Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Antitrust32
Okay I'll give you one of those.. 2002 US Open at Bethpage he shot 2 over on the final round "to hold on to win" which was really bullshit anyway because 2 over was still a good score to post that day... only 3 players the whole day posted an under par score that day... so nevermind it really wasnt "holding on to win" a 72 was a good score.
The 99' PGA when he shot "72" at Medinah Country Club.. well that was even par score (par 72) so it was not at all "holding on to win"
not really going to address the "70" at the Andrews in 2005 because that is a great golf score. no way was it a "holding on to win"
So basically, if you look at the facts instead of just taking numbers as numbers when you dont know what they mean, the ONLY time Tiger "held on to win" was with no ACL and two fractures.
|
The 2002 US Open he had a 4 stroke lead going into the final round. He was never looked in the eye and Phil actually was one of the 3 that went under par that day. Certainly a 72 was a good score on that day but it doesn't fit in Gales analogy that he was looked in the eye.
1999 is a pretty terrible choice, of the 15 people that were tied for 10th or higher only two of them shot worse than Tiger's 72 that day. So yes, that was one he held on to win.
You are correct on the 70 being a pretty good score at St Andrews that day. I excluded that one cause he had two strokes going in on Olazabal and three strokes on Montgomerie and Goosen. After further review that one warrants more consideration as that wasn't that many strokes on some pretty good players.