Golf: Gambling and golf don't mix

By Vincent Musco Sports Central Columnist

How were your brackets this year

No, not your NCAA brackets. Your Accenture Match Play brackets. You know, golf.

Believe it or not, offices now have gambling pools for golf's major tournaments -- some even for non-majors, like the Match Play. Why? Another residual effect from Tiger Woods' popularity, probably. Or we're a nation of addicted gamblers.

But there's irony present. In many of these pools, Tiger Woods is excluded. You can't pick Tiger. How about that? Some even say that they have pools to pick the runner-up.

So Woods generates the popularity, but then is the taboo pick? Is that fair, dear usurpers? More importantly, is that logical? In other words, is Tiger such a lock in the majors? And if he is, who else merits your attention? Sergio Garcia? Ernie Els? Mike Weir?

To find out, I fastidiously employed a technologically progressive device (calculator) to handle the prodigious task of translating complex data into layman's terms (addition, subtraction, division).

Actually, I looked at the results of the major champions of the past five years in each major tournament played since 1999. I was forced to exclude the late Payne Stewart, winner of the 1999 U.S. Open, and Rich Beem, who has played in just four major tournaments.

I have also included four players who have not won a major in those five years, namely Davis Love, Sergio Garcia, Phil Mickelson, and Jim Furyk. Davis is the only one with a major in his career, but all four are perennial favorites to contend. Why 1999? Because that's the year Tiger put the PGA Tour in his back pocket.

Twelve of the 13 players competed in at least 16 of the 17 major tournaments between 1999 and 2003. Paul Lawrie played in only 14. There is only one player with more than one major in that time (guess who?) and only Lawrie has not accumulated more than one top-10 finish in that span.

Of course, Tiger is at the top. In the 17 major tournaments since 1999, he is an aggregate 89-under-par, a statistic made even more astonishing when considering only one other player has managed to break par over that stretch. Woods has two green jackets, two Wanamaker trophies, two U.S. Opens, and a Claret Jug, totaling seven in all (again, calculator). He has 11 top-10 finishes and has never missed a cut. In fact, his worst major performance in that time frame was when he tied for 29th at the 2001 PGA Championship. Devastating.

So maybe Tiger should be expelled after all. But then, who to pick?

Mike Weir might be a popular pick, now that he has won the Masters. In his 16 major performances during our chosen time frame, however, Weir has missed more cuts (three) than he has top-10 finishes (two). He is also 62-over-par during that stretch. Hopefully, Weir's best days are to come.

Ernie Els is off to a hot start this year, as well, but unlike Weir, he has proven his consistency in the majors. Two wins (one during the past five years), eight top-10s, only two missed cuts, and a scoring average of less than one stroke over par per major tournament, best among the major winners on my list not named Eldrick. Vijay Singh is right behind him with one win, seven top-10s, and the fourth-best scoring average among the group.

Jose Maria Olazabal is a solid pick, with four top-10s and a win, and a scoring average better than the likes of Sergio Garcia, Retief Goosen, and David Toms, but he really only has a chance at the Masters. He's too wild off the tee for the other majors.

Speaking of Toms, he is a model of consistency on the PGA Tour. But not when it counts. Toms, despite winning the 2001 PGA, has missed has averaged a missed cut per year and has finished in the top-10 only three times. He is a whopping 88-over-par in 16 major tournaments since 1999. And you thought you wouldn't learn anything useful today.

Jim Furyk, also considered a model of consistency despite being winless in the majors, has six top-10s, but has missed four cuts and is 73-over in the 17 major tournaments. Retief Goosen glided to a U.S. Open victory, but has missed five cuts and has only contended seriously at one other major.

Paul Lawrie, the one player who should not be on this list, dwells in the cellar with his Van de Veldeian gift of a major at Carnoustie where he finished 6-over-par, and which happens to be his only top-10 finish in any major, ever. He has missed six cuts and has the worst scoring-average of the group.

That leaves David Duval as our last major tournament winner, and he has proven to be solid, as well. Seven top-10s and a sixth-best scoring-average make him a contender, but he has missed the cut in each of his last three majors.

Sergio Garcia has played in 16 of the 17 majors since 1999, and he's finished in the top-10 six times. He has missed three cuts, but he is the youngest of this group, so we'll cut him some slack. His plus-49 aggregate score would look a lot better, too, if it wasn't for his 89-83 display at the aforementioned Open Championship at Carnoustie.

On now to the paradoxical left-hander. Phil Mickelson is the only other player under-par during that span (17, to be precise). He has a second-best nine top-10s. He has missed just one cut, also second-best. Hmm, second-best in scoring and average finish -- sounds like a pretty good pick, right? But could you possibly pick him to win, after all these years? Would you wager your dignity, as well as your hard-earned Abraham Lincoln on the human-ATM who can't seem to ever win one?

Who knows? Tiger is the only good pick, but he's illegal. Phil's number two, yet he can't win. Everyone else is hit-or-miss.

Alas, maybe the lesson here is that golf is not meant to be subjected to a pool. Maybe we should just stick to the "Daddy-needs-a-new-pair-of-shoes" sure-things of the NCAA men's tournament, where our foreknowledge of the competitors translates into a plethora of cold, hard five-dollar bills.

Kentucky beat Oklahoma in the finals, right?

Article courtesy of Sports Central.