark has to do with anything. What do you have against the world golf rankings? It's this thing where they take the players' results, then rank them according to those results. Your basic argument seems to be that they are wrong.

Wow, still at I see.

The rankings? I didn't say I had any major complaints about the rankings. I think they cover too long a period a time and ought to be tinkered with a little but that's a minor criticism.

As for Mickelson, there is no question he's been a better player since Woods last won a major. He beats Woods every time he plays him. And I didn't move the goalposts. I said you're analysis was insufficient. It remains so. Woods does not have as good a chance as several other players who are now better than him.

Botkin of the Yard: Wow, still at I see.

Wow. Still at it I see.

Now you're just being obstinate. But that's ok. I'll concede and state it here for you - The 42 year old Phil Mickelson, who is lower in the world ranking than Woods, lower on the money list than woods despite four more starts, and who had a 79/wd in his last start (in a tourney that Tiger won, but must not count for whatever reason), is now clearly the superior player. Despite fewer wins this year and three fewer wins over your magic five year time period. Happy? I had no burning desire to turn this into phil vs tiger. I enjoy watching both of them immensely - no surprise given that they are by far the dominant players of the last fifteen years.

/I like Phil and hope he does well this week and his first masters win is one of my favorite golf moments. But I'm a numbers freak - I don't just look at them when they suit my purposes and discount them the rest of the time.

// for my money, both these guys need to make some serious hay the next two-three years because neither one of them has too many wins left