Really, there's not much to say right now. May as well just sit back and watch the kid play. I leave you with one link-- a photo sequence of Tiger's incredible 18th hole birdie putt and hat-spike yesterday at Bay Hill. Otherwise, enjoy the archives and thanks for visiting-- it's been fun!
Are you like me? Did you completely miss Tiger Woods' comments on Barack Obama a few weeks ago, at the Dubai Desert Classic?
I don't think it's my fault. After all, they weren't written up by the Associated Press, which, as we know, is where all our country's news comes from.
No, the only news organization that did an original mention, so far as I can tell (and I looked hard), was Agence France Press. And the only paper or portal that seemed to have picked up the AFP report was Yahoo. Anyway, here's the gist:
DUBAI (AFP) - Tiger Woods says he has been impressed with Democratic Party presidential candidate Barack Obama and believes he is an inspiration to many in the United States.
Asked for his views on the senator from Illinois, who like himself has an African-American father, ahead of the Dubai Desert Classic, Woods replied: "I've seen him speak. He's extremely articulate, very thoughtful."
Here are his full remarks on the candidate from the Dubai press conference. I love Tiger's incidental, "Oh, God, here we go."
Q. Just to totally change tack, could I ask you a Barack Obama question?
TIGER WOODS: Oh, God, here we go.
Q. Just your thoughts on the way he has inspired a generation of Americans who clearly weren't interested in politics before.
TIGER WOODS: Well, I've seen him speak. He's extremely articulate, very thoughtful. I'm just impressed at how well, basically all politicians really do, how well they think on their feet. Especially those debates, it's pretty phenomenal to see them get their point across. But I just think that he's really inspired a bunch of people in our country, and you know, we'll see what happens down the road.
I also love Tiger's appreciation for how athletes politicians "think on their feet" at tournament press conferences debates.
How unlikely is it that Stewart Cink will beat Tiger Woods in today's Match Play final?
I believe you'd have to quote the shortest science fiction tale ever written.
Out in Las Vegas the wisdom is that it's about 4 1/2- 1. (Tiger is -500 to win; Cink is +400.) Odds like that, gotta plunk our remaining $580 on Stewie.
(8AM UPDATE: Overnight the line has moved to Tiger -400, Cink +330. Apparently Cink has some believers out there....)
Why is Cink such a 'dog? It's not that he's a bad player. Indeed, for my money, he's presently the fourth best American in the game, behind Woods, Mickelson, and Furyk. (My apologies to Steve Stricker and Zach Johnson, both of whom are ranked ahead of him.) (By the way, has anyone noticed that there are only seven Americans ranked in the top 30 in the world right now?)
The problem, of course, is that playing Woods head-to-head-- whether in a final group or in match play-- is golf's answer to Fear Factor. You've got about as much chance of playing your normal game as you would with a mouthful of worms.
Look at what happened to J.B. Holmes on Wednesday. Look at what happened yesterday to Henrik Stenson, whose finding a way to lose culminated in laying sod over both a wedge and a chip on the final hole. Heck, it started happening to Stewart Cink the day before his match with Woods even started-- he started hitting it sideways yesterday as soon as it became apparent he would win his match against Justin Leonard.
That's why Aaron Baddeley's near-victory against Tiger on Friday is (easily) the most remarkable thing that's happened in golf thus far this year.
It actually-- sorry, but I feel strongly about this-- pissed me off yesterday that every talking head in the business toed the party line and said Baddeley gagged on the two putts he had to beat Tiger.
In the post-match TV interview, when Steve Sands or Roger Maltbie (I forget which) suggested the misses resulted from pressure, Baddeley rightly got his back up and disagreed, reminding the interviewer that the first putt, a ten-footer, had four feet of break in it, and the second putt, a seemingly straight twelve-footer, was impossible to read.
Would love to see Stewie have a couple such chances at the end of today's match. But the sun never rises-- well, you know.
After yesterday's play Tiger confirmed that his match with Aaron Baddeley was among his best as a pro.
Q. Just wondered for context purposes, is that probably the best match play thing you've been in as a pro, for shootout, birdies, red numbers, counter-punch and all that?
TIGER WOODS: Yeah, the only other match that was similar to that we had more difficult conditions was Match Play against O'Meara, '98, at Wentworth. I think he was 11-under and I was 10-under. [That match was 36 holes.] I thought that was a pretty good match.
(Full interview transcript here.) It's certainly been a long time since anyone had two different putts to beat him. The semi-official totals for the match were 12 birdies for Tiger, 9 for Aaron. We knew Woods was playing well, but what are the odds that, from here on in, anyone else will hand him a loss this tournament? Pretty long, I'd say. David Tyree isn't in the field.
Speaking of odds: after yesterday's trouncing (oh-fer three, shrinking the bankroll to $580), I'm taking the day off. (The odds themselves, match by match, remain available at www.golfodds.com.)
Yep, you guessed it-- talking about Michelle Wie.
On Friday, after her first round 69 (-3)-- with the former phenom already halfway to equalling her below-par round total for 2007-- Ron Sirak summed up the student-athlete's season outlook.
True, it is only one round of golf. And, true it was played on a golf course she probably knows a lot better than the Stanford University campus, where she is finishing up the winter quarter. [Only four days of school missed this quarter-- not bad; a small improvement on the five she missed fall quarter.] And true, questions lingered about Wie's ability to close out tournaments even before injury, lack of interest and technical problems conspired to sabotage her game in 2007. But it is also true that she is only 18 years old, and she has plenty of time to live up to a potential that as yet has not been approached....
While there were a lot of positive signs in Wie's first round back, she still has a rather large hole from which to extricate herself. First off, she alienated a lot of LPGA players last year, especially when she withdrew at the Ginn Tribute and popped up two days later to practice at Bulle Rock, where the McDonald's LPGA Championship is played. She has to show her fellow professionals she has grown up -- maybe by apologizing.
Secondly, she has put herself between a rock and a hard place in terms of the LPGA Tour. Unless they change the rules, she cannot get into either the Kraft Nabisco Championship or the McDonald's LPGA Championship, the first two majors of the year. And unless the USGA gives her a third special exemption, she will have to qualify to get into the U.S Women's Open. She is also not likely to get an invite into the Ricoh Women's British Open, the final major, unless she plays a lot better than last year.
The other thing that has happened since Wie was Wie is that she in no longer the wonder kid. Michelle is now 18 years old. Paula Creamer won on the LPGA -- twice -- when she was 18. Morgan Pressel won a major championship when she was 18. The LPGA is ankle-deep in teenagers. No longer does Wie have the novelty of youth on her side. Now she has to perform.
On Friday, in the second of the three-round tournament, Wie shot +1 (73) to fall back into a tie for 41st place.
So far this week Wie has said precious little to the press about her life at Stanford-- although the Golf Channel promises a featurette on tonight's Golf Central (10:30 p.m. EST)-- or her schedule for the rest of the year-- although that figures to be part of the gamer Sirak will write for Golf World on Sunday night.
Forget the golf. What would the outcome be if Stuart Appleby's haircut went 18 holes against Ian Poulter's haircut?
My betting Friday was flat: two wins, two losses, no substantial change in wallet width. Which is unsatisfactory. So I've fired consultant Kevin Malone and replaced 
him the world-renown Dewey "Ox" Oxberger. His advice? The same he gave Cruiser in Stripes: "If it were me, I'd bet everything, but that's me-- aggressive gambler, Mr. Vegas."
I'm not gonna lay everything on the line just yet. But with my $1,200 roll I will go two units each on Colin Montgomerie EVEN over Stewart Cink; Rod Pampling +130 over Vijay Singh; and Boo Weekley -110 over Woody Austin.
(Once again, odds from www.golfodds.com.)
| Friday, February 22, 2008 | |
| Tiger Woods | -360 |
| Aaron Baddeley | +300 |
| Paul Casey | +105 |
| K.J. Choi | -125 |
| Jonathan Byrd | +130 |
| Henrik Stenson | -150 |
| Woody Austin | -110 |
| Boo Weekley | -110 |
| Stuart Appleby | -130 |
| Justin Leonard | +110 |
| Rod Pampling | +130 |
| Vijay Singh | -150 |
| Steve Stricker | -125 |
| Angel Cabrera | +105 |
| Colin Montgomerie | EVEN |
| Stewart Cink | -120 |
The New York Times confirms today what golf cognoscenti have known for quite some time: the sport's in a participation recession.
Over the past decade, the leisure activity most closely associated with corporate success in America has been in a kind of recession.
The total number of people who play has declined or remained flat each year since 2000, dropping to about 26 million from 30 million, according to the National Golf Foundation and the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association.
More troubling to golf boosters, the number of people who play 25 times a year or more fell to 4.6 million in 2005 from 6.9 million in 2000, a loss of about a third.
The industry now counts its core players as those who golf eight or more times a year. That number, too, has fallen, but more slowly: to 15 million in 2006 from 17.7 million in 2000, according to the National Golf Foundation.
Well, at least we have something else to distract us while we're trying to figure out how anyone ever beats Tiger Woods at match play.
What's that, you ask? Polish our brackets, of course! Or, if you're like me, count all the "money" you made betting individual matches on Day One, and figure out how to make more on Day Two.
My bankroll has swollen from $1,000 to $1,210. Despite having picked five out of eight winners, I suffered significant losses when my man Mike Weir (-220) fell to Arron Oberholser. My bad. Weir was too expensive at that price. Stupid bet.
The topic of stupid bets brings us to a question: when is it wise to bet against Tiger? The answer, of course, is when you get a good enough price.
There was an episode of The Office in which Michael Scott (Steve Carrell) threatened to end his own life by jumping off a building. Kevin, our favorite and most accomplished Office gambler, was offered odds of 10,000-1 that Michael would indeed jump. He made the bet. Why? He explained it this way: "If you're offered 10,000-1 on anything, take it!"
The odds on someone beating Tiger aren't quite that good yet, but they're getting close. In the Second Round odds set by Las Vegas Hilton golf guru Jeff Sherman (dutifully ripped off below from his site, www.golfodds.com), Oberholser, Tiger's second round victim opponent, is going off at +450, or four-and-a-half to one. That's not quite 10,000 to one, but it is (as golf odds go) astronomical. I can't imagine you getting a better price on anyone against anyone. Yes, Woods is better than Oberholser, but four-and-a-half times better? Probably not. It therefore looks like a good value bet.
And yet I ain't taking it. I'm waiting for, let's say, 6-1 before I'll bet against that wrecking ball.
So whom will I go with in Round Two? I don't see any locks, but I'll take-- at a whopping two units each-- Stewart Cink (good putter in match play) at +120 against Padraig Harrington; Colin Montgomerie (good putter in match play) at -110 against Charlie Howell; Hunter Mahan at +120 against Steve Stricker (who, though a fine putter, played so-so against Chopra today); Lee Westwood at -120 against Justin Leonard; and... well, that's it. I don't see anything else attractive on the board.
| Thursday, February 21, 2008 | |
| Tiger Woods | -600 |
| Arron Oberholser | +450 |
| David Toms | -110 |
| Aaron Baddeley | -110 |
| Bradley Dredge | +130 |
| Paul Casey | -150 |
| K.J. Choi | -135 |
| Ian Poulter | +115 |
| Jonathan Byrd | -115 |
| Andres Romero | -105 |
| Henrik Stenson | -140 |
| Trevor Immelman | +120 |
| Adam Scott | -180 |
| Woody Austin | +160 |
| Sergio Garcia | -140 |
| Boo Weekley | +120 |
| Phil Mickelson | -165 |
| Stuart Appleby | +145 |
| Justin Leonard | EVEN |
| Lee Westwood | -120 |
| Rod Pampling | EVEN |
| Nick O'Hern | -120 |
| Vijay Singh | -135 |
| Niclas Fasth | +115 |
| Steve Stricker | -140 |
| Hunter Mahan | +120 |
| Angel Cabrera | +105 |
| Luke Donald | -125 |
| Colin Montgomerie | -110 |
| Charles Howell III | -110 |
| Padraig Harrington | -140 |
| Stewart Cink | +120 |
Kudos to Damon Hack for a nice get in his first honest-to-goodness golf piece for SI: a tete-a-tete with LPGA Hall of Famer and recent Phil Mickelson tutor Amy Alcott. A sample:
"To win on a course like this is like winning at Winged Foot or Augusta," said Alcott, who sneaked onto Riviera as a teenager and now plays the course as a member. "You have to be a real artist. This course has a great feel to it, great character and a great personality. I think this is going to give him a lot of momentum."
Real men bet cash, game by game.
I am reminded of this as I contemplate all the bracketology that will accompany this week's World Match Play. An office pool? Fine. If you're a sissy. If, on the other hand, you're like Kevin Malone (The Office's most serious gambler) you'll empty the kids' college fund, find yourself a bookie, and lay down a benjamin or two on each of tomorrow's 32 matches.
What? Your bookie don't know jack about golf? We've got you covered. Below are Las Vegas Hilton golf guru Jeff Sherman's odds for each of tomorrow's matches. (Where a player is a favorite, you have to wager the indicated number of dollars to win $100; where a player is an underdog, a $100 bet on him will earn you the indicated number of dollars.)
What I'm doing is attacking the matches with a fat bankroll of MNPLY $1,000. Here's where the money's going today:
Mike Weir (-220) over Arron Oberholser. Rationale: Oberholser's lingering back problems.
Brendan Jones (+210) over Adam Scott. Brendan Jones is better than you think.
Andres Romero (-105) over Retief Goosen. Andres Romero makes lots of birdies. Retief's post-surgery eyesight is still questionable.
Jonathan Byrd (+180) over Ernie Els. Ernie often gets bounced in the first round of this thing; Byrd's playing well.
Rod Pampling (+150) over Justin Rose. Rose has played only once this year.
Lee Westwood (-140) over Brandt Snedeker. Nice kid. Overmatched.
Zach Johnson (-110) over David Toms. DT loved the emphasis LaCosta put on the wedge game. This ain't LaCosta.
Woody Austin (-130) over Toru Taniguchi. Two water hazards on this desert course. Few temptations to jump in a lake.
(For a nice illustrated guide to Wednesday's and potential later-week match-ups, check out Rob Matre's Golf in Context.)
Sherman will be posting new odds nightly as the week progresses. I, like Kevin, will continue my betting frenzy.
| Wednesday, February 20 | |
| Tiger Woods (1) | -450 |
| J.B. Holmes (64) | +375 |
| Mike Weir (32) | -220 |
| Arron Oberholser (33) | +190 |
| Zach Johnson (16) | -110 |
| David Toms (49) | -110 |
| Aaron Baddeley (17) | -145 |
| Mark Calcavecchia (48) | +125 |
| Rory Sabbatini (8) | -200 |
| Bradley Dredge (57) | +175 |
| Paul Casey (25) | -135 |
| Robert Karlsson (40) | +115 |
| K.J. Choi (9) | -165 |
| Camilo Villegas (56) | +145 |
| Ian Poulter (24) | -145 |
| Soren Hansen (41) | +125 |
| Ernie Els (4) | -210 |
| Jonathan Byrd (61) | +180 |
| Retief Goosen (29) | -115 |
| Andres Romero (36) | -105 |
| Henrik Stenson (13) | -140 |
| Robert Allenby (52) | +120 |
| Trevor Immelman (20) | -150 |
| Shingo Katayama (45) | +130 |
| Adam Scott (5) | -250 |
| Brendan Jones (60) | +210 |
| Toru Taniguchi (28) | +110 |
| Woody Austin (37) | -130 |
| Sergio Garcia (12) | -165 |
| John Senden (53) | +145 |
| Martin Kaymer (21) | -110 |
| Boo Weekley (44) | -110 |
| Phil Mickelson (2) | -280 |
| Pat Perez (63) | +240 |
| Stuart Appleby (31) | -165 |
| Tim Clark (34) | +145 |
| Geoff Ogilvy (15) | +110 |
| Justin Leonard (50) | -130 |
| Lee Westwood (18) | -140 |
| Brandt Snedeker (47) | +120 |
| Justin Rose (7) | -170 |
| Rod Pampling (58) | +150 |
| Scott Verplank (26) | -140 |
| Nick O'Hern (39) | +120 |
| Vijay Singh (10) | -190 |
| Peter Hanson (55) | +170 |
| Niclas Fasth (23) | -135 |
| Richard Green (42) | +115 |
| Steve Stricker (3) | -170 |
| Daniel Chopra (62) | +150 |
| Richard Sterne (30) | +110 |
| Hunter Mahan (35) | -130 |
| Angel Cabrera (14) | -155 |
| Anders Hansen (51) | +135 |
| Luke Donald (19) | -165 |
| Nick Dougherty (46) | +145 |
| Jim Furyk (6) | -160 |
| Colin Montgomerie (59) | +140 |
| Stephen Ames (27) | -110 |
| Charles Howell III (38) | -110 |
| Padraig Harrington (11) | -210 |
| Jerry Kelly (54) | +180 |
| Stewart Cink (22) | -140 |
| Miguel Angel Jimenez (43) | +120 |
