U.S. Open

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

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.

I disagree about 1999. to me "holding on to win" is something that Glover did today. shot 3 over par. I can never believe that shooting even par on a Sunday in a major is "holding on to win".

I mean, I guess we can look at his incredible match play record as being "looked in the eye" and 3 US Amatures and 3 US Junior Amatures as being "looked in the eye" as the are all match play events.

Back in the good old days players would count US Amatures as Majors because there wasnt enough money in golf to go pro. A lot of people say Jack has 20 majors because he won two US Amatures.

Unfortunatly, unlike Jack's years where some of his competitors actually had/have a pair of balls under their dick, when Tiger "looks someone in the eye" the guys pisses/shits his pants and cries. Its kinda sad.