Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

2017 Arnold Palmer Invitational: Odds, Picks, and Props

Published

on

The PGA Tour continues the Florida swing this week at “Arnie’s Place,” Bay Hill Club and Lodge. There are a number of storylines at the Arnold Palmer Invitational, but none more important than honoring the memory of Mr. Palmer at the first Invitational after his passing. Players and attendees will be able to see the new bronze statue of Mr. Palmer overlooking the first and the 10th tees.

The field is another major topic of conversation this week, both those playing and those not playing. The field is headlined by defending champion Jason Day, Rory McIlroy, Hideki Matsuyama and Henrik Stenson. Notable names missing include Jordan Spieth, Justin Thomas and world No. 1 Dustin Johnson.

  • Tournament Record: 264 by Payne Stewart in 1987
  • Single-Round Record: Andy Bean (1981), Greg Norman (1984) and Adam Scott (2014) share the single-round record of 62.

The Course

The par-72 Bay Hill Club and Lodge plays just over 7,419 yards. It was dubbed “the best course in Florida” by Arnold Palmer in 1965 and has been a staple on Tour since the 1979 Florida Citrus Open. It features generous fairways and punishing rough. In terms of rough proximity, it was ranked as the toughest on Tour in 2016, averaging 51 feet, 2 inches. The rough, along with a number of forced carries and doglegs over water, is a recipe for disasters and heroics.

Odds

Past Champs in the field: Martin Laird +10000, Jason Day +1400

Favorites:

  • Rory Mcilroy +700
  • Henrik Stenson +900
  • Jason Day +1400
  • Hideki Matsuyama +1400
  • Rickie Folwer +1600
  • Justin Rose +1800
  • Thomas Pieters +3000
  • Brandt Snedeker +3500
  • Paul Casey +3500
  • Tyrell Hatton +4000

Picks

My Pick: I’m all in on Rory McIlroy (+700) this week. With wide, generous fairways, Rory should be able to let it rip with the driver and overpower the course. He’s well rested coming off of his rib injury and finished T-7 in the WGC-Mexico championship. He’s hitting 73 percent of fairways and 76 percent of greens on the European Tour this year. His accuracy and recent putting form make him a scoring machine. I think McIlroy’s game fits Bay Hill, and the favorite has won 7 of the past 11 tournaments on the PGA Tour.

Value Pick: I’m going with Wesley Bryan at +5000. He’s been playing incredible golf as of late and has found his footing on Tour. He hasn’t finished outside the top-7 in his past three events. You’ll never get +5000 on a player on this kind of run again; these odds can’t be passed up.

Long Shot: I’m going with Sam Saunders at +30,000. This is a pick more from the heart than anything else. It would be an incredible story to see Saunders win at his grandfather’s tournament, especially this year. He’s having a rough season so far, four missed cuts in six starts, but under these circumstances you can’t count him out.

Props

Will there be a playoff: Yes (+275) No (-400); I’m going with “No” here. There hasn’t been playoff since Tim Herron beat Tom Lehman in ’99. Bay Hill lends itself to drama. Whether it’s a ball in the water or a heroic hole-out like Robert Gamez’s 7-iron to beat Greg Norman, I think this tournament is going to be won on No. 18.

Wesley Bryan (-115) v. Ryan Moore (-115): Bryan is a lock in my opinion. He’s finished inside the top-7 in his past three starts while Moore has a T18, T28 and a missed cut in the same events. Bryan is in great form and I’d take him against just about anyone.

Hole-in-One – Yes (+135) No (-175): I’m going with “Yes” this week. The Par 3s are tough this week; every par 3 played above par last year and only the sixth plays less than 200 yards. With that said, there should be some accessible pin locations where the ball will funnel back to the pin. I think we get to see at least one ace this week.

McIlroy, Stenson, Fowler (+285) vs. the Field (-425): This is another no-brainer to me. You have to go with McIlroy, Stenson, and Fowler here. McIlroy is the favorite and my pick to win and Stenson has the distance and ball striking to compete every week. Fowler didn’t play last week but is on a mini hot streak with a win and a T4 in his past three starts.

Your Reaction?
  • 62
  • LEGIT11
  • WOW0
  • LOL3
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK3

Twitter @NickRitaccoGolf

Continue Reading
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. mac_the_knife

    Mar 15, 2017 at 3:48 am

    No Spieth … no Thomas …. no DJ … and you conveniently missed out no Mickelson. I don’t care about “scheduling issues”, the first year after The King is gone and they don’t play in his tournament after all he did for the game and therefore for them says it all.

