Presidents Cup 2011 Discussion Thread (merged)

[golfcarte]

[quote name='Yepyukon' timestamp='1321549231' post='3813657']

It is kind of funny watching how the Tiger/Scott debate has shifted...

"Tiger is going to dominate him" - "Tiger would have dominated him if not for Stricker" - "Tiger didn't play great, but he wasn't as bad as Stricker and if they played someone else, they would have won" - "Freddie is a genius for putting Tiger and Stricker together to minimize the loses for the US"
[/quote]

i thought from the outset this pairing was a mistake. when i saw the baddeley/day pairing go up on the board i thought that would've been a perfect match for tiger and stricker. tiger just played with both baddeley and day.

no one has mentioned the real reason tiger lost: he left butch.

[ej002]

[quote name='golfcarte' timestamp='1321551137' post='3813805']
no one has mentioned the real reason tiger lost: he left butch.
[/quote]


You OBVIOUSLY dont know anything about GOLF. The real reason he lost is because he isn't using a Scotty Cameron anymore . . . DUH!?!?

[Maliboothby]

[quote name='kjo257' timestamp='1321547450' post='3813491']
[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1321545874' post='3813351']
[quote name='ej002' timestamp='1321545455' post='3813315']
There are a lot of matches left, it is too early to judge the Tiger pick.

I def. do not like the Tiger/DJ pairing. I actually hate the Kuchar / Stricker pairing. I thought a change was needed, but I think this is worse.

And why split Choi/Scott? I am not seeing the logic on this one.

[b]Yesterday's pairing actually worked in the US's favor. Although not the intent, the Int team's best pairing went up against the our worst. Had Striker/Woods played soemone else, they would have lost. Scott/Choi were beating anybody they faced yesterday. But who would have known. So you cant say that it was Freddie's error in pairing them, because even Norman respected the pairing enough to put his big guns against them.[/b]
[/quote]
Absolutely agree with this... all of it ...particularly the last sentence. One of the reasons Tiger was picked was so the he would go with Strick. Sometimes in sports things just happen.
[/quote]

Not necessarily true. Stricker/Woods would have only been one down versus Kim/Yang after twelve holes. Scott/Choi would have been even with Watson/Simpson and Mickelson/Furyk after twelve holes. There is no way of knowing how those matches would have turned out.
[/quote]
So you think that you can just line up the scores and claim to know what would have happened if the matchups were different?
So I guess in match play what one team does has no influence on the other team?

[Maliboothby]

[quote name='ej002' timestamp='1321545455' post='3813315']
[quote name='station2station' timestamp='1321544496' post='3813243']
Stricker might have been rusty, and Tiger mediocre. But I lay the blame at the feet of Couples. While looking like a genius after pairing Watson and Simpson in round 1, he came off looking like a sellout for not picking Keegan Bradley instead of Woods. He had no choice on Stricker. We can't second guess a guy who earned his way on the team.

It WAS the most debatable captains pick and it didn't work out at all. Anxious to see round 2 Fourball. DJ and Woods. Wonder if this chemistry will work? I do like the Kuchar/Stricker change.
[/quote]

There are a lot of matches left, it is too early to judge the Tiger pick.

I def. do not like the Tiger/DJ pairing. I actually hate the Kuchar / Stricker pairing. I thought a change was needed, but I think this is worse.

And why split Choi/Scott? I am not seeing the logic on this one.

Yesterday's pairing actually worked in the US's favor. Although not the intent, the Int team's best pairing went up against the our worst. Had Striker/Woods played soemone else, they would have lost. Scott/Choi were beating anybody they faced yesterday. But who would have known. So you cant say that it was Freddie's error in pairing them, because even Norman respected the pairing enough to put his big guns against them.
[/quote]
Scott/Choi beating Toms/Mahan or Watson/Simpson is hardly a certainty.

Stricker was by far the worst American and I think anybody would have probably lost playing alternate shot with him, not that Tiger played well.

Stricker and Woods could have both lost playing on 2 different teams.
The pairings worked out great for the Americans.

I wonder who will be sitting in the Day 3 morning alternate shot since 5 teams play.
Stricker for sure should be one of them even if he plays well today in four-ball.

