11/21/24
August 25, 2006
Miyazato Aces 2 Holes In Same Round.: No wonder I can't get one! Greedy SOB's like this are stealing the ones that should be mine! I hate him! I hate him! I hate him! Lucky sonava........
posted by commander cody to golf at 04:25 PM - 24 comments
That's nothing. You forget that the illustrious leader of North Korea, Kim Jong II, "shot 11 holes in one" on his first golf outing!
posted by niall at 07:02 PM on August 25, 2006
My first reaction was "Who?". I mean the guy is ranked 365th in the world, with only $8,775 in total career earnings. Hell if you figure the price of drinks I've spent that much losing bets on the course to friends.
posted by commander cody at 07:35 PM on August 25, 2006
Given his career earnings and the number of people who just happened to be on the course, he's gotta be now operating at a loss for his entire career. Hopefully he'll stay far enough up the leaderboard that he'll be able to cover the bar tabs and keep going.
posted by chicobangs at 09:13 PM on August 25, 2006
Let's see Wie do that.
posted by JJ at 10:13 PM on August 25, 2006
Hush, you.
posted by chicobangs at 10:40 PM on August 25, 2006
tiger woods is a robot.
posted by jakeamo15 at 02:16 AM on August 26, 2006
I agree with Psycho. Tiger doesn't play par 3's as well as he does longer holes (he is over par for the year on them) and aces are virtually all made on par 3's. Plus, he is 1 for 16 on par 70 major courses which put greater emphasis on par 3 play over par 5 play. He's not a robot, and he is not going to record double aces in one round either.
posted by judgedread at 09:01 AM on August 26, 2006
I got 2 playing Putt-Putt. Oh wait. That doesn't count. Sorry.
posted by dbt302 at 10:35 AM on August 26, 2006
Greedy SOB's like this are stealing the ones that should be mine! The Quantity Theory of Acanity?
posted by Ufez Jones at 11:04 AM on August 26, 2006
Aces involve a huge amount of luck, regardless of the skill level of the player, but of course, the player who knocks down the flag more often than not has a much greater chance of making one than a player who is lucky to hit the green... judgedread, I don't know what your beef with Tiger is, but your comments are so flawed that I must set the record straight: Tiger doesn't play par 3's as well as he does longer holes. First, I have to assume that by longer holes, you mean par 5's, as the tour stats do not differentiate between short par 4's (say, 430 or less yds.), and long par 4's (those over 430), and, as well, I have to assume that you mean scoring average in relation to par. Using those guidelines, you will notice that NO ONE ON TOUR DOES! This has been the case since the tour started keeping these stats in the 80's, and, I daresay, any good golfer knows the reasons why. (he is over par for the year on them) So are 187 of the 199 players that have played enough rounds to have their stats listed, as you can see, Tiger is ranked 20th in par 3 performance, and 22nd in "par 3 birdie or better" stats, hardly what one would categorize an achilles heel. Plus, he is 1 for 16 on par 70 major courses which put greater emphasis on par 3 play over par 5 play. That statement is seriously flawed. "par 70 major courses" are usually turned into a par of 70 by turning two of the par 5's into long par 4's, thereby emphasizing par 4 play, as anyone knows that the long par 4's always play to a higher stroke average (in relation to par) than most any other holes. In order for your assertion that he does not fare as well on par 70 courses because of the par 3's to be considered, you would have to show me Tigers stats in relation to the field at all those tournaments before I could even begin to say that the par 3's are the cause for his not fareing as well at those venues. he is not going to record double aces in one round either. The odds against that happening are so astronomical that you could say that about any player, but, if I were you, I would never say never when it comes to Tigers game.
posted by mjkredliner at 11:41 AM on August 26, 2006
Nice research, mjkredliner.
posted by grum@work at 12:21 PM on August 26, 2006
MJK, it is not true that no one scores better on par 3 vs. par 4 holes. Corey Pavin and Luke Donald are two who score better on the average as against par on par 3's. While I recognize your point in relation to long par 4's on par 70 courses, you are failing to recognize that PGA tour stats clearly show that Tiger is over par on the year on par 3's. And, as most par 70 courses used for majors have twice as many par 3's as they do par 5's, your missing my point that TIGER'S OWN TRACK RECORD reflects that he simply doesn't fare as well when that set-up exists. While I freely admit my tendency to work in a challenge of Eldrick when any thread opens the door, I sure have fun in reading the responses which will go just about any length to defend him; sometimes quite justified, sometimes not.
