Jordan Speith

[MashieNiblick]

Personally Mashie, I don't think he has a weak part of his game. That's his edge.

He seems to do everything pretty sold.

Rory has too many off days with the putter. Tigers short game is in bits.

Speith just seems to do everything consistently for 4 rounds which is always going to leave him in contention.

Yes, that's sort of my feeling so can't help thinking he's more like Faldo or Curtis Strange mad which despite his amazing success has me feeling a bit "so what?" and that seems unfair given what he has achieved. But he just doesn't get me excited in the same way that watching Nicklaus, Seve, Watson, Norman, Woods or McIlroy did/does. The big deal I guess is he is still so young.

 

[One Planer]

Yes, that's sort of my feeling so can't help thinking he's more like Faldo or Curtis Strange mad which despite his amazing success has me feeling a bit "so what?" and that seems unfair given what he has achieved. But he just doesn't get me excited in the same way that watching Nicklaus, Seve, Watson, Norman, Woods or McIlroy did/does. The big deal I guess is he is still so young.

I think part of that issue (Not for Jordan, but the viewing public) is that he never bites off more than he can chew.

Always seems to pick the correct shot and doesn't try the Hollywood shot very often.

Even in the Masters when he left himself high on the bank to a tight pin didn't play the extravagant high Tiger Woods flop, just played a controlled version.

I think this is part of his success.

 

[garyinderry]

Yeah he plays a smart game and can really putt. He just keeps giving himself chances on the green

Remember chicks dig the long ball. It's also the reason people on here gush over rory. Jordan. Has shown that he is as good as rory. He just plays his own game.

Being a good putter isn't quite as appealing as being a bomber.

 

[Jimaroid]

I think we're heading into a period of golfing history where the old adage will never be more appropriate:

Drive for dough - Rory.
Putt for show - Jordan.

With that pair (and so many other young players) peaking in ability at the moment the next few years are going to see a lot of golfing legends written and re-written.

 

[Bucket92]

Isn't the old adage "drive for show, putt for dough" ?

 

[KhalJimbo]

I think we're heading into a period of golfing history where the old adage will never be more appropriate:

Drive for dough - Rory.
Putt for show - Jordan.

With that pair (and so many other young players) peaking in ability at the moment the next few years are going to see a lot of golfing legends written and re-written.

Isn't the old adage "Drive for show, putt for dough"?

 

[Jimaroid]

Haha. Oops! Typed in a rush.

 

[bernix]

I am talking from a point of generating interest and opening up the game to many more people. Tiger was a young black man in a mostly white persons sport, he was a marketing sensation for both his golfing ability and his 'story', he made golf kind of cool and he was box office for reasons on top of his golfing ability. For many years golf had the biggest and most well known sportsperson on the planet.

Speith may well get near or even surpass him with his golfing achievements, but he will never have as much impact on the game, generate as many column inches or get into the public consciousness as Tiger did. And I doubt anyone ever will the way the game is going. As look at how well golfers fare at sports personality of the year.

how can anyone get the same public conciousness when a significant number of golf afficionados can't even spell his name correctly?

 

[jamielaing]

hi - my comments around related contingency are not an opinion, these are the facts!

This is one of the most confusing terms in betting, but one which must be understood in order to avoid disappointment when making multiples bets. The key principle behind related contingency is that you are not allowed to make bets where one result directly effects the price of the other. In cases where they do, the bookmaker can void the bet. Here is a simple example.

Double Check Your Doubles!

Say you want to make a simple multiple on Federer to not only win the semi final at Wimbledon, but also the final. Here the bet becomes a related contingency, as the result from the first bet directly changes the price of the next – if Federer wins the semi final, his price to win the whole tournament will clearly change, and this makes it a bet that most bookmakers will not allow to be made.
Or, to use golf as an example, backing Rory to be top points scorer in the Ryder cup, doubled with Europe to win the Ryder cup - one directly affects the price of the other, hence you cannot double them in the same bet.
Related contingency is confused further by the fact that quite what is defined as one and what is not tends to change depending on the exact bookmaker involved, so make sure that you read the terms and conditions carefully, and if you have any doubts make sure you contact support before making any large bet.


Read more: http://www.sportsbookguardian.com/sportsbook-guide/related-contingency#ixzz3drqfQOhL

Doesn't this make it less likely in the case of Speith?

If you were to bet that he wins the open and the slam then I would understand the related contingency as the Open win would improve his chances of completing the slam.

I don't see how winning a major improves his position in the next major. If anything it makes it harder due to added pressure. In my eyes a double on each major would not come under related contingency as it would not help him from what I can see.

 

[Ethan]

hi - my comments around related contingency are not an opinion, these are the facts!

This is one of the most confusing terms in betting, but one which must be understood in order to avoid disappointment when making multiples bets. The key principle behind related contingency is that you are not allowed to make bets where one result directly effects the price of the other. In cases where they do, the bookmaker can void the bet. Here is a simple example.

[h=3]Double Check Your Doubles![/h]Say you want to make a simple multiple on Federer to not only win the semi final at Wimbledon, but also the final. Here the bet becomes a related contingency, as the result from the first bet directly changes the price of the next – if Federer wins the semi final, his price to win the whole tournament will clearly change, and this makes it a bet that most bookmakers will not allow to be made.
Or, to use golf as an example, backing Rory to be top points scorer in the Ryder cup, doubled with Europe to win the Ryder cup - one directly affects the price of the other, hence you cannot double them in the same bet.
Related contingency is confused further by the fact that quite what is defined as one and what is not tends to change depending on the exact bookmaker involved, so make sure that you read the terms and conditions carefully, and if you have any doubts make sure you contact support before making any large bet.


Read more: http://www.sportsbookguardian.com/sportsbook-guide/related-contingency#ixzz3drqfQOhL

This is simply independent events in probability. Although Spieth winning the US Open suggests he is in great form and may alter his odds of winning The Open, they remain independent events.

It is perfectly possible for the bookmeaker to adjust the odds to weight related (non-independent) events, though.

 

[Mr A]

He clearly doesn't have the wow factor to his game that most of the guys have these days, aside from his putting. I think he is by far the best putter in the world right now.

When you watch him, he doesn't hit it miles, he doesn't regularly stiff iron shots, he doesn't have much flair or short game wizardry. He just does everything very, very well. Also he has very good course management, which he alluded to when he said his biggest strength is playing badly well. Which for his style of play is very impressive, and really overlooked IMO.

Comparing to Rory's comment about being happy with 2 missed cuts mixed with 2 wins, that's fine for him because of how he plays, when he's on form no one can touch him. But that's no good for someone like Spieth, he needs to be more consistent than that, to keep grinding during bad spells. His game is very different to the other guys at the top end of the rankings, and he plays to his strengths, whilst minimalising his weaknesses incredibly well.

 

[robert.redmile]

This is simply independent events in probability. Although Spieth winning the US Open suggests he is in great form and may alter his odds of winning The Open, they remain independent events.

It is perfectly possible for the bookmeaker to adjust the odds to weight related (non-independent) events, though.

As I said, it's not my opinion, it's fact.

try to place the double on any on line bookmakers. It will be refused.
its a related contingency, sorry.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

It was a great performance by Spieth. Is it me though or are the US looking really strong (arguably unbeatable) for the RC at the moment

 

[paddyc]

It was a great performance by Spieth. Is it me though or are the US looking really strong (arguably unbeatable) for the RC at the moment

Its a long way off and form will change, other players will come to the fore by then and we have some superb young players on the ET.Although you could argue at the moment they are stronger individually , our team spirit, never say die attitude and experience will be a big advantage.

 

[paddyc]

The last British winner at St Andrew's was 25 years ago so it isn't exactly helping is it?

I never said it would be a british winner. A european tour player who plays St Andrews regularly will have a huge advantage over the Spieth and the americans.

 

[Imurg]

Spieth's had a couple of good years, he's playing well.
Sooner or later the form will take a few weeks off.
I happens to them all.
Then some Coach will recommend a swing change.......
And the rest is Harrington.......

 

[SugarPenguin]

I really dislike Jordan Speith. He is just so boring and has an understated arrogance.

 

[Jimaroid]

I never said it would be a british winner. A european tour player who plays St Andrews regularly will have a huge advantage over the Spieth and the americans.

They don't though, Americans have historical dominance at St Andrews over the last 100 years:

American wins: 10 by Jock Hutchison, Bobby Jones, Danny Shute, Sam Snead, Tony Lema, Jack Nicklaus x 2, John Daly and Tiger Woods x2
European wins: 3 by Dick Burton, Seve Bellesteros and Nick Faldo
Other wins: 4 by Peter Thomson and Kel Nagle both Australian, Bobby Lock and Louis Oosthuizen both S. African.

 

[BubbaP]

how can anyone get the same public conciousness when a significant number of golf afficionados can't even spell his name correctly?

Probably one of those for "i before e except after c"