(I can hardly believe this was 25 years ago. He had stunned the field at the Masters three years earlier, winning by 12 strokes after starting out 4-over on the first nine holes, but this was an otherworldly four days of perfection. -nvp)
The Top 5 Craziest Stats from Tiger’s 2000 U.S. Open Victory
Tiger Woods as seen during the final round of the 2000 U.S. Open at Pebble Beach. (John Mummert/USGA)
It has been 25 years since the 100th U.S. Open, when Tiger Woods defeated the field by a preposterous 15-stroke margin.
Many words have been written about his historic performance. For this piece, though, we are focusing on the numbers that changed the history of golf.
So, sit back and read in awe. We unearthed some of the most incredible statistics from that week to illustrate how unbelievable it was.
1. Tiger had two bogey-free rounds. The other 155 players combined for 1.
2. He didn’t three-putt all week.
3. He hit 70.8 percent of greens in regulation in a week when the field average was 48.7 percent. His 51 greens hit were seven more than any other player.
4. He could have given the player who finished in last place 40 shots and still would have beaten him.
5. The field averaged 5 bogeys per round. Tiger made 6 bogeys all week.
The five stats above are some of the most impressive. But the list does not stop there. Here are some honorable mentions:
• He played the first 22 holes of the championship without a bogey and the final 26 holes of the championship without a bogey.
• Of the 437 rounds played, Tiger’s score was only beaten once in the same round (R3. Ernie Els 68, Tiger 71)
• He made one triple bogey all week. If he had made one triple bogey every day, he still would’ve won by three shots
• Tiger is the only player to win a major by 10 strokes or more in the 20th or 21st centuries. He’s done it twice: 1997 Masters (12) and 2000 U.S. Open (15).
• He gained 29.2 strokes against the field, the highest total in any U.S. Open since World War II. That number is 3.91 strokes better than the second-best performance since World War II – the same as the difference between No. 2 and No. 19 on the list.
• He led the field in scoring on the par 3s, par 4s and par 5s, shooting 4-under in each category.
I will also point out what heresy is as defined by the Church is: rejection of revealed truth, denial or doubt of revealed truth.
What did Pope JP2 do that were heretical? Well, he kissed a Quran. Why did he kiss the Quran? He kissed the Quran as a sign of respect and blathered on about Islam being an Abrahamic religion.
First up, the pope is wrong, Islam is not an Abrahamic religion. As far as kissing goes, Pope JP2 kissed dictators on the cheek. His kiss is not a seal of approval. Nor did he reject any Catholic dogma by kissing the Quran. Was it offensive? I think so. Was it in poor taste? Yes.
But it simply wasn’t heresy. And the idea that pre Vatican 2 our popes never did anything as bad is laughable. We forget that Vatican 2 came out of the folks saying the TLM. We forget that the Council of Trent reformed the way things were before it.
The problem with trads is that they are unforgiving hypocrites. They refuse to actually examine Christian history, they refuse to recognize what heresy is, what doctrine is. It’s odd, our first pope. while he was a bishop DENIED CHRIST THREE TIMES. And when he was pope he went muddle Jesus’s commandments to make disciples of all nations with his treatment of the gentiles. He was our FIRST POPE.
I get so tired with the trads and the sedes living that life, a life of pretense and being completely intolerant of a person’s humanity while ignoring their own.
Nobody in this combox could suffer like PJP2 did and carry out the duty of the papacy. Not one of you. And maybe that was his purgatory. Who knows?
But Jesus talked about trads and sedes in the new testament and they didn’t get it then and they do not get it now.
I’m just going to post this and leave this there, Mark. Sorry I’ll stop afterwards:
Supplied jurisdiction is not the same thing as ordinary jurisdiction. It is supplied for specific needs. To be a successor of the apostles, formally and not materially, you must have ordinary jurisdiction.
I already told you that one of the claims of indefectability is that apostolic succession will not cease before the end of time.
Responding to the feral discussion on the previous thread:
Hey “kono” and “JR” – Can you refute the two fundamental premises here:
https://canon748.org/on-sedevacantism/ ??
I have not found a ’58 sede who is able to… Because you always refuse to distinguish between formal heresy and material heresy, regardless if either is manifest or secret (private). It’s always the same response from you people – “Heresy is present, therefore he’s not a Pope.” And so you end up sitting at home on Sundays saying that all these popes are false, while you have to ignore the fact that, by your own logic, John XXII was a false pope 700 years ago, which we all agree he was not.
The formal, manifest heresy of Bergoglio is something entirely different than the material, manifest heresy of JPII or the others.
Now get back in the fight.