The never-say-diers, sometimes known as Tiger Woods' groupies, are at it again. This time fueled by Eldrick himself. Both claim this is the best chance dear Tiger has had to win a major tournament in some time.
True enough, seeing as how he hasn't played in many if them over the last several years. And after all, as Eldrick himself said, this is the NEXT one. Brilliant. A regular genius, that Tiger. Who else would have thought of that pearl of wisdom?
But something appears horribly wrong. Namely, the pre-tournament odds handed out by the wizards of wagering -- also sometimes known as Vegas wise guys.
They have Dustin Johnson as the favorite to win the tournament, and well they should, given he's far and away the #1 player in the world these days. Still, even DJ checks in a 12:1 odds. Hardly a lock.
Going down the list after that gets interesting. Here are the names and the odds they supposedly have at winning the Open.
Rory McIlroy. 16:1. That seems odd seeing as how Rory hasn't been faring so well of late.
Rickey Fowler: 16:1. Also odd, given he's never won a major before. And never been particularly good on links courses over his career to boot.
Justin Rose: 16:1. Well, the Brit is playing in his own back yard so to speak.
Jordan Spieth: 20:1. Like Rory, Jordy has been in a slump lately. Why is he ranked so high here?
Justin Thomas: 20:1. Given he's the #2 golfer in the world, shouldn't he be ranked even higher?
Tommy Fleetwood: 20:1. A quiet sort of guy that doesn't attract much attention, but he's definitely got game. But ranking him on the same level as Justin Thomas is quite a stretch.
Brooks Koepka: 20:1. Another low profile guy, but he IS the back-to-back US Open winner. How will this translate to Carnoustie? Probably not very well.
Jon Rahm: 20:1. A solid choice, given the Spaniard's only 23 years old and already ranked #3 in the world. Look out for him in the future.
Jason Day, Tiger Woods, and Henrik Stenson: 25:1.
This is where it gets ridiculous. Both Aussie Day and Swede Stenson have been much more accomplished in recent years than Woods -- which isn't saying much.
Patrick Reed: 30:1. Want truly ridiculous? The reigning Masters champion supposedly has a lesser shot at this major than Eldrick? The same guy that hasn't won a major in over a decade? Say WHAT?
Well OK. Time for some personal wagering. Normally, I'm not much of a betting man anymore, though I used to be. And I hung with some folks, guys and gals both, that were quite astute in such matters. No fools, they. We used to wager internally all the time. Ya win some, ya lose some, and though I never added it all up over the years, I'm pretty sure they collectively (no pun intended) got the best of me.
I sought a few of them out earlier today and made them an offer. I had a C-note that said Eldrick Tont Woods wouldn't even make the cut at this year's Open.
Figured I'd get a few takers.
But quite to my surprise -- not a one of them bit. They all think Tiger's washed up as well. According to them, only his legions of hard-core lemmings, and of course the ever-fawning media, still think he's a force, or ever will be one in golfing again.
So either I missed out on a windfall, or avoided getting taken to the cleaners one more time.
They'll be teeing it up in Scotland just a few hours from now.
We shall see indeed.
I'll be paying particular attention to the cut on Friday.
Eldrick actually winning the thing? Not a chance. Get outta here.
I'm still trying to figure out how the oddsmakers have a guy not ranked in the top 100 in the world as a better shot to win this tournament than all those that actually are?
Even Phil Mickelson. He comes in at 50:1 odds.
They're trying to tell us Tiger is twice as likely to win this Open as Lefty?
Not buying that either.
So here's the deal. Dear Tiger has definitely been "cherry-picking" his tournaments of late. And he's taken the last month off just to prepare for the year's Open.
Now's his big chance to shine again.
And I think he's going to crash and burn. The young guns are going to eat this dude alive, if the course itself doesn't.
No comments:
Post a Comment