How did Romo & Timberlake prove Tiger wrong, exactly???

Question

Romo is a 2 handicapper. Timberlake is a 6. Tiger specificially said that a 10 handicapper couldn't break 100 at a US Open couse. I keep seeing articles that these 2 guys proved him wrong. This doesn't make sense, and it's annoying me. They are both much better than a 10 handicapper... of course they can break 100. Please explain to me how exactly Tiger was proven wrong? Matt Lauer (also a 6 handicapper) couldn't break 100.

Answer 1

They played the same tees that the pros will use next week....also you want these guys to feel some heat lets put them out in a tournament atmosphere, not with a few cameras on a saturday afternoon in a 4some with a sparse crowd.

Answer 2

They did prove Tiger wrong, I read in Golf Digest where Tiger summed up Romo, Lauer, and Timberlake, he said he didn't expect any of them to break 100.

Answer 3

Have to agree with you.  Romo is a 2 handicapper and shot in the mid 80's.   Not bad, but he is almost a scratch golfer.  Meanwhile, the two 6 handicappers shot 98 and 100.  There is little doubt that the average 10 handicapper would shoot anywhere between 100 and 110 - on average, of course.  

Tiger has not been proven wrong, period.

Answer 4

I think Tiger is right. That's what I think!

Answer 5

you're right. just ppl writing about stuff they don't know about. i'm glad i'm not the only one that thought that article was stupid. they weren't 10 handicaps. and yes Lauer didn't break 100 and the other guy(idk wut his handicap is) but he shot what 114? so yeah...they didn't prove anything. whoever wrote that article is an idiot.

BTW it would have been nice to see Romo play in the US Open. He didn't win one of the qualifiers to get in. that would have been nice to see him play the open and see if he'd make the cut tho. i don't think the pressure would bother him, he has 300 lbs guys trying to kill him all the time. but i do think the course is made much more difficult when the pro's play.

Answer 6

Jeff!! How was Tiger Woods proven wrong? Wasn't the parameter that the player be a 10 handicap? That left Romo and Timberlake out of the competition for they were 2 and 6 respectively . Even by combining the handicaps and taking their best ball, that only totals 8. How can any thinking person consider Tiger wrong for his statement ? A BIT OF BIGOTRY IN THE AIR ???

Answer 7

Tiger is right... They could not!  When the U.S. open is played the course is very, very difficult compared to how it's originally kept.  The fairway rough is thicker and higher than normal and the rough beyond the fairway rough is extremely high and thick.  If your ball goes into this kind of grass...for the normal golfer even a golfer with great handicaps like whom you mentioned don't experience these types of shots therefore are not capable of getting the ball out. The slope rating on a U.S. Open g.c. is severe.  These guys you mentioned have their handicap based on posh little clubs/courses where it's easy to establish a low handicap.  It's hard to explain if you don't play golf or have never seen a U.S. open course, but the course with how the grass is cut and kept for the tournament is wicked.  Even for the pros it's difficult to get out of these situations (the rough).  A U.S. Open course would destroy these guys.  Even the pros have difficulties and if you research the winner of the U.S. Open is usually always around par for the WHOLE tournament.  That's what makes it the U.S. Open.  Hope I gave you a better insight.  I know what I'm trying to describe just hope you see what I'm trying to say.

Answer 8

I am still trying to figure that article out too.  I know a 6 is not that far of a stretch from a 10, but in reality a 6 and a 10 are wolrds apart.  When I was bringing my handicap down, there was alot more things I was doing better as a 6, then when I was a 10.  One thing for example I was chipping much better and hitting my long irons better.  

One other question I have and it was not real clear in the article, did they play from the same length as the pros were?  That was never discussed.