[Vindog]

[quote name='Maliboothby' timestamp='1321552798' post='3813893']
[quote name='kjo257' timestamp='1321547450' post='3813491']
Not necessarily true. Stricker/Woods would have only been one down versus Kim/Yang after twelve holes. Scott/Choi would have been even with Watson/Simpson and Mickelson/Furyk after twelve holes. There is no way of knowing how those matches would have turned out.
[/quote]
So you think that you can just line up the scores and claim to know what would have happened if the matchups were different?
So I guess in match play what one team does has no influence on the other team?
[/quote]

I think what he is saying is that there is no way of knowing how those matches would have turned out.

[Maliboothby]

[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1321553685' post='3813943']


I think what he is saying is that there is no way of knowing how those matches would have turned out.
[/quote]

Of course there is no way of knowing how the matches would have turned out.
There is also no way of knowing how the matches would have stood after 12 holes.
Unless you think that one team`s play has no effect on the other team in match play.

[MileHighClub]

[quote name='Maliboothby' timestamp='1321552798' post='3813893']

So you think that you can just line up the scores and claim to know what would have happened if the matchups were different?
So I guess in match play what one team does has no influence on the other team?
[/quote]

Please re-read my post. Thanks.

[Maliboothby]

[quote name='kjo257' timestamp='1321554269' post='3813987']
[quote name='Maliboothby' timestamp='1321552798' post='3813893']
[quote name='kjo257' timestamp='1321547450' post='3813491']


Not necessarily true. Stricker/Woods would have only been one down versus Kim/Yang after twelve holes. Scott/Choi would have been even with Watson/Simpson and Mickelson/Furyk after twelve holes. There is no way of knowing how those matches would have turned out.
[/quote]
So you think that you can just line up the scores and claim to know what would have happened if the matchups were different?
So I guess in match play what one team does has no influence on the other team?
[/quote]

Please re-read my post. Thanks.
[/quote]

Either you simply lined up the scores as if they are not influenced by the opponent`s play, which doesn`t make sense, or you are psychic.

[Hawkeye77]

Internationals make up at least 1 point today.

Haas/Watney and Stricker/Kuchar lose. Watson/Simpson win again.

The other three -- pick 'em.

I thought Norman should have put Els and Scott together, and Kim and Ryo together.

Tiger and Phil will determine whether it's a one or two point difference.

[MileHighClub]

[quote name='Maliboothby' timestamp='1321554499' post='3814001']
[quote name='kjo257' timestamp='1321554269' post='3813987']
[quote name='Maliboothby' timestamp='1321552798' post='3813893']
[quote name='kjo257' timestamp='1321547450' post='3813491']


Not necessarily true. Stricker/Woods would have only been one down versus Kim/Yang after twelve holes. Scott/Choi would have been even with Watson/Simpson and Mickelson/Furyk after twelve holes. There is no way of knowing how those matches would have turned out.
[/quote]
So you think that you can just line up the scores and claim to know what would have happened if the matchups were different?
So I guess in match play what one team does has no influence on the other team?
[/quote]

Please re-read my post. Thanks.
[/quote]

Either you simply lined up the scores as if they are not influenced by the opponent`s play, which doesn`t make sense, or you are psychic.
[/quote]

Earth to Maliboothby:
[size="7"]There is no way of knowing how those matches would have turned out[/size].

[Vindog]

[quote name='Maliboothby' timestamp='1321554499' post='3814001']Either you simply lined up the scores as if they are not influenced by the opponent`s play, which doesn`t make sense, or you are psychic.
[/quote]

You only read half of it, and it wasn't even that long.

An even the half that you did read you completely miscomprehended, within the context of the post he was responding to.

My word.

