Was it the architecture, the setup or the golfer?

[Kalen Braley]

Andy,

I'm guessing George is still trying to convince us "doubters/haters" that it couldn't possibly be Tiger to blame for his poor weekend performance.  Tiger is obviously back after his two wins this year so it must have been the course that "changed" to explain it.

Cause the Tiger of old..aka the newly rejuvinated Tiger would have never wilted after having a 36 hole lead 

[George Pazin]

A sad post from Kalen, totally missing my point...

I am saying Tiger IS NOT the same player as before, so he is more affected by the architecture. And while he is a just a top 10 pro physically, I just don't believe he is just a top 10 player mentally. I don't think you lose that side, ever. He is still immune to the pressure, he is just not immune to the mistakes, as he was before. He is making mistakes and paying the price, instead of making mistakes and escaping, because he does not have the short game and putting that he had before.

My point is that great architecture causes the golfer to experience other problems that less great architecture does not. Sorry, but I don't think MV or Bay Hill compare to Augusta and Olympic.

I am in no way FAULTING Olympic for exposing Tiger's current weaknesses, I am CELEBRATING it.

[Kalen Braley]

I was just busting your balls George its all good.   

That being said...I've never bought the architecture argument as it concerns the best players in the world.  I'm utterly and completely convinced, Phil and Tiger could hold a grudge match on my home course here in Liberty Lake, (which is a Doak 3 tops)...and if they both played good golf and battled to the end for a thrilling finish on 18, it would make for compelling TV and massive ratings.  When it comes to great golf on TV, 99% of peeps tune in for the fight and drama, not for the architecture.

[Phil McDade]

George:

Just to continue the dialogue....

Great US Open courses (in no particular order): Pebble Beach, Shinnecock Hills, Oakmont, Merion (at one time). Near-great: Winged Foot, Pinehurst, The Country Club (at Brookline).

Great golfers (based on records in majors): Jack, Tiger, Hogan, Jones, Player. Near-greats: Palmer, Watson, Snead, Trevino, Hagen, Sarazen.

[Matthew Petersen]

George,

I don't disagree with your points except that I think what you're attributing to architecture is really more to do with the setup. Augusta and Olympic are the hardest, fastest courses these guys have played so far this year. Olympic certainly had the nastiest rough they will see all year.

Mow that rough down and play a tournament at Olympic in December when the course is much softer ... and you'd see guys having a much easier time.

In the case of Tiger, he didn't seem to have any issue with the shots required or the way the course "fits his eye." His issues were with green speeds and the firmness of the course, at least based on his comments.

Obviously the archtecture plays somewhat of a role (there are some tour courses that could play as hard and fast as a US Open track and still the pros would beat them up), but you have to give setup its fair slot as well.

[Andy Troeger]

George,
I'm not sure if you've ever played competitive golf, but confidence is far more fragile than the physical swing. The thought that Tiger couldn't possibly lose his mental edge is radical, to say the least.

The mental and physical are also very related. Its tough to remain confident in the face of poor results. Tiger coming back to win events is a testament to his mental fortitude, but he's not immune to the pressure IMO.

Agreed with Matthew's comments about setup vs architecture. If Olympic is better architecturally than Muirfield Village (which I've played on a "regular" day, then it wouldn't be by much.

[Phil McDade]

Matthew:

Tiger also suggested, as I noted in an earlier post, that indecision played a role in his poor play, i.e., being in between clubs on a bunch of shots on Saturday. That's not an architecture thing, that's a mental thing. Because the Tiger of old never worried about "being in between" clubs -- he had shots for every situation he'd faced (the chip-in at Augusta on the 16th that took two minutes to unfold? The shot at Hazeltine out of the bunker that nearly won him a PGA? The gazillion other shots he came up with in majors to win them that no one else even tried?).

The Tiger of today strikes me as a very good player, probably one of the 10 or so best on the planet, week-in-and-week-out, but full of the same uncertainty that strikes 99 percent of the players who have ever played at that level. I can think of very few players, for fairly narrow periods of time in the modern arge (Jack mid-60s and early 70s, Tiger early 2000s and mid-2000s, Trevino early 70s, Johnny Miller for a very brief time), who haven't faced that, and pretty much ran over everyone who tried to get in their way of winning a tournament.

[Matthew Petersen]

Matthew:

Tiger also suggested, as I noted in an earlier post, that indecision played a role in his poor play, i.e., being in between clubs on a bunch of shots on Saturday. That's not an architecture thing, that's a mental thing. Because the Tiger of old never worried about "being in between" clubs -- he had shots for every situation he'd faced (the chip-in at Augusta on the 16th that took two minutes to unfold? The shot at Hazeltine out of the bunker that nearly won him a PGA? The gazillion other shots he came up with in majors to win them that no one else even tried?).

The Tiger of today strikes me as a very good player, probably one of the 10 or so best on the planet, week-in-and-week-out, but full of the same uncertainty that strikes 99 percent of the players who have ever played at that level. I can think of very few players, for fairly narrow periods of time in the modern arge (Jack mid-60s and early 70s, Tiger early 2000s and mid-2000s, Trevino early 70s, Johnny Miller for a very brief time), who haven't faced that, and pretty much ran over everyone who tried to get in their way of winning a tournament.