    No class.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Courses

Coming Up: A Big Golf Adventure

Published

on

My name is Jacob Sjöman, and I’m a 35-year-old golf photographer who also enjoys the game we all love. I will be sharing some experiences here on a big golf trip that we are doing. With me I’ve got my friend Johan. I will introduce him properly later, but he is quite a funny character. According to Johan, he is the best golf photo assistant in the world, and we will see about that since this is probably his biggest test yet doing this trip. Previously on our trips, Johan almost got us killed in Dubai with a lack of driving skills. He also missed a recent evening photo shoot in Bulgaria while having a few beers to many… and that’s not all.

Anyway, the last couple of days I’ve been packing my bags over and over. I came home from the Canary Islands this Sunday and I’ve been constantly checking and rechecking that we’ve got all the required equipment, batteries, and that the cameras are 100 percent functional and good to go for this golf trip. I’m still not sure, but in a couple of minutes I will be sitting in a taxi to the airport and there will be no turning back.

Where are we going then? We are going to visit some of the very best golf courses in New Zealand and Australia. There will be breathtaking golf on cliffsides, jaw-dropping scenic courses, and some hidden gems. And probably a big amount of lost balls with a lot of material produced in the end.

I couldn’t be more excited for a golf journey like this one. Flying around the globe to these special golf courses I’ve only dreamed about visiting before gives me a big kick and I feel almost feel like a Indiana Jones. The only thing we’ve got in common, though, is that we don’t like snakes. Australia seems to be one of the worst destinations to visit in that purpose, but all the upsides are massive in this.

First, we will take off from a cold Stockholm (it’s raining heavily outside at the moment) and then we will do our first stop at Doha in Quatar. Then after two more hours, we are finally heading off to Auckland on the north island of New Zealand, a mega-flight of 16 hours. I believe that could very well be one of the longest flights available for a ordinary airplane. I need to check that.

Flights for me usually mean work, editing photos from different golf courses I’ve visited, writing some texts, editing some films, and planning for the future. Last time, though, I finally managed to sleep a little, which is a welcome progress for a guy that was deadly scared of flying until 2008.

Now, I am perfectly fine with flying. A few rocky flights over the Atlantic Sea to Detroit helped me a lot, and my motto is now, “If those flights got me down on the ground safely, it takes a lot of failures to bring down a plane.”

Anyway, I hope you will join me on this golf trip. Stay tuned!

Your Reaction?
  • 18
  • LEGIT0
  • WOW1
  • LOL0
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK1

Continue Reading

Opinion & Analysis

Be Curious, Not Critical, of Tour Player Swings

Published

on

After a foul ball by a tour player, the talking heads on TV are often quick to analyze the “problem” with that swing. Fair enough, I suppose. Even the best players are human and our game has more failure than success. But I’d like to offer a different take on swings of the best players in the world.

First, let’s remember how good these guys and gals really are. If you met up with the lowest ranked player on any professional tour at a public course one day, I’ll bet that golfer would be the best golfer most of you have ever played with. You’d be telling your buddies in the 19th hole about him or her for a very long time. These players have reached a level of ball striking most people only dream about. That’s why I’m more curious than critical when it comes to a tour player’s swing. I’m not thinking about what he/she needs to do better; I’m thinking, “How do they do it so well?” In other words, I want to know how they put their successful move together. What part goes with the other parts? How did their pattern evolve? What are the compatible components of their swing?

Let’s use Jim Furyk as an example. Furyk has what we might call an “unconventional” move. It’s also a swing that has won nearly $70 million and shot 58 one day. But I’ll offer him as an example because his swing illustrates the point I’m making. From a double-overlapping grip, Furyk picks the golf club up to what might be the most vertical position one would ever see from a professional. Then in transition, he flattens the club and drops it well behind him. Now the club is so flat and inside, he has to open his body as quickly as he can to keep the club from getting “stuck.” Let’s call it an “up-and-under loop.”

Let’s take Matt Kuchar as a counter example. Kuchar’s signature hands-in, flat and very deep takeaway is pretty much the total opposite of Furyk. But he comes over that takeaway and gets the club back into a great position into impact. We’ll call that an “in-and-over” loop.

Both are two of the best and most consistent golfers in the world. Is one right and the other wrong? Of course not. They do have one thing in common, however, and it’s that they both balanced their golf swing equation.

What would happen if Kuchar did what Furyk does coming down? Well, he wouldn’t be on TV on the weekend. If he did, he’d be hitting drop kicks several inches behind. That doesn’t win The Players Championship. The point is that the Furyk downswing is incompatible with the Kuchar backswing, and vice versa, but I’m guessing they both know that.

How can this help you? My own personal belief and the basis of my teaching is this: your backswing is an option, but your downswing is a requirement. I had one student today dropping the arms and club well inside and another coming over the top, and they both felt better impact at the end of the lesson. I showed them how to balance their equation.

My job is solving swing puzzles, a new one very hour, and I’m glad it is. It would be mind-numbing boredom if I asked every golfer to do the same thing. It’s the teaching professional’s job to solve your puzzle, and I assure you that with the right guidance you can make your golf swing parts match. Are there universal truths, things that every golfer MUST do?  Yes, they are the following:

  1. Square the club face
  2. Come into the ball at a good angle
  3. Swing in the intended direction
  4. Hit the ball in the center of the face (method be damned!)

But here’s the funny part: Let Kuchar or Furyk get off base and watch every swing critic in the world blame some part of the quirkiness of their move that has led to their greatness. When players at their level get off their game, it’s generally due to poor timing or that they lost the sync/rhythm that connected their individual parts. The same holds true for all of us. We have to find the matching parts and the timing to connect them. You might not need new parts.

After all, weren’t those same parts doing the job when you shot your career low round?

Your Reaction?
  • 115
  • LEGIT8
  • WOW1
  • LOL1
  • IDHT2
  • FLOP1
  • OB1
  • SHANK7

Continue Reading

Opinion & Analysis

The numbers behind “full scholarships” in NCAA men’s college golf

Published

on

If you are in the world of junior golf, you’ve probably heard about a young man you know who’s getting that coveted full ride to college, maybe even to a Power-5 school. With all the talk in junior golf about full scholarships, and a lot of rumors about how many are available, we decided to poll coaches and gather some real data about “full scholarships.”

So, what did we find out? In total, we got responses to a voluntary online survey from 61 men’s D1 coaches, 19 men’s D2 coaches and 3 NAIA coaches (83 total). On average, the coaches in the survey had 11.8 years of coaching experience. Of the coaches that responded, 58 of the 83 coaches reported having zero players on full ride. Another 15 coaches surveyed reported having one player on full ride. This means that 69 percent of the coaches surveyed reported zero players on full scholarship and 18 percent reported one player on full scholarship, while another four coaches reported that 20 percent of their team was on full ride and six coaches reported between 2-3 players on full ride.

We then asked coaches, “what percent of golfers in Division 1 do you think have full scholarships based on your best guess?” Here’s what the responses looked like: 25 coaches said 5 percent and 36 coaches said 10 percent. This means that 73 percent of respondents suggested that, in their opinion, in men’s Division 1, Division 2 and NAIA, there are less than 10 percent of players on full ride.

Next, we asked coaches, “what was a fair scholarship percentage to offer a player likely to play in your top 5?” The average of the 83 responses was 62.5 percent scholarship with 38 coaches (46 percent) suggesting they would give 30-50 percent and 43 coaches (52 percent) suggesting 50-75 percent. Only two coaches mentioned full scholarship.

The last question we asked coaches, was “what would you need to do to earn a full scholarship?”

  • Top-100 in NJGS/Top-250 in WAGR – 41 coaches (49 percent)
  • 250-700 in WAGR – 19 coaches (23 percent)
  • Most interesting, 17 coaches (20 percent) noted that they either did not give full rides or did not have the funding to give full rides.

The findings demonstrate that full rides among players at the men’s Division 1, Division 2 and NAIA levels are rare, likely making up less than 10 percent of total players. It also suggests that if you are a junior player looking for a full ride, you need to be exceptional; among the very best in your class.

Please note that the survey has limitations because it does not differentiate between athletic and academic money. The fact is several institutions have a distinct advantage of being able to “stack” academic and athletic aid to create the best financial packages. My intuition suggests that the coaches who responded suggesting they have several players on “full rides” are likely at places where they are easily able to package money. For example, a private institution like Mercer might give a student $12,000 for a certain GPA and SAT. This might amount to approximately 25 percent, but under the NCAA rules it does not count toward the coach’s 4.5 scholarships. Now for 75 percent athletic, the coach can give a player a full ride.

Maybe the most interesting finding of the data collection is the idea that many programs are not funded enough to offer full rides. The NCAA allows fully funded men’s Division 1 programs to have 4.5 scholarships, while Division 2 programs are allowed 3.6. My best guess suggests that a little more than 60 percent of men’s Division 1 programs have this full allotment of scholarship. In Division 2, my guess is that this number is a lot closer to 30 percent.

Your Reaction?
  • 103
  • LEGIT20
  • WOW13
  • LOL2
  • IDHT1
  • FLOP3
  • OB2
  • SHANK20

Continue Reading

19th Hole

Facebook

Trending