[Maliboothby]

[quote name='Maliboothby' timestamp='1321554042' post='3813971']
There is also no way of knowing how the matches would have stood after 12 holes.
[/quote]

[i][size="3"]Not necessarily true. Stricker/Woods would have only been one down versus Kim/Yang after twelve holes. Scott/Choi would have been even with Watson/Simpson and Mickelson/Furyk after twelve holes.
[/size][/i]

[Maliboothby]

[quote name='kjo257' timestamp='1321556117' post='3814123']
[quote name='Maliboothby' timestamp='1321554499' post='3814001']
[quote name='kjo257' timestamp='1321554269' post='3813987']
[quote name='Maliboothby' timestamp='1321552798' post='3813893']
[quote name='kjo257' timestamp='1321547450' post='3813491']
Not necessarily true. Stricker/Woods would have only been one down versus Kim/Yang after twelve holes. Scott/Choi would have been even with Watson/Simpson and Mickelson/Furyk after twelve holes. There is no way of knowing how those matches would have turned out.
[/quote]
So you think that you can just line up the scores and claim to know what would have happened if the matchups were different?
So I guess in match play what one team does has no influence on the other team?
[/quote]

Please re-read my post. Thanks.
[/quote]

Either you simply lined up the scores as if they are not influenced by the opponent`s play, which doesn`t make sense, or you are psychic.
[/quote]

Earth to Maliboothby:
[size="7"]There is no way of knowing how those matches would have turned out[/size].
[/quote]

You claimed to know how the matches would have stood after 12 holes.
Meaning you only claimed to not know how the remaining holes would have gone.


[size="4"][b]Not necessarily true. Stricker/Woods would have only been one down versus Kim/Yang after twelve holes. Scott/Choi would have been even with Watson/Simpson and Mickelson/Furyk after twelve holes.[/b][/size]

[Vindog]

[quote name='Maliboothby' timestamp='1321557319' post='3814219']
[quote name='Maliboothby' timestamp='1321554042' post='3813971']
There is also no way of knowing how the matches would have stood after 12 holes.
[/quote]

[i][size="3"]Not necessarily true. Stricker/Woods would have only been one down versus Kim/Yang after twelve holes. Scott/Choi would have been even with Watson/Simpson and Mickelson/Furyk after twelve holes.
[/size][/i]
[/quote]

Again...

READ the post he was responding to. Then[b] [/b]READ his response.

[Maliboothby]

[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1321557826' post='3814281']
[quote name='Maliboothby' timestamp='1321557319' post='3814219']
[quote name='Maliboothby' timestamp='1321554042' post='3813971']
There is also no way of knowing how the matches would have stood after 12 holes.
[/quote]

[i][size="3"]Not necessarily true. Stricker/Woods would have only been one down versus Kim/Yang after twelve holes. Scott/Choi would have been even with Watson/Simpson and Mickelson/Furyk after twelve holes.
[/size][/i]
[/quote]

Again...

READ the post he was responding to. Then[b] [/b]READ his response.
[/quote]

[quote name='Maliboothby' timestamp='1321553327' post='3813921']
Scott/Choi beating Toms/Mahan or Watson/Simpson is hardly a certainty.[/quote]

I already agreed that nobody can know that Scott/Choi would have beaten any other team.

I also agree that nobody can know that Woods/Stricker would have lost to every other team.

Claiming that this is so because you lined up the scores and you know how the matches would have stood after 12 holes is idiotic, to say the least.

[Maliboothby]

[quote name='Maliboothby' timestamp='1321554042' post='3813971']
There is also no way of knowing how the matches would have stood after 12 holes.
[/quote]
A good drive puts the heat on and a poor drive opens the door.

Your opponent sticking one in tight for a likely birdie means you have to match them even if you are not in a good position to attack.
Just because you may end up with a bogie or double doesn`t mean that you couldn`t have gotten a par if that`s all that was required against another team.

Your opponent is in trouble and even though you are in a position to attack the flag, you play safe and win the hole with a routine par.
Doesn`t mean another team who birdied that hole would have won it against you.

You have a slick birdie putt to tie the hole.
You take a run at it and miss leaving a very tough return putt which could easily be missed.
Doesn`t mean you couldn`t have lagged it for an easy par if that`s all that would have been required against another team.

Plus who can even say the same shots and situations would even exist in these other hypothetical matches.
Such claims are ludicrous.

I suppose some people think that they can also line up all the singles scores and tell us who would have won, lost, and tied each hole against all the other players.

[Maliboothby]

[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1321556936' post='3814187']
[quote name='Maliboothby' timestamp='1321554499' post='3814001']Either you simply lined up the scores as if they are not influenced by the opponent`s play, which doesn`t make sense, or you are psychic.
[/quote]

You only read half of it, and it wasn't even that long.

An even the half that you did read you completely miscomprehended, within the context of the post he was responding to.

My word.
[/quote]

You have some major comprehension issues.

[Vindog]

You should take a break for a while. You're not very good at this.

[Maliboothby]

[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1321560256' post='3814453']
You should take a break for a while. You're not very good at this.
[/quote]

I sure hope that I never become "good" like you.

[wcbjr]

Completely not relevant to this thread, but....

SOOOO MANY FRIKKIN COMMERCIALS! Thank goodness for DVR's where I can skip the 50% of non-golf related crap.

[Maliboothby]

[quote name='wcbjr' timestamp='1321560791' post='3814489']
Completely not relevant to this thread, but....

SOOOO MANY FRIKKIN COMMERCIALS! Thank goodness for DVR's where I can skip the 50% of non-golf related crap.
[/quote]
No kidding.

At times it seemed like watching the highlights and you knew that the long putt was going in and the short putt was going to be missed.

[TCreighton1973]

[quote name='Maliboothby' timestamp='1321560048' post='3814439']
[quote name='Vindog' timestamp='1321556936' post='3814187']
[quote name='Maliboothby' timestamp='1321554499' post='3814001']Either you simply lined up the scores as if they are not influenced by the opponent`s play, which doesn`t make sense, or you are psychic.
[/quote]

You only read half of it, and it wasn't even that long.

An even the half that you did read you completely miscomprehended, within the context of the post he was responding to.

My word.
[/quote]

You have some major comprehension issues.
[/quote]

Not only that, but he hasn't the first clue when/how to use emoticons. Unless he enjoys cracking himself up, in which case he's in need of help of an entirely different kind.

[moonshine]

IMO, as short of a course as the place is playing TW should hit 2 iron unless gun held to his head. Greens do seem a bit ridiculous to me.

[poizster]

Since the times have moved up the golf channel will start coverage at 5:30 ET won't it? I'd never put anything past the GC.

[Maliboothby]

[quote name='moonshine' timestamp='1321561070' post='3814515']
Greens do seem a bit ridiculous to me.
[/quote]

I love those greens.
There are some places on those greens where it would be ridiculous to put the hole but I thought the hole placements were fine and very playable.

[MileHighClub]

[quote name='Maliboothby' timestamp='1321561709' post='3814579']
[quote name='moonshine' timestamp='1321561070' post='3814515']
Greens do seem a bit ridiculous to me.
[/quote]

I love those greens.
There are some places on those greens where it would be ridiculous to put the hole but I thought the hole placements were fine and very playable.
[/quote]

The condition of the greens was amazing too. Whenever they showed a closeup there were no ball marks or unhealthy patches of any kind. Pristine condition.

[tbowles411]

[quote name='poizster' timestamp='1321561562' post='3814565']
Since the times have moved up the golf channel will start coverage at 5:30 ET won't it? I'd never put anything past the GC.
[/quote]
Yes. It's their broadcast. They already announced it.

[tyorke1]

I should root for the intern being canadain but I can't stand Norman or williams, can't get over themselfs,Events can be fantastic but having class is a must and those two have zero class. Hope tiger fleeces Scott in singles. I also feel Freddie should not have put tiger against scott first, let him feel his way in. I can see classless Norman wanting to put Tiger down but Freddie should have known better.

[ethanlculver]

Haven't been able to even get out of bed until now because of an awful throbbing headache I've had all last night and today. And I'm not making excuses to why I "avoided" the forums because my guy did awful...lol.

I honestly wasn't shocked. I had a feeling Strick would not play too well. I don't know if his injury had anything to do with it, but I just had a feeling going into the night that this would be the end of their "magical" run together. Tiger didn't play too well either, obviously.

The condition of the course is NO excuse. Adam and K.J. played great. Tiger and Strick did not. They should have, but they didn't. And there is no excuse.

I expect to see much better from them tonight. Hopefully Tiger and Dustin can play well and get a point for the U.S. team.

[MileHighClub]

It looks really windy today. Could be interesting with the wind and fast greens.