ESPN Golf Conversation

1TIME1TIME

Once again the pressure got to the field and they all melted. Thompson nearly won from the clubhouse with nine parings left on the course. The only thing worse than these ESPN sports writers predictions and knowledge of the game was the players abilities to read the greens. I mean what are you paying your caddies for if they don't even know the breaks? Mc Dowells read on the final green was simply horrible. On the other hand, Wojciechowski's read on who would win and Woods' chances was even worse, but you expect it from him!
23 Hours ago

David722249

It's golf. Who cares? Not like it's a real sport.
Yesterday

Gollfprodude

Go back to your cave, troll.
Yesterday

peavyforpresident

I don't think the rankings as a whole are that flawed. What you're seeing is that some players have a game that suits the open and some don't. It's no surprise that short-but-straight David Toms and straight-as-a-ruler Furyk are in the lead with Tiger. What Tiger has made everyone forget, by making it look so easy for many years, is that it's really hard to get a career slam; you have to have an adaptable game. Rory is GREAT on the long, open courses where a really low number is going to win. Tiger can go low on those courses, but he also has the ability to play fairways-and-greens-in-regulation golf like few in the world. Heck, he won a British Open without hitting driver for the week! The rankings reflect how players do on the average PGA track setup. The majors are a different animal.
Yesterday

jdh2010

Since the number 1, 2 and 3 players in the world did such a lousy job at the US Open, perhaps it would be appropriate to have a discussion about how these rankings are decided. Evidently, the rankings do not reflect who truly ARE the three best golfers in the world. And, if the rankings are solely decided on money won on tour, shouldn't there be some additional parameters to truly rank these players on the basis of ABILITY?
Yesterday

1911George

Not likely.
2 Days ago