I agree, Phil, that it's mostly Tiger. To the extent that it's not I do think it's the course set up more than the course architecture, however. For example, his concern on those in between shots is more to do with how firm it is, how much the shot will roll out on the green, etc ... rather than the strategic nature of the golf shot.

[Kalen Braley]

Matthew:

Tiger also suggested, as I noted in an earlier post, that indecision played a role in his poor play, i.e., being in between clubs on a bunch of shots on Saturday. That's not an architecture thing, that's a mental thing. Because the Tiger of old never worried about "being in between" clubs -- he had shots for every situation he'd faced (the chip-in at Augusta on the 16th that took two minutes to unfold? The shot at Hazeltine out of the bunker that nearly won him a PGA? The gazillion other shots he came up with in majors to win them that no one else even tried?).

The Tiger of today strikes me as a very good player, probably one of the 10 or so best on the planet, week-in-and-week-out, but full of the same uncertainty that strikes 99 percent of the players who have ever played at that level. I can think of very few players, for fairly narrow periods of time in the modern arge (Jack mid-60s and early 70s, Tiger early 2000s and mid-2000s, Trevino early 70s, Johnny Miller for a very brief time), who haven't faced that, and pretty much ran over everyone who tried to get in their way of winning a tournament.

I agree, Phil, that it's mostly Tiger. To the extent that it's not I do think it's the course set up more than the course architecture, however. For example, his concern on those in between shots is more to do with how firm it is, how much the shot will roll out on the green, etc ... rather than the strategic nature of the golf shot.

Matt,

By definition, Isn't trying to figure out how much it will roll and release using "strategy".  So the rolling out of the ball is indeed apart of its strategic nature...which is all good stuff in my book.  Watching these guys throw darts at greens all day long....not so much.

[Jason Topp]

My current theory (probably based on Haney) is that Tiger has two big weaknesses right now:

1.  He is not confident enough to hit a driver in play to a tight fairway
2.  He misses some short putts

He should have been leading by about 4 after two rounds of the US Open because he missed a couple in each of the first two rounds.  He then missed a couple of putts in the third round, started to lose his swing just a bit and then fell apart at the end of the round. 

He seems to have addressed his awful chipping this year but I suspect he will have a hard time at Lytham because it is so tight and then at Kiawah provided it is set up long enough to require the driver off the tee. 

Nonetheless, he hits so many good shots now I would not be surpised if it clicks and he goes on a tear at some point. 

[Matthew Petersen]

Matthew:

Tiger also suggested, as I noted in an earlier post, that indecision played a role in his poor play, i.e., being in between clubs on a bunch of shots on Saturday. That's not an architecture thing, that's a mental thing. Because the Tiger of old never worried about "being in between" clubs -- he had shots for every situation he'd faced (the chip-in at Augusta on the 16th that took two minutes to unfold? The shot at Hazeltine out of the bunker that nearly won him a PGA? The gazillion other shots he came up with in majors to win them that no one else even tried?).

The Tiger of today strikes me as a very good player, probably one of the 10 or so best on the planet, week-in-and-week-out, but full of the same uncertainty that strikes 99 percent of the players who have ever played at that level. I can think of very few players, for fairly narrow periods of time in the modern arge (Jack mid-60s and early 70s, Tiger early 2000s and mid-2000s, Trevino early 70s, Johnny Miller for a very brief time), who haven't faced that, and pretty much ran over everyone who tried to get in their way of winning a tournament.

I agree, Phil, that it's mostly Tiger. To the extent that it's not I do think it's the course set up more than the course architecture, however. For example, his concern on those in between shots is more to do with how firm it is, how much the shot will roll out on the green, etc ... rather than the strategic nature of the golf shot.

Matt,

By definition, Isn't trying to figure out how much it will roll and release using "strategy".  So the rolling out of the ball is indeed apart of its strategic nature...which is all good stuff in my book.  Watching these guys throw darts at greens all day long....not so much.

Kalen, of course it's strategy, but it's strategy dictated by the conditions (the "setup" as termed in the thread title), not strategy inherent to the golf course (angles, slopes, etc.). That's the distinction.

[Phil McDade]

Jason:

I'd agree, and add one more factor: Tiger faces more competition these days for majors than during his great runs of the past. I'm of the view that Tiger intimidated a whole era of golfers -- Els, Furyk, Mickelson among them -- with his stupendous and clutch play at majors. I think now we have a bunch of players -- Webb Simpson at age 26 could be their poster boy -- who largely missed the Tiger hurricane, and aren't necessarily intimidated by his presence on the leaderboard. Notable, to me, that the two other guys tied with Tiger halfway through -- Furyk and Toms -- were among his peers who he steamrolled and both fell short at this year's Open. Simpson was six back of Tiger halfway through, and put up two 68s on the board -- easily the best player of the weekend. That didn't used to happen.

[Garland Bayley]

George,
I'm not sure if you've ever played competitive golf, but confidence is far more fragile than the physical swing. The thought that Tiger couldn't possibly lose his mental edge is radical, to say the least.
...

BINGO

[George Pazin]

Ok, some good stuff, don't really have time to address it all, but I'll do a quick reply.

Matthew, I agree with you almost 100% - setup really goes hand in hand with architecture. If one is off, the other suffers along with it. The only minor thing I'd differ over is I think MV aims to have a setup almost identical to ANGC (working off what others have said, not my personal experience with either). I don't recall it being wet at MV this year, but I wasn't paying too close attention, either. Yet Augusta exposed Tiger and MV did not. Might have just been a timing thing with Tiger playing better lately, but I think the architecture had something to do with it as well.

George,
I'm not sure if you've ever played competitive golf, but confidence is far more fragile than the physical swing. The thought that Tiger couldn't possibly lose his mental edge is radical, to say the least.

The mental and physical are also very related. Its tough to remain confident in the face of poor results. Tiger coming back to win events is a testament to his mental fortitude, but he's not immune to the pressure IMO.

Agreed with Matthew's comments about setup vs architecture. If Olympic is better architecturally than Muirfield Village (which I've played on a "regular" day, then it wouldn't be by much.

I'm not saying Tiger can't possibly lose his mental edge, I'm saying his discomfort with the architecture/setup were what caused him to lose it a bit, not other things related to golf.

Do you seriously think Tiger could take the journey he's taken, from toddler golf through teen prodigy through some of the best golf ever played through lesser times back to the top, then the injuries and personal crap, and lose his mental game? That's the strongest part of his game. The fact that he was off mentally and physically at ANGC and Olympic but not Bay Hill and MV implies that the architecture may have been a large factor. Certainly he plays MV & BH far more than Olympic, so familiarity likely played a role as well, but I think the additional challenges posed by Olympic and Augusta were the biggest factor in his (relatively) poor play.

[Jason Thurman]

The architecture at Augusta had nothing to do with Tiger hitting 20 duck-hooks the first two days of The Masters. If we're going to attribute causation to architecture, then the architecture must affect at least the majority of players. If 70 guys in the field duck-hooked their way around the course, you could point to architecture. The fact that it was just one guy means he was struggling with his swing. It happens to everyone, even 14 time major champions.

[Andy Troeger]

I'm not saying Tiger can't possibly lose his mental edge, I'm saying his discomfort with the architecture/setup were what caused him to lose it a bit, not other things related to golf.

Do you seriously think Tiger could take the journey he's taken, from toddler golf through teen prodigy through some of the best golf ever played through lesser times back to the top, then the injuries and personal crap, and lose his mental game? That's the strongest part of his game. The fact that he was off mentally and physically at ANGC and Olympic but not Bay Hill and MV implies that the architecture may have been a large factor. Certainly he plays MV & BH far more than Olympic, so familiarity likely played a role as well, but I think the additional challenges posed by Olympic and Augusta were the biggest factor in his (relatively) poor play.

George,
I've said what I can say. The fact that he managed to avoid appearing human for a long period of time does not mean he's not still in fact human and subject to the same mental issues as the rest of us. Its not only possible but LIKELY that he's lost his mental edge some. How could you go through what he's gone through the last few years and NOT be different internally? I'm impressed he has enough resolve to do what he's doing. I don't think the architecture has much of anything to do with it. Golf is a mental game and it eventually it gets us all.

[Doug Siebert]

Jason:

I'd agree, and add one more factor: Tiger faces more competition these days for majors than during his great runs of the past. I'm of the view that Tiger intimidated a whole era of golfers -- Els, Furyk, Mickelson among them -- with his stupendous and clutch play at majors. I think now we have a bunch of players -- Webb Simpson at age 26 could be their poster boy -- who largely missed the Tiger hurricane, and aren't necessarily intimidated by his presence on the leaderboard. Notable, to me, that the two other guys tied with Tiger halfway through -- Furyk and Toms -- were among his peers who he steamrolled and both fell short at this year's Open. Simpson was six back of Tiger halfway through, and put up two 68s on the board -- easily the best player of the weekend. That didn't used to happen.

That's true, but Tiger's intimidation was irrelevant at Olympic because he shot himself out of the tournament on Saturday.  Part of that intimidation was that once he has the lead in a major, he doesn't give it up.  That's out the window these days, so that intimidation will never be back - certainly not for the younger players who never saw Tiger win a major from inside the ropes!

[George Pazin]

So two more starts - a win and a MC. On Congressional and Greenbriar, respectively.

Still think it's just the golfer and not the architecture?

I'm actually shifting toward the golfer, but I'm still hoping that some of our Olympic posters will share their insights, thus the dreaded self-bump.

[Phil McDade]

So two more starts - a win and a MC. On Congressional and Greenbriar, respectively.

Still think it's just the golfer and not the architecture?

I'm actually shifting toward the golfer, but I'm still hoping that some of our Olympic posters will share their insights, thus the dreaded self-bump.

George:

Golfer.

I follow some sports more closely than others, but golf continues to remind me how inconsistent its very best players can be, week in and week out. It's the nature of the sport, where there is a very fine line between excelling (Tiger at Congressional) and not (US Open, Greenbriar).

Take swimