[Jeremy Rivando]

It seems that the other factor not being considered in regard to Tiger's difficulties when it comes to high scoring tournaments is the psychological factor.

We know that Tiger has maybe the best mind on tour, but there has to be a weakness somewhere in there right?

Looking at some stats I would venture to believe that if Tiger is not making an acceptable (in his mind) amount of birdies it weighs on him and gets him off his game.

Tiger- Birdies/Round 2000- 4.92, 2005- 4.57, 2008- 4.31

Holes Under Par-  Loses

2008 Masters - 12   Finish/2nd
2007 US Open - 8  Finish/3rd
2007 British Open - 14 Finish/12th  This was the most surprising result, so many bogies, Harrington only had 16 holes under par

Victories
2007 Tour Champ - 28
2008 Bay Hill - 16
2008 Buick - 24
2007 BMW - 26

If Tiger is not making a lot of birdies he seems to become more frustrated and adds more pressure on himself.  I appreciate that he can grind it out but it seems that if he is never rewarded it becomes taxing mentally.  This applies to the whole field but no in the history of the game is so used to making that many birdies over their careers.

Yes the field has a better chance when scores hover around par but I still believe Tiger may be his own worst enemy in these situations, but being Tiger he can still win one at even par.

[Phil McDade]

Guys:

Hello -- anyone home ?

When Tiger has the 54 lead he WINS. Has NEVER lost thus far.

Clearly, the issue becomes can Tiger get to that position in a major and getting off to a fairly decent start does help matters.

No doubt when he has trailed after 54 holes he has never won a major thus far.

What he shoots is really irrelevant and the rest of the 19th hole gibberish is merely endless speculation. 

Matt:

That's somewhat off-point to the arguments raised here. His record after 54 holes is his record; no one disputes that.

The key question in my mind: Do certain major championship course set-ups/conditions -- in terms of their relative difficulty -- help or hinder his chances of winning? So far, through the first 11 years or so of his career, the statistics would suggest some correlation between them. The thread is an attempt to explore why that is. A.G. seems so far to have the bast rationale -- scores closer to par in majors allows more players to compete for a win, as opposed to going low.

[Rick Shefchik]

I believe the question being raised here is not whether Tiger is as good as his reputation suggests -- he is, in my opinion, the best player ever -- but what conditions help the rest of the field compete with him on the occasions when he doesn't win. It's not knock at Tiger to look at it that way.

And I think Doug Siebert has definitely come closest to the answer -- wind is the great leveler in golf. Poor weather in all of its facets seems to give the field the best chance to compete with Tiger.

This is not a scientific observation, but merely an impression from a guy who loves to see Tiger win.

[Matt_Ward]

Phil McDade:


You folks are doing the old paralysis / analysis routine.

Tiger can win in any particular situation. People said he could not handle the situation at Hoylake a few years back because driver was effectively out of his hands. Tiger won at Bethpage although the under-par score was not much at all after 72 holes. They also said a course like Southern Hills would not work because of the relative shortness and all the dog-legs. Guess who won again?

The simple fact is if Tiger gets off to a decent start and somehow can get to the 54-hole lead the event is O-V-E-R !!!

The more important question is why Tiger cannot win from coming off the pace at a major. He has done it in regular tour wins but not many.

[Phil McDade]

Phil McDade:


You folks are doing the old paralysis / analysis routine.

Tiger can win in any particular situation.

Then why doesn't he win majors when being around par is a good score? (Bethpage and to some extent So. Hills being the noted exceptions.)

[Will MacEwen]

The interesting thing about Woods to me is that he is NOT a birdie machine as we normally think of that.  He is, in many ways, the ultimate grinder, who from time to time goes way, way low.  That, in my view, is multi-dimensional.

In his early years, Tiger seemed to knock down more flags, hole out from fairways, pull off the impossible shot, etc.  He also seemed to go low more often.  Of course, this was the reward side of the equation, and he also seemed to make more bogeys and doubles.

Now he seems content to play a more "boring" style.  On the average par 72 course, he knows he should go 3 under on the par 5s.  If he gives himself several 12-25 foot birdie putts all day long, he will make a couple of them, and have a bundle of kick in pars for an effortless 67 or so.  I don't mean boring in a critical sense - just that his approach seems much more methodical.  He still goes after flags, but only when it is low risk or necessary.  He just doesn't need to be spectacular to win.

Of course I am sure he can still hunt flags with the best of them - it would be neat to watch him at Isleworth. 

[Matt_Ward]

Phil McDade:

How many exceptions are needed to prove the point ?

I come from the old school which says if someone does something they didn't do before they've accomplished the task at-hand.

The issue you and a few others have glossed over or are missing is that Tiger doesn't make come-from-behind wins at majors. When he gets off to a fine start and is in the mix from the get-go the end result usually means he adds his name again to the championship trophy.

