[Jim Nugent]

As to pressure, who puts pressure on Tiger ?  Billy Mayfair and Rocco Mediate are the only two, in a decade, that come to mind.

1998 Br Open....Tiger shot 66, but lost by two when O'Meara shot 68
1999 U.S. Open..Payne Stewart shot 70, 3rd lowest round of day, to beat TW (who also shot 70) by 2
1999 PGA           Sergio Garcia:  71, pushed Tiger to last hole
2000 PGA           Bob May: three 66's in a row, forced Tiger to shoot 31 final nine just to tie
2001 Masters     David Duval: 67...72 hole total 274...Tiger had to shoot 68 and 272 to win
2002 PGA           Rich Beem: 67, beat Tiger even though Woods staged furious rally on final 9
2005 Masters     Chris DiMarco: 68, forced playoff, beat all others by 7 strokes
2005 U.S. Open  Michael Campbell: 69, played near-flawless final 9, only player to match par for 72 holes
2006 Masters     Phil Mickelson: shot 69, played near-flawless golf final 18 to win
2006 Br. Open    Chris DiMarco: 68, Tiger had to shoot 67 (low round of day) to win by 2 at -18
2007 Masters     Zach Johnson: 69, low round of the day, to win, Tiger 2nd
2007 U.S. Open  Angel Cabrera: 69, 2nd-best round of the day, to beat Tiger by 1

[PThomas]

i wish Pavin would have made his putt......

since he didn't , the door was left opne a bit at the time for.......guess who?  Norman, of course

[Tim Pitner]

Paddy's back nine on Sunday was brilliant, but don't forget his 4-4-3-3 finish in the 2nd round.  It took him from the middle of the pack to near the lead.  

[Rick Shefchik]

Harrington's back nine was superb, and the conditions were difficult, but let's not get carried away. According to the scores I read in the paper this morning, Birkdale must have been playing easier than it had for the first three rounds. There were only two scores in the 80s -- 80 by J.-Baptiste Gonnet, and 81 by Chih-Bing Lam, whoever they are. Conversely, there were 6 scores in the 60s.

I think major championship fourth-round pressure was a bigger factor on Sunday than the weather; of the top 28 finishers, only two (Norman, 77, and Choi, 79) shot worse than 75. To that end, Harrington's back nine deserves much praise. He came through when others did not.

[Kalen Braley]

I would agree that Paddys feat at The Open doesn't get nearly as much attention as it deserves. He's very much a legit champion and has cemented himself in Open Lore if not all of golf. If it was Tiger doing this on a gimpy wrist, it would have been Torrey Pines, media saturation galore, part duece all over again.

That being said, while his shot on 17 was something to behold, it wasn't in the "greatest shots of all time" category.  It was indeed very risky, and if it was Phil M who hit it, he'd likely be crucified for taking, yet again, another very risky gamble.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Rick

The conditions I think deteriorated over the day. I recall a graphic at one point showed the final four pairings a collective 34 over.

Mark

[Garland Bayley]

Could we be seeing the emergence of a great to challenge Tiger? Is Padraig the next Tom Watson? Tom talks about his experience learning to win as a progression. First, learning to make it to the weekend. Second, learning to put himself in position to compete for a win. Third, giving himself chances to win late on Sunday. And finally, beginning to win repeatedly and getting comfortable with it. It seems to me that Padraig has gone through a very similar progression.

[John_Conley]

Could we be seeing the emergence of a great to challenge Tiger? Is Padraig the next Tom Watson?

Considering Watson was a champion in his 20s and was less effective in his late 30 I don't think that's the one.

Harrington is more like Tom Kite, Mark O'Meara, Vijay Singh, Nick Price, and others in that he has been more competitive as he gets older.

I don't see him Watson-like at all.  Paddy must be 38.

[JSlonis]

I would agree that Paddys feat at The Open doesn't get nearly as much attention as it deserves. He's very much a legit champion and has cemented himself in Open Lore if not all of golf. If it was Tiger doing this on a gimpy wrist, it would have been Torrey Pines, media saturation galore, part duece all over again.

That being said, while his shot on 17 was something to behold, it wasn't in the "greatest shots of all time" category.  It was indeed very risky, and if it was Phil M who hit it, he'd likely be crucified for taking, yet again, another very risky gamble.

