[Phil McDade]

But also the man won at Congressional, and that posed a more difficult test that Turnberry Ailsa is.  I could say the same about Bay Hill and Muirfield Village.  None was set up easy; heck each was pretty close to major champioship standard.  That's among the reasons Tiger chooses to play in those.

Let's see -- the winning score at Congressional was -13, with a -12 as runner-up, then -9, -8, two at -7, four at -6, five at -5, and four at -4. It yielded two 62s, four 64s, and several 65s, 66s and 67s -- that's close to major championship standards? Has Mike Davis gotten to you, too, Huck?

Muirfield was -12, -11, two at -8, three at -6, and two at -5. It yielded a 63 and a 64, and a bunch of under-par rounds. Bay Hill did play tough this year.

Tiger plays at Bay Hill and Muirfield because of Arnie and Jack. That those tourneys invite a lot of other high-caliber players is good for Tiger, but I think his primary motivation has always been to honor those two. Congressional's hosting the US Open, and he's the host of the darn thing, so I'm guessing that has something to do with him playing there...

[Sean Eidson]

Well, the mythic golfer is talented, but he's not super human.  He doesn't attack the golf course at will, he executes the shots that the course design dictates.  At the 16th at Augusta on Sunday, he'd aim at the pin and hit a cut.  The cut would land 10 feet right and just short of the hole, rolling down to within 3 feet.

The mythic golfer is the guy who writes the yardage guides you buy in the clubhouse.  Hit a draw down the left side to avoid the buker, hit a cut into the green because there's a backstop back right - bingo, bango, bongo.  It sounds so easy.

I aspire to play like the mythic golfer, though my 17 handicap only lets me do that on 1-2 shots per round.  The rest of the time, I am cursing the mythic golfer from the bunker.

To bring it back to your original post, Tiger's play at some times can teach us something about architecture.  Like Memorial this year, with its long rough and short-ish approach shots.  Tiger hit lots of 3-woods in the fairway and his approach shots were sublime.  In the majors this year, he's had bad breaks (weather) or just played poorly.  When I played Bethpage 4 years ago, I was struck by how flat and puttable the greens are, yet Tiger putts terribly this year?  That's not the architecture influencing his game, that's him putting terribly.

[Tom Huckaby]

Phil:

Point taken.  I overstated that.  

But it doesn't matter anyway.  The main point is that George's take is invalid based on size of sample.  

Good stuff on the Tiger behavior thread btw... very much food for thought.

TH

[George Pazin]

George - am I whistling in the wind?

 

I believe I refuted all of what you are trying to say here. The gauntlet is thrown down.  Go back and read my post.

I truly believe you can't make ANY conclusions based on Tiger's performances this year. It's just too small of a sample size.

Disagree?

I can't respond, all I hear is ringing in my ears.

Fair enough, sample size is admittedly a big bugaboo.

I would prefer it if someone would say, no, shooting X on hole Y had nothing to do with architecture or setup, this is why. But I can accept someone who disagrees on the limited sample.

Not that you're right, mind you, I just accept it as a valid argument.

-----

Excellent post, Phil McDade!

[Tom Huckaby]

George, thank you.  I am gonna live with this glory for quite awhile.

 

Seriously though... lack of sample does indeed refute the whole thing.  I know what you want to read, you just can't have that yet.

But perhaps we revisit this next year.

That is if you want to limit it to Tiger's play... make it broader and then we might be able to talk.

The problem is, you have no data there to support your thesis either... but there's a task for you - go out and find it.  I am just assuming it doesn't exist.  And my assumptions are very often wrong.

TH

[George Pazin]

Well, the mythic golfer is talented, but he's not super human.  He doesn't attack the golf course at will, he executes the shots that the course design dictates.  At the 16th at Augusta on Sunday, he'd aim at the pin and hit a cut.  The cut would land 10 feet right and just short of the hole, rolling down to within 3 feet.

The mythic golfer is the guy who writes the yardage guides you buy in the clubhouse.  Hit a draw down the left side to avoid the buker, hit a cut into the green because there's a backstop back right - bingo, bango, bongo.  It sounds so easy.

I aspire to play like the mythic golfer, though my 17 handicap only lets me do that on 1-2 shots per round.  The rest of the time, I am cursing the mythic golfer from the bunker.

To bring it back to your original post, Tiger's play at some times can teach us something about architecture.  Like Memorial this year, with its long rough and short-ish approach shots.  Tiger hit lots of 3-woods in the fairway and his approach shots were sublime.  In the majors this year, he's had bad breaks (weather) or just played poorly.  When I played Bethpage 4 years ago, I was struck by how flat and puttable the greens are, yet Tiger putts terribly this year?  That's not the architecture influencing his game, that's him putting terribly.

Another interesting post, although again, I tend to look at it from the exact opposite standpoint. A wise man on here - not me! - once stated that what really separates the truly great courses is how they handle the misses.

[George Pazin]

Seriously though... lack of sample does indeed refute the whole thing.  I know what you want to read, you just can't have that yet.

 I wouldn't say it refutes my thesis, merely weakens it.

