Yang's caught up to Tiger after 4 holes (and Harrington's only 1 back) - could be an exciting Sunday.
Tiger stll in the running for a wire-to-wire finish after day 3. Though Y.E. Yang had a 67 for round 3 as well (the only other 67 besides Tiger's round 1), so he now moves into 2nd place tied w/ Paddy. They're both 2 back of tiger (-6 vs. -8) so the final round looks to stay competitive.
Unfortunately Tiger doesn't tee off until 2:45 eastern (I think), and I have to leave 2 hours into it...
Yang's caught up to Tiger after 4 holes (and Harrington's only 1 back) - could be an exciting Sunday.
Tiger is playing conservatively and making pars, and others behind him are imploding. Harrington just made a quintuple bogey 8 on a par 3. it's almost like this is a US Open and not "just" the PGA Championship.
Ozzie, your paradigm of optimism!
Go To Hell carolina, Go To Hell!
9F 9F 9F
https://ecogreen.greentechaffiliate.com
Yang just let Tiger off the hook.
Tiger ended up w/ a bogey while Yang had a relatively short putt for birdie,which he missed. They're tied now.
Everyone fell apart but Yang. He really played great! And it's going to be a life changing moment. Awesome!
~rthomas
Greatest season in the majors since 1991. (Woosnam only major in Masters, Stewart beats Simpson in US open playoff, Baker-Finch only major in British, and Daly wins PGA as 9th/last alternate). I hope this teaches all the braindead Tigerbots who vote Tiger over the field in ESPN polls a lesson.
A movie is not about what it's about; it's about how it's about it.
---Roger Ebert
Some questions cannot be answered
Who’s gonna bury who
We need a love like Johnny, Johnny and June
---Over the Rhine
I take offense to your little Tigerbot quote. First, I don't think most folks who are Tiger fans are braindead. Maybe they just like watching one of the greatest to ever play the game do his thing and appreciate his accomplishments.
Second, by calling them Tigerbots you seem to infer that they have no intelligence to make their own decision but the reality is it would be quite a decision if you were actually placing a bet on him or the field. Yes I know that statistically the field has a higher winning percentage than Tiger, but no one in the history of the game wins at a better clip than Tiger. He wins more than 1 out of every 4 times he tees it up for crying out loud! Jack is the next closest at just over 11%.
And last, I don't think Tiger's loss teaches anybody a lesson. What is the lesson to be learned here? I'm a Tiger fan and I absolutely loved watching the telecast yesterday. The only lesson I learned is that just because you are a Tiger fan and he loses doesn't mean you can't have a great time watching the events unfold, especially when the quality of golf is what it was yesterday.
It seems pretty obvious by your previous comments on this board that you have a problem with people who like Tiger. I know there are a lot of folks out there that have just jumped on the band wagon and don't really have much of an appreciation for the game or history of golf. But that doesn't mean that all of us are that way. I appreciate good golf when I see it whether it is Tiger or Y.E. Yang or anyone in between and I think more people than you think do just the same.
"The future ain't what it used to be."
Yang perhaps had an advantage on Tiger yesterday. For him it was a fun round of golf that was nevertheless very important. Tiger, on the other hand, had his destiny hanging around his neck. Plus, Tiger doesn't seem to do as well when a "lesser" player is his chief competition.
I know where Throaty is coming from, but it's the media that really gets my goat, not Tiger fans. It's much easier to see why people get tired of hearing about Duke if you're a PGA fan. Like that wedge "putt" Tiger made at 16 on Saturday. It was a fine shot. But to hear Jim Nance and crew you'd think he'd turned water into wine. Then Yang's PGA Thunderchip goes in, and the reaction from the booth was considerably less gushy, considering the moment.
It was a big loss for Tiger. But, to me, he became more likeable. And at the rate he learns his "lessons", holding that Tiger may have just become even tougher.
What Paddy did on that Par 3 (Hole 8) made me feel a whole lot better about my game. I felt for him.
~rthomas
+1 on DukieCB. I enjoy watching Tiger, and often pull for him, not because I like him better than the others (well, some), but because he so often plays so incredibly well, doing stuff others cannot do, or at least, not nearly as often. Although I was sorry he didn't put another major win on his resume, Yang was amazing, and when you get to watch golf that good, plus a duel down the stretch, well, it's rewarding as a fan.
I'm not sure Tiger gets better from this. He's awfully good but when things go bad they seem to snowball for him. Perhaps if he didn't let it get to him so much, he could be even better - which is amazing to consider. I am, of course, willing to entertain the notion that he has amassed his trophy case specifically because he does have a temper and is so hard on himself, despite the occasional snowball/meltdown. Perhaps it's a good tradeoff for him - it's just that to me, yesterday, it looked like he might have benefited from a change in outlook.
That might have been the worst I have ever seen a really good pro play a hole. An 8 on a par-3... gaack! And when you are one shot out of the lead on the final day of a Major championship. Wow. Monumental.
It almost seemed like he gave up after he nearly hit Stenson in the head (I loved him screaming "fore!" after he hits it). Maybe it was just me but he rushed a bit on the chip that went back into the water and then he really, really rushed the next chip (which, predictably, came up short of the green).
--Jason "You can watch the carnage here" Evans
Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?
In 1980, Tom Weiskopf set the standard for one-hole disasters when he carded a 13 on the par-3 12th hole at The Masters. He hit five balls into Rae's Creek.
Weiskopf's blowup occurred in the first round, though -- not on Sunday while he was only one stroke off the lead, like Harrington.
Though I'm not sure anyone can match the timing of the implosion of van de Velde at the British Open a decade ago, with a triple bogey on 18 that cost him his lead and forced a playoff - and as the leader going into the day, he knew from the tee that a double bogey would win him the British Open.
Jean van de Velde's implosion was a combination of the absolutely worst/unluckiest bounces in the history of golf followed by absolutely the stupidest choices in the history of golf.
I take my friend Throaty's rantings about Tiger and tigerbots with the same grain of salt that I take my carolina friends' rantings about Duke. Basicly, I ignore them. Jealousy, one of the seven deadly sins.
Ozzie, your paradigm of optimism!
Go To Hell carolina, Go To Hell!
9F 9F 9F
https://ecogreen.greentechaffiliate.com
Really? My recollection is that all of his bad fortune on 18 was a result of bad decision-making. Out of the seven strokes he took on the hole, there wasn't a single easy one, so he can't really attribute his triple to bad shot-making.
1. Hits driver--Curtis Strange begins his seizure as Van de Velde drives into some schmutz.
2. Rather than punching out into the fairway, hitting to the middle of the green and two-putting for a title-winning bogey, he goes for the green, hitting into even deeper stuff.
3. With Curtis Strange going into convulsions, Van de Velde again attempts to get to the green, but comes up both very short and very wet.
5. After wading into the bern and contemplating trying to hit out of it, JVdV takes his penalty stroke and drop, only to hit into--you guessed it--a greenside bunker.
6. Chips onto green.
7. Holes about a twelve-footer to salvage triple and keeps himself in the play-off with Paul Lawrie and someone else I can't remember.
Where were the bad bounces?