It wasn't risky according to Padraig himself.  He stated that his 5 wood is his very favorite club and the one he feels most comfortable with.  With him being able to get the ball around the green with a shot that he felt he could easily play, it left him the best chance at birdie.  Where was the risky gamble?  I didn't see too many of the guys who went for that green in two get in all that much trouble.

[Kalen Braley]

Slonis,

There was a cross-bunker right in his line that he narrowly avoided.  Had he gone in there, plugged the ball in the face he would have been looking at a likely 6.  Norman was only 2 shots back at the time, so a birdie by Norman would have tied things up.

This opposed to laying up, ensuring no worse than 5 and having a great shot at birdie.

As for comfort level with clubs and shot types, I'm sure PM would say the same thing that he felt "comfortable with the shot".  And we know how most of those have turned out.

It was a great shot no doubt, but it included a very big unnecassary risk that could have allowed Norman to get right back in the thing.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Slonis,

There was a cross-bunker right in his line that he narrowly avoided.  Had he gone in there, plugged the ball in the face he would have been looking at a likely 6.  Norman was only 2 shots back at the time, so a birdie by Norman would have tied things up.

This opposed to laying up, ensuring no worse than 5 and having a great shot at birdie.

As for comfort level with clubs and shot types, I'm sure PM would say the same thing that he felt "comfortable with the shot".  And we know how most of those have turned out.

It was a great shot no doubt, but it included a very big unnecassary risk that could have allowed Norman to get right back in the thing.

Poulter was in the clubhouse at +7, Norman was +8. Harrington was +5. Harrington's pressure would have eased after a perfect tee shot, he would have been thinking about a 4, he may even have felt being in a bunker or missing the green was a 5, but mostly would have been thinking 'good swing'. 17 was effectively a tough 4 in the minds of those players. Like many on here they ignore the word par.

[tlavin]

Could we be seeing the emergence of a great to challenge Tiger? Is Padraig the next Tom Watson?

Considering Watson was a champion in his 20s and was less effective in his late 30 I don't think that's the one.

Harrington is more like Tom Kite, Mark O'Meara, Vijay Singh, Nick Price, and others in that he has been more competitive as he gets older.

I don't see him Watson-like at all.  Paddy must be 38.

We've been all searching for somebody to challenge Tiger.  The media surely have been lusting for a big challenger.  What we've seen is episodic bursts by various players, but we haven't really seen a prime challenger.  The tour is downplaying the need for somebody "new" to rise up during the brief period that Tiger will be on the mend.  I can understand why they're being circumspect.  Thus far, we've seen a bunch of people, young (Kim) and old (Perry, Norman) who have made a splash in Tiger's absence.  Mickelson has been his usual disappointing self.

Personally, I'd be thrilled to see Harrington win more events.  I was happy for him when he won at Westchester.  He was such a gentleman and such an enthusiastic winner that you just want to see him succeed.

[JSlonis]

Kalen,

I'll just disagree I guess.  With the goofy humps and bumps of that green, laying up and then hitting a wedge shot doesn't guarantee a par.  Balls that came up short of the tier that the hole was on often funneled back quite a ways.  Poulter three putted from down there, and many others left sizeable 2nd putts.

If you look at it from Harrington's perspective, as Kelly posted above, he was concerned with Norman.  He knew Norman was going to have a go at the green and knew that a birdie by himself would shut the door.  The Eagle was just a bonus.  I just don't see the risk for a big number like you do.

[Garland Bayley]

Could we be seeing the emergence of a great to challenge Tiger? Is Padraig the next Tom Watson?

Considering Watson was a champion in his 20s and was less effective in his late 30 I don't think that's the one.
..

I am not comparing them with respect to age. I am noting that Padraig's progression up the ranks of professional golf is similar to what Watson has stated his method for becoming a winner was. Tiger's method for becomming a winner gets a lot of press, but the number of players it has worked for can probably be counted on one set of toes of a three toed sloth. It just seems to me that Tiger does not give good advice on this, whereas Tom does. I suspect Padraig's progression will continue, and we may have the challenger everyone has been looking for.

[John_Conley]

So how is Padraig's progression any different than Price, Kite, Singh, et blah?

[BigEdSC]

I thought it was an incredible display of shotmaking.

I was sitting at the snack bar watching the back nine.  What was interesting was every foursome that came to the snack bar asked the same question, "How's Norman doing and who's winning?"  I replied that he wasn't playing so hot and Harrington is playing solid.  It seemed like the same response from everyone was, "well if Norman doesn't win, I really don't care who wins."

I just sat there dumbfounded and said to myself, boy, you are really missing history being made.

[Andrew Summerell]

The thing that impressed me about Harrington’s victory was his level-headed course management over the entire 4 rounds. It reminded me of what Tiger did at Royal Liverpool, eliminating the chance for his weaknesses to show, while elevating his strengths.

When he was 2 over after 4 holes on the first day, defending his title in extreme conditions, it would have been easy to let things go.

The Open Championship is my favourite of all the majors & the one that I will watch the most of. I basically saw Harrington’s performance from start to finish (as much as the TV broadcast allowed), & I thought all 4 rounds were superb.

[Garland Bayley]

So how is Padraig's progression any different than Price, Kite, Singh, et blah?

We'll see when he tames the tiger.
 

[David Lott]

Best back nine: Johnny Miller, 1963 U.S. Open at Oakmont.

#10: par
#11: birdie
#12: birdie
#13: birdie
#14: par (missed 12 footer for birdie)
#15: birdie
#16: par
#17: par (missed 10 footer)
#18: par (25 footer lips out)   

Greens in Regulation: 9 (all 18 for 18 holes)
Fairways hit: 8 (17 for 18 holes)(I count greens on par 3's as fairways.)
Who he overtook: Arnold Palmer, among others

Other factors:

He shot this amazing back nine after an equally hot front nine. Hard to do.

He had played terribly the day before, yet came back to do this.

He was 26 years old.

My only other candidate is Tiger’s bogey free final round at Pebble in 2000. He already had the tournament locked up, yet found a way to shoot another super round, having put pressure on himself (privately) to avoid a bogey.

The toughest act to follow is usually your own.





 

[Andrew Summerell]

#14: par (missed 12 footer for birdie)
#17: par (missed 10 footer)
#18: par (25 footer lips out)   

So, you are saying it was a poor putting back nine. 

[Mike Sweeney]

Until somebody shoots 7 under to come out of nowhere to win either the US or British Opens (because the PGA doesn't count), there isn't even a discussion to be had here....

When Jack comes back and does it in 30-40 MPH wind, we will end the conversation, till then the conversation continues............

[Phil McDade]

Jack didn't exactly come out of nowhere to win at Augusta -- it's that everyone thought he was past his prime and didn't think he still had it in him. He as 214 after three rounds, only four strokes back of 3rd round leader Norman, on a course that yielded another 65 that day and a 63 the day before. It's the manner in which he did it -- pretty spectacular birdies at 16 and 17 along with the eagle on 15 (and overcoming a bogey on 12 -- and who he did it against and passed along the way (Norman, Seve, Kite, Langer) that made it such a legendary comeback.

Interestingly, Player's better last round and just-as-good back nine -- 64 and 30 -- at Augusta in 1978 (the next best score that day was a 67) doesn't resonate with as many folks. Maybe leapfrogging Hubert Green, Rod Funseth, Wally Armstrong, and Bill Krtazert among others doesn't hold the same cache as the group Jack took down.

[Sean_A]

I agree with Terry that the spectacular fairway wood approach on seventeen lacks the context to be up there with Sarazen's double-eagle or the other all-time memorable shots. It is certainly as fine a bit of ball-striking as I've seen but it didn't remotely decide the Championship.

Apparently on the BBC coverage when Harrington's iron shot flew over the flagstick on eighteen Peter Alliss said something like "Oh my, now he's just showing off". Same could really be said about the wood on seventeen, he was just putting on a clinic by that point.

Brent

I don't know which tourny you were watching.   The one I watched saw the approach to 17 nearly seal the deal.  I don't believe Harrington thought par was good enough on the 17th if he wanted to be almost assured of a two shot cushion on the last - hence the reason he chased after the birdie.

Ciao

[Matt_Cohn]

There was only one Hall of Fame shot. Therefore, not greatest back 9 ever.

Jack in '86 hit at least four shots that brought chills, maybe more.

[Will MacEwen]

I think Mickelson's back nine at Augusta in 2004 would at least be top 10.  He really closed on Els, who had a pretty good day himself.  Remeber Feherty - "Els has one arm in the green jacket!" - it sure seemed that way at the time.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()