Horse racing betting

Mostly, it was overlooked or dismissed as a pot shot, parting shot or cheap shot. All week, Tiger Woods had been as grumpy as the greens were lumpy.

Yet, the last words out of his mouth on Sunday night at the gray, overcast, 110th U.S. Open might have been the most illuminating thing he uttered all week.

Woods, who along with top-gun peers Phil Mickelson and Ernie Els had just been shaded by considerably less-heralded Europeans Graeme McDowell and Gregory Havret, offered an interesting opinion on the names at the top of the final scoreboard at Pebble Beach.

Though the previous four U.S. Opens contested at Pebble had been won by past or future Hall of Famers, including Woods himself, the world No. 1 said he wasnt surprised that a marquee player hadnt won. After all, underdogs winning have become something of an Open secret.

“Not necessarily, because of what Mike [Davis] has done with the golf course,” Woods said of the U.S. Golf Associations popular primary course set-up man. “Hes given more guys the chance to win the golf tournament. Its more open now.

“With the graduated rough, being firm and fast like this, it brings a lot more players into play who have a chance to win.”

Like me, the first half-dozen folks who heard the comments shrugged, had no idea what he meant or believed he was merely beefing about conditions again, like when he complained about the greens being “awful.”

“I happened to really like the setup,” said NBC Sports analyst Dottie Pepper, who worked the tournament. “I think it was extraordinarily fair. Maybe were not seeing Tiger being super-honest with himself.”

Thats certainly possible, if not darned likely. But if the three-time Open winner is at least partly correct, the remarks could go a long way toward explaining the recent spate of winners at the National Open.

World No. 37 or did he? (Getty Images) Beginning in 2005, with the exception of Woods victory at Torrey Pines two years ago, the toughest test in golf has been won by a series of less-heralded players, some with no pedigree whatsoever on the PGA Tour. In who, mind you, required 19 and the five other winners combined had amassed U.S. tour wins before winning the Open.

Granted, Michael Campbell, Angel Cabrera and Graeme McDowell had played only sparingly in the States before winning the championship, but their world rankings at the time of their achievement dont require any asterisks. None was higher than No. 37 heading into the tournament week, and among the winners of the past six Opens, only Woods was ranked in the top 16. Two were ranked outside the top 70.

Hardly stiffs. Hardly stalwarts.

Davis began putting his imprint on the setup in 2006, eschewing the ankle-deep rough in favor of a tiered approach that penalized wayward shots based on relative wildness. The graduated approach has been well-received, since the punishment for foul balls more appropriately fits the crime, so to speak, and tee shots that land a foot out of the fairway no longer are clinically dead.

For the first time in decades, the four-letter F-word used most often by players at the National Open has been “fair.” That said, Woods has become the first prominent player to suggest that the popular setup scheme is perhaps a little too democratic.

Since nobody followed up on Woods statements and he bolted the premises moments later, it doesnt make much sense to interpret them. At first blush, its tough to envision many ways in which the setup favors, or discriminates against, a particular players tool set. A handful of veteran writers, television analysts and coaches, in fact, were stumped to provide fast examples. At least initially.

Davis said last week that the fairways at Pebble Beach were definitely wider than during the venues two recent Opens in 1992 and 2000, when he worked as part of the USGA crew. Mix in the graduated rough, and the tee strategies doubtlessly have changed. Shorter hitters, not to mention crooked ones, had a markedly better chance to get the ball to the green.

Whereas in the past, bigger and stronger players might have been better-positioned to nuke the ball from the uniformly brutal rough, almost anybody has a shot at hitting it greenside now. Then again …

“Youd figure the graduated rough would favor a guy who hits it a little bit sideways at times, like Phil Mickelson,” swing coach Sean Foley said.

High-horsepower stars like Mickelson, Woods and Ernie Els all had a shot at the title on Sunday, but none could keep up with McDowell, who had never before won an official event in the States.

“The one thing I would say is that Ernie Els and Tiger Woods are two of the best Ive ever seen from the rough,” said Golf Channel analyst Frank Nobilo, who played at Pebble in 2000. “So maybe you could say they might lose some of their advantage.”

That might not be the only asset that has been at least somewhat neutered. Consider the two par-3 holes that drew the most comment and consternation, the 110-yard seventh and the 210-yard 17th. Skill went largely out the door on both because of the setup and conditions.

No matter a players talent level with a wedge in hand, it was nearly impossible to get the ball close to the flag at No. 7, as evidenced when world No. 9 Ian Poulter complained into an open NBC camera after his shot bounced over the green as though it had landed on plywood.

At the 17th, even players capabl were unable to hold the green. Short of hitting a shot like Jack Nicklaus in 1972, when his 1-iron slammed into the flag and stopped inches from the cup, the big boys werent able to use their strength as an attribute. The brutish ninth, 505 yards in length to a baked-out green, was similar in that regard.

“There was no reward for being able to hit a big, towering long iron,” Nobilo said, “because it seemed like nobody could hit and hold that green.”

Playing the course at a length of 7,040 yards surely opened the door for the medium-length players, too, taking away another advantage of the marquee bunch. Not that the yardage was static. Davis kept altering hole lengths by moving around tee locations and flagsticks in an attempt to make players actually think, heaven forbid. But thats a departure from old norms, too.

“The Open used to be just long, hard and brutal,” Nobilo said. “When you start to tweak, you have to be careful sometimes, or its like Wimbledon being grass today and clay tomorrow. It creates variables.

“If its just a straight-up sprint, then the fastest guy wins.”

On the plus side, the graduated rough and more moderate setup policies arguably have allowed star players to contend despite not being at the top of their games. Mickelson, for one, has two seconds and a T4 since Davis began experimenting with the setup particulars and contended last week despite missing more short birdie putts than Stillwater Cove has sea lions.

Maybe the best way to describe the Davis tweaks is that they have brought forth more inclusion, not exclusion. When Geoff Ogilvy won at Winged Foot in 2007, a parade of stars mangled the final hole, including Mickelson, Jim Furyk, Padraig Harrington and Colin Montgomerie.

When Cabrera won at Oakmont in 2007, Woods, Furyk and Steve Stricker were right on his backside on the back nine. When Lucas Glover won last summer at Bethpage Black, Mickelson and former world No. 1 David Duval were a heartbeat away. Then there was last Sunday, when the aforementioned trio of players with a combined 21 majors to their credit all had chances at beating McDowell.

Maybe, for Woods, it was just frustration talking. Hes played poorly in three straight final rounds at majors.

“I think it was more of a case of the top players not getting the job done,” Pepper said. “I dont think its the setup as much as them not finishing it off over the past few years.”

Since all of this is debatable and is beginning to sound like the proverbial circular argument, if Woods is correct and the new USGA setup has opened the door for plinkers and plodders playing their butts off, is that a bad thing?

“Thats a very good question,” Nobilo said. “I guess it depends on your point of view.”