Feel free to bask in the glory...for this weekend.

[Tom Huckaby]

Seriously though... lack of sample does indeed refute the whole thing.  I know what you want to read, you just can't have that yet.

 I wouldn't say it refutes my thesis, merely weakens it.

Feel free to bask in the glory...for this weekend.

I can live with "weakens."

Seriously though.. what weakens it most is basing this solely on Tiger.  Go find the other examples.  If they exist then you really have something.

TH

[Sean_A]

The difference this year was that Tiger didn't recover from his bad misses - its a simple as that.  He hit some shocking drives (which aren't shocking for Tiger, but shocking that he chose driver to hit) from which he didn't save par.  Its only a matter of a few shots from missing the cut or competing.

Ciao

[George Pazin]

The difference this year was that Tiger didn't recover from his bad misses - its a simple as that.  He hit some shocking drives (which aren't shocking for Tiger, but shocking that he chose driver to hit) from which he didn't save par.  Its only a matter of a few shots from missing the cut or competing.

Ciao

Okay, a valid observation.

Did the architecture have anything to do with the recovery shots not being up to snuff? Or was it simply execution?

Huck -

Very valid observations. Feel free to simply use Tiger as a metaphor for the field.

[Jim Nugent]

I agree with George.  Do you guys remember how Tiger was playing the last part of 2007 and early 2008?  Without having the exact stats, IIRC he was averaging in the mid-67's...winning 80% or more of all events he entered...on another one of his multi-win streaks (talk again about taking down Nelson)...basically demolishing everyone in sight.

Then he had his injury, his surgery, his missed 8-10 months of tournament play.  

His game has not returned yet.  No surprise.  He played no golf for many months, and no tournament golf for going on a year.  That's why he "only" won 3 tournaments this year, and missed the cut at the British Open.  If he returns to form, it will be all over for the other pro's again.  Just like it has been on his other extended streaks.  

[Sean Eidson]

Well, the mythic golfer is talented, but he's not super human.  He doesn't attack the golf course at will, he executes the shots that the course design dictates.  At the 16th at Augusta on Sunday, he'd aim at the pin and hit a cut.  The cut would land 10 feet right and just short of the hole, rolling down to within 3 feet.

The mythic golfer is the guy who writes the yardage guides you buy in the clubhouse.  Hit a draw down the left side to avoid the buker, hit a cut into the green because there's a backstop back right - bingo, bango, bongo.  It sounds so easy.

I aspire to play like the mythic golfer, though my 17 handicap only lets me do that on 1-2 shots per round.  The rest of the time, I am cursing the mythic golfer from the bunker.

To bring it back to your original post, Tiger's play at some times can teach us something about architecture.  Like Memorial this year, with its long rough and short-ish approach shots.  Tiger hit lots of 3-woods in the fairway and his approach shots were sublime.  In the majors this year, he's had bad breaks (weather) or just played poorly.  When I played Bethpage 4 years ago, I was struck by how flat and puttable the greens are, yet Tiger putts terribly this year?  That's not the architecture influencing his game, that's him putting terribly.

Another interesting post, although again, I tend to look at it from the exact opposite standpoint. A wise man on here - not me! - once stated that what really separates the truly great courses is how they handle the misses.

Now we're getting somewhere.  I prefer to look at how a great course or hole inspires and rewards great shot making.  You prefer to look at how a great course inspires and punishes poor shot making.

As an example, my home course has a very long (~585 from my tees) par 5 where the tee shot plays about 50 feet down hill to a wide fairway.  It's a very heroic shot that flies in the air forever.  There's a creek that crosses the fairway ~300 yards out.  The creek feeds a pond on the right that comes back another 50-60 yards.

The mythic golfer plays 3W off the tee, runs to the end of the fairway, but short of the creek.  Now he has the choice of going for the green with another 3W or laying up to a wedge-in.  He decides based on the accessibility of the pin on a tricky, but accepting green.  He's making his decisions based on the rewards of each outcome.

I hit driver, and flare it out to the right.  Where I flirt with the pond, and land in the rough.  Now I'm deciding between a 50-60 yard chip out short of the creek, a full shot short iron over that leaves a long approach, or hybrid over to a shorter approach.  I'm making my decisions based on the risks of each shot and chance of disaster.

I prefer to envision and evaluate the architecture from the perspective of rewarding mythic golfer, not punishing my stinky game.  I guess it's a coping mechanism.

And I would agree whole heartedly that the guy who bombs it 340 over the creek to a short iron approach should either play from different tees or go jump off a cliff.

[George Pazin]

Now we're getting somewhere.  I prefer to look at how a great course or hole inspires and rewards great shot making.  You prefer to look at how a great course inspires and punishes poor shot making.

Actually, you haven't been around enough to understand that I prefer to focus on how golf courses accommodate missed shots, offering difficult yet possible recovery shots.

I believe shot making encompasses - no, embraces - the recovery shot. I'm not a fan of those who evaluate based solely on the ideal shot.

[Sean_A]

The difference this year was that Tiger didn't recover from his bad misses - its a simple as that.  He hit some shocking drives (which aren't shocking for Tiger, but shocking that he chose driver to hit) from which he didn't save par.  Its only a matter of a few shots from missing the cut or competing.

Ciao

Okay, a valid observation.

Did the architecture have anything to do with the recovery shots not being up to snuff? Or was it simply execution?

Huck -

Very valid observations. Feel free to simply use Tiger as a metaphor for the field.

George

Well, Tiger lost a ball - this is fairly rare.  On that same hole, Tiger chose the aggressive play with a driver - trying to hold a draw into a cross wind.  On any cross wind hole the fairway becomes very narrow and penal given the state of the rough.  Its not the time to get aggressive.  So its likely execution as much as management.  Tiger is more than capable of hitting long irons off the tees and for approaches - witness Hoylake.  Like all links at this time of year if the wind blows, it is designed for patient, plodding play. 

Ciao   

[Paul_Turner]

George

I remember you've defended Tiger on this point before  ...but is Tiger just not as good in tough weather conditions? 

It could just be random chance but he obviously struggled today when it blew a bit and had a rotten time in the sleet and hail at Muirfield in 2002.  He's never been great at Carnoustie which had poor weather both times (relative to other Opens). 

He did play well at Birkdale in 1998 which had some really severe weather, coming in third but that's all I can think of.

[Pete_Pittock]

Dan Callahan is right in mentioning the divot on the 10th tee today. It was similar to a deep divot on a ball in the right rough yesterday midway through the return nine. Don't remember seeing those before. If there were trees around he could have been mirroring Phil He'll have it back at Firestone.

[Peter Pallotta]

George - don't know if we can learn something about gca from Tiger's performance alone, but those big greens -- the high percentage of greens in regulation that result, the nature and frequency of recovery shots...its just very interesting, gca wise

Peter

[George Pazin]

George

I remember you've defended Tiger on this point before  ...but is Tiger just not as good in tough weather conditions? 

It could just be random chance but he obviously struggled today when it blew a bit and had a rotten time in the sleet and hail at Muirfield in 2002.  He's never been great at Carnoustie which had poor weather both times (relative to other Opens). 

He did play well at Birkdale in 1998 which had some really severe weather, coming in third but that's all I can think of.

IF by defending you mean arguing passionately to the point of irrationality, well, that's where you're right!

Could just be the weather, I like simple and clear explanations like that. Could just have been an off day or two, which is also simple, yet a little odd in that Tiger really doesn't have off days, his short game is usually too good.

It's really probably a combination of everything, which leads me to the following discovery I made last night:

IF YOU HAVE NOT HAD KNEE RECONSTRUCTION SURGERY, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO COMMENT ON TIGER'S PLAY ANYMORE!!

I think that rule oughta really thin the field in future discussions of Tiger.

 

[Kalen Braley]

I agree with George.  Do you guys remember how Tiger was playing the last part of 2007 and early 2008?  Without having the exact stats, IIRC he was averaging in the mid-67's...winning 80% or more of all events he entered...on another one of his multi-win streaks (talk again about taking down Nelson)...basically demolishing everyone in sight.
 

Jim,

Nice try.  Here are his actual numbers for 2007 and 2008.

11 wins in 22 events overall - 50% winning ratio
2 wins in 6 events for majors - 33% winning ratio

And once again, even though he's "only" won 3 out of 10 this year...its already a great year that anyone else on Tour would die for.

[Jim Nugent]

Kalen, look at his record at the end of 2007.  From the PGA on, and maybe one or two events before that.  Extend that into early 2008. 

I bet you find the stats are what I said, or close to it. 

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen, look at his record at the end of 2007.  From the PGA on, and maybe one or two events before that.  Extend that into early 2008. 

I bet you find the stats are what I said, or close to it. 

Jim

I do realize he had a hot finish to 2007, and thats all fine and good.  I just think its kinda silly to compare Tigers current performance to short time periods for legitimate comparisons.

If we're doing that why don't we compare current Tiger to the 2004 time frame. In that year he only won 1 of 19 events for a measly 5% winning percentage.  So by those standards he's playing pretty damn goodright now isn't he?

[Kalen Braley]

Jim,

As mentioned above, the best comparison of Tigers performance is to match them against his career numbers, not just arbitrary streaks where he either got hot or cold. I went to PGAtour.com and tallied up all of his results from 2009-1996 and put them in a xls...and here's what we have.

Overall he's won 68 of 235 sanctioned PGA tour events for a winning % of 29%.
In majors he's errily similar winning 14 of 48 for 29% as well.

I also tallied up his average finish in majors as a pro and it works out to 12.2th place on average.  (this assumes 75th place for his two missed cuts.  Without those two missed cuts tallied in, he averages 9.6th place in each major).

Lets now look at how his numbers from this year stack up to his career average.

In 2009 he's won 3 out of 10 tournaments for a 30% winning percentage which is basically his career average.
He's also finished in 6th place in 2 of his 3 majors this year which are both above average.

So how or where is Tiger underperforming or otherwise as we compare this year to his career numbers?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()