posted by judgedread at 01:45 PM on August 26, 2006
That does not compute... Insufficient data for a meaningful answer... Windows 95 has detected an undetectable error... This system will self destruct in 5 4 3 2 1
posted by mjkredliner at 02:16 PM on August 26, 2006
Windows 95? Dude, upgrade!
posted by Bill Lumbergh at 02:23 PM on August 26, 2006
you are failing to recognize that PGA tour stats clearly show that Tiger is over par on the year on par 3's. And it seems you fail to recognize the next line where mjkredliner points out that 187 of the 199 players on the PGA tour are over par on the year on par 3s, and that Woods (by being 20th in the Par 3 ranking) is actually better than almost 90 percent of the PGA pros. I sure have fun in reading the responses which will go just about any length to defend him; sometimes quite justified, sometimes not. Sometimes, it seems you don't really read the full response.
posted by grum@work at 03:19 PM on August 26, 2006
Sorry about the delay in getting back to you,MJK,( I was watching Tiger Woods make 4 consecutive bogeys on TV and was occupied) . While your response was, I'm sure, an attempt to be funny, I'll interpret it as a concession that I may be right...
posted by judgedread at 03:20 PM on August 26, 2006
The Quantity Theory of Acanity? More like theory of Insanity, Ufez.
posted by commander cody at 05:18 PM on August 26, 2006
Seems to me that Tiger is one of those guys that you either love, hate or just don't think about that much. I fall into the 3rd category. I grew up watching golf in the 60's and early 70's with my golf-obsessed grandfather (my uncle and I were the only other family members who didn't think it was boring) and tried to get back into a few years ago, but it just doesn't "feel" the same. I don't know if it's missing Palmer, Nicklaus and Player or if it's just one of those things that's better left as a childhood memory, but golf today seems to be as dull to me now as the other family members thought back then.
posted by commander cody at 11:26 PM on August 26, 2006
I'll interpret it as a concession that I may be right... Fat chance, pal. About as right as you were here, here, here, here, and here, which is to say, not at all. MJK, it is not true that no one scores better on par 3 vs par 4 holes. READ MY LIPS. I did not make that claim. I said NO ONE ON TOUR scores better (in relation to par) on par 3 holes than par 5 holes. TIGER'S OWN TRACK RECORD reflects that he simply doesn't fare as well when that setup exists While I freely admit my tendency to work in a challenge of Eldrick when any thread opens the door I was watching Tiger Woods make 4 consecutive bogeys (first such streak in 10 years, remarkable in and of itself, I must say) Tell ya what, judge... Since the Firestone South course (widely regarded as a pretty tough track), where they are playing at currently, is a par 70 course with only two par 5's, and since Tiger has won there, uh lets see, once, twice, three, FOUR TIMES!, and, because I made this claim, and, since one of the great things about golf is it's infinite gambling possiblities, I propose a wager: If Tiger wins today, you must cease making bogus, unwarranted, baseless claims about Tiger and his game, and then I will not have to "go just about any length to defend him" with statistics, undisputed history, and cold hard facts. If he doesn't, then you may have your little laugh and continue, but, rest assured, that I will as well. Tiger at the press conference following yesterdays round: "My body tried to take me out of the tournament, my mind will get me back in." Heh, heh, you wanna up the stakes, judge?
posted by mjkredliner at 04:15 AM on August 27, 2006
More like theory of Insanity, Ufez. Well, yes
posted by Ufez Jones at 10:16 AM on August 27, 2006
Thanks for the link Ufez. I honestly didn't know about that book, but it looks good. Think I'll see if the library has it. I'm too cheap to buy unless I can't find it free. For the classics I read them online at www.gutenberg.org They have nearly 20,000 titles to read, dl and save for free. Great site!
posted by commander cody at 06:37 PM on August 27, 2006
MJK, I was out of state today and was unable to respond to your wager offer. By now, we all know that Tiger did win in a playoff. I wouldn't have accepted your bet,not with rain in the forecast, and not with Woods' ability to exploit softened greens. But it was a good call on your part,and a good win for Tiger on a legitimately challenging par 70 track. I did misread your earlier comment regarding par 5 holes, but are you suggesting that Tiger is less successful on par 70 major courses because he can't compete against the field on long par 4's? Anyway, we'll save this discussion for another day.I am going upstairs to eat some of my own birthday cake (another day older and deeper in debt) and will look forward to your next hypothesis...
posted by judgedread at 08:59 PM on August 27, 2006
Hey judge, it's all good and fun. Happy Birthday. PS Tiger is ranked #1 in par 4 performance.
posted by mjkredliner at 09:11 PM on August 27, 2006
Let's see Tiger do that.