Will M:

Nicklaus had a methodical formula for majors and no one disses him for being so boring. The end result speaks for itself. The same holds true for Tiger. He understands how to position himself after each round and how to avoid taking himself out of events with sloppy or careless play. Plenty of professionals can play the heroic shot but more often than not such a desire to excite the masses can often mean a crash and burn end result. Tiger has attempted to avoid such situations. The end result seems to be working very well for him don't you think ?

[Will MacEwen]

Phil McDade:

How many exceptions are needed to prove the point ?

I come from the old school which says if someone does something they didn't do before they've accomplished the task at-hand.

The issue you and a few others have glossed over or are missing is that Tiger doesn't make come-from-behind wins at majors. When he gets off to a fine start and is in the mix from the get-go the end result usually means he adds his name again to the championship trophy.

Will M:

Nicklaus had a methodical formula for majors and no one disses him for being so boring. The end result speaks for itself. The same holds true for Tiger. He understands how to position himself after each round and how to avoid taking himself out of events with sloppy or careless play. Plenty of professionals can play the heroic shot but more often than not such a desire to excite the masses can often mean a crash and burn end result. Tiger has attempted to avoid such situations. The end result seems to be working very well for him don't you think ?

Matt- re-read my post and tell me if using quotation marks for "boring" and saying "not in a critical sense" and tell me if I was in fact "dissing" him.  I think I was being complimentary. 

Did I suggest or imply he should excite the masses more?  I thought I was saying his approach had evolved, and I don't see that as an insult.  Of course the end result is working for him - I don't see where I suggested that a lack of style points detracts from his wins or legacy.

Looking forward to your explanation and response. 

[Matt_Ward]

Will M:

It's implied in your statement Tiger in prevous times would flag hunt more than he does now.

Hence the applicability of the "boring" tag to his earlier play.

I don't know when you insert the appropriate time line of previous Tiger to the one we are seeing play today.

The fact is Tiger has shot some seriously low scores in recent majors and still gone full bore with flag hunting and all the rest. I don't see Tiger specifically playing majors differently but adjusting to what the situation he faces requires. Hope that clarifies things a bit more. 

[Jim Nugent]

Tiger at 32: 13 majors; 4 runner-up finishes; scoring records in all four majors. (Broke Masters scoring record held by Jack and Floyd by one stroke.)

Jack at 32: 11 majors; 11 runner-up finishes: scoring records in two majors (Broke Masters scoring record held by Hogan by three strokes.)

While I pick Tiger over Jack, by a goodly amount, there is a point in Jack's favor.  Tiger turned pro at age 20.  Jack, at age 22.  Tiger has had two more years to win his majors than Jack did at the same age.

Then why doesn't he win majors when being around par is a good score? (Bethpage and to some extent So. Hills being the noted exceptions.)

Add Pebble to the exceptions list.  2nd place was 3 over par.   And if you count SH, I think you must count the 1997 Masters.  2nd place there was 6 under, same as at last year's PGA. 

Your average is called your average because you only get there about half the time.  So 'only' putting average is not that easy to do.  You only have about a 50% chance of it. 

 

My point is that Tiger putted very poorly during those events.  Poorly for him, that is.  Yet he still nearly won anyway.  He finished a stroke or two or three out of first place.  If he had not putted so lousy -- which is very rare for him -- he wins, probably in landslides. 

I would like to see a statistical analysis of Tiger's putting when he wins compared to when he doesn't.  Because course setups and greens vary so much, you would have to compare it to the field.  Bet the difference is huge.

btw, you are not right about averages.  You can putt your average all the time (the perfect model of consistency)...or none of the time (I took 32 putts 10 times, and 28 putts 10 times). 

[Phil_the_Author]

Rick made a comment that most seem to agree with. "And I think Doug Siebert has definitely come closest to the answer -- wind is the great leveler in golf. Poor weather in all of its facets seems to give the field the best chance to compete with Tiger..."

I disagree with this in at least one of Tiger's wins that everyone cites as an example of his shear dominance; 2000 in Pebble Beach.

Tiger had a very early tee time on Thursday and finished his round with a low score as off-shore winds were beginning to pick up. Within a short time after he had finished, and with the majority of the field having most of their rounds to play, the wind blew ferociously, so much so that many of the rounds ended up being delayed for a long Friday finish and all scores recorded after Tiger finished were much higher as a result.

Tiger had a late starting time on Friday, and only completed a portion of the front nine. The reason... high winds that afflicted the field the entire day. Those who suffered Thursday, and among them were a good number of those who should have contested for the win, now suffered again doubly on Friday. First they had to finish Thursday's round and then they had to battle brutally high winds all day Friday leading to very high scores once again.

Tiger finished Friday's round during a calm Saturday morning and again recorded a low score. As a result, he began round three with a huge wind-aided lead. Both saturday and Sunday afternoons were relatively wind-mild days, especially in comparison to the first two. In addition, the mornings were actually windier than the afternoons on the weekend.

This Open was unique to me in that the winner had a distinct and decided advantage over all major competitors simply because of when he was scheduled to play his first round.

Wind can definitely separate the best from the rest... it can also make it unfair for all others as well.

[Wade Whitehead]

Labeling Tiger a "one dimensional" major winner is a backhanded compliment, I suppose, but to compare him to guys who have only won a single major (Immelman, Johnson, Love, Leonard, Elkington, etc.) is simply preposterous.  Winning once makes you as one-dimensional as can be, right?

WW

[A.G._Crockett]

Labeling Tiger a "one dimensional" major winner is a backhanded compliment, I suppose, but to compare him to guys who have only won a single major (Immelman, Johnson, Love, Leonard, Elkington, etc.) is simply preposterous.  Winning once makes you as one-dimensional as can be, right?

WW

It's not even a backhanded compliment.  It is, at best, a really odd distortion of Tiger's record.

[PThomas]

i found it VERY in interesting when I read, i think it was in the Golfweek Masters preview issue, that Steve WIlliams said something lto the effect of "Tiger putts more defensively now than he did years ago"

[Phil McDade]

Rick made a comment that most seem to agree with. "And I think Doug Siebert has definitely come closest to the answer -- wind is the great leveler in golf. Poor weather in all of its facets seems to give the field the best chance to compete with Tiger..."

I disagree with this in at least one of Tiger's wins that everyone cites as an example of his shear dominance; 2000 in Pebble Beach.

Tiger had a very early tee time on Thursday and finished his round with a low score as off-shore winds were beginning to pick up. Within a short time after he had finished, and with the majority of the field having most of their rounds to play, the wind blew ferociously, so much so that many of the rounds ended up being delayed for a long Friday finish and all scores recorded after Tiger finished were much higher as a result.

Tiger had a late starting time on Friday, and only completed a portion of the front nine. The reason... high winds that afflicted the field the entire day. Those who suffered Thursday, and among them were a good number of those who should have contested for the win, now suffered again doubly on Friday. First they had to finish Thursday's round and then they had to battle brutally high winds all day Friday leading to very high scores once again.

Tiger finished Friday's round during a calm Saturday morning and again recorded a low score. As a result, he began round three with a huge wind-aided lead. Both saturday and Sunday afternoons were relatively wind-mild days, especially in comparison to the first two. In addition, the mornings were actually windier than the afternoons on the weekend.

This Open was unique to me in that the winner had a distinct and decided advantage over all major competitors simply because of when he was scheduled to play his first round.

Wind can definitely separate the best from the rest... it can also make it unfair for all others as well.

On the other hand, Tiger got by far the worst of it at the 2002 Open Championship at Muirfield, when the 3rd-round gale blew in midway through the round. He'd won the first two majors of the season, and was only two strokes off the lead to start the 3rd round, with considerable anticipation that even a decent round in poor conditions could lead to a third straight major and a possible slam. He blew up to an 81 and played in the worst of the conditions; even Els, playing a few groups behind Tiger at -6, got a bit of relief toward the end of his round. That's another tournament I can recall where weather, and its timing on the round, really did have an impact on the outcome; several players moved into contention that third day when they went out early and posted good scores before the gale blew in.

[Rick_Noyes]

Imo, Tiger is a golfer that can make birdie from anywhere, whereas alot of the competition cannot.  Unless it's under water or OB.  He dosen't think that on every tee, he knows that on every tee.  That to me is what sets him apart in majors (and most other events).  So the USGA sets up monster rough and tight fairways.  While some whine that "they're taking driver out of my hand", Tiger says so what,  I can hit driver anyway be in the rough and still make birdie.  Tiger is not and has never been the golfer that stripes it down the fairway, hits 18 greens in regulation, makes 18 pars and wins (a la Faldo's British Open) and I hope he never will be.  That's why he's fun to watch.

[Tim Pitner]

On the other hand, Tiger got by far the worst of it at the 2002 Open Championship at Muirfield, when the 3rd-round gale blew in midway through the round. He'd won the first two majors of the season, and was only two strokes off the lead to start the 3rd round, with considerable anticipation that even a decent round in poor conditions could lead to a third straight major and a possible slam. He blew up to an 81 and played in the worst of the conditions; even Els, playing a few groups behind Tiger at -6, got a bit of relief toward the end of his round. That's another tournament I can recall where weather, and its timing on the round, really did have an impact on the outcome; several players moved into contention that third day when they went out early and posted good scores before the gale blew in.

Tiger, among others, did get the worst of the weather that Saturday.  But, lots of players faced the same conditions and managed to keep it in the 70s.  Tiger failed to minimize the damage that day, probably because he lost some concentration.  It happens--even to Tiger. 

[Phil McDade]

Tim:

Agreed. Murayama played in some of the worst of it as well, and went 75. If Tiger had held to a 75, he would've made it a five-way playoff that year. (Tiger went 81-65 on the weekend, nearly a stroke difference per hole. I'm pretty sure that's the one and only time he's done that, in any tournament.)

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()