3. Tiger Woods is 5 for 7 in regular Tour event this season and 0-4 at the majors. What's the main reason for the drop-off in his play at the game's biggest events?
Bamberger: The hydrant.
Van Sickle: The majors had fearsome rough and as good as he is out of it, Tiger was simply in it too often.
Morfit: I thought the majors were in his head. There seemed to be no other way to explain it. He wins five times, on major-worthy golf courses (Torrey), and yet can't get it done the four most important weeks of the year? But then I watched him play with nothing on the line Sunday and he wasn't sharp, so it's definitely not all in his head. I think he's a much more fragile player now in that his hot streaks don't last as long as they used to.
Lynch: He drives it crooked and short, and that's a lousy combination in the majors, but not as crippling in regular Tour events. He also putts worse and his short game is woefully inconsistent. But his weekend scoring in the big events has become so mediocre that its hard not to conclude there's a mental block at play, too.
Passov: You can talk about putting technique, lack of aggressiveness and loss of length relative to the field until you're blue in the face, but is it possible that even Tiger Woods is susceptible to the ever-present, almost suffocating pressure that accompanies his every swing in a major?
Ritter: He was good enough to win five times this year, so it's hard to fault the swing, the technique or the preparation. That leaves health and the mental game. I think his elbow killed him at Merion, but when Woods gets inside the ropes at these majors, he just doesn't look the same. Putting was his biggest problem, especially those 4-8 footers you've gotta make to win these things.
Godich: Tiger knows he only has four of these shots a year. As a result, he puts a ridiculous amount of pressure on himself. He wants it too badly.
4. With 16 wins and one major, is Jim Furyk going to get into the World Golf Hall of Fame? Should he?
Godich: If Fred Couples can get in with 15 PGA Tour victories (including one major), why doesn't Furyk merit election?
Passov: If Raymond Floyd has a vote, no, Furyk shouldn't get in. By current standards, however, he's a shoe-in.
Bamberger: With 16 wins and one major, no. But when the scoreboard totals are all in, he'll have more, maybe in both categories, and he will get it in. And by Fred Standard, deserves to. I also anticipate a fruitful post-50 career, and majors there count, or I think they should.
Ritter: Borderline. Furyk's credentials aren't that different from Fred Couples, but Couples won two Players Championships and had more success in the international team events. Plus -- nothing against Fuyrk -- Couples had a Cool Factor that made him part of the game's history, which I think also elevated him into the Hall. Furyk probably gets in, but one more major would make him a lock.
Lynch: His record is just as good, if not better, than that of Fred Couples, who got into the Hall this year. He's already a lock since the bar has been lowered. Anyway, Colin Montgomerie got in with zero majors and zero U.S. Tour wins, so what is left for satire when it comes to the Hall of Fame?
Van Sickle: The Hall of Fame is a moot point. By inducting four or five candidates every year in order to have a TV show on Golf Channel, the PGA Tour is effectively insuring that everybody who's even worth considering will be swept in over time. Do you really think there are 50 or 60 golfers who should be enshrined every decade? Reason might argue that Furyk, like Fred Couples, isn't Hall-worthy at first glance. Ditto for Mark O'Meara and Davis Love. But they're all going to get in whether we think they should or not if this keeps up. The Hall of Fame should immediately go to every-other-year voting and slow the pace of inductees for the good of the Hall.
Morfit: Yeah, Furyk will get in. And I actually think he played pretty well today -- no shame in losing to a guy who played as well as Dufner did. Should Furyk get in? Based on the criteria and his accomplishments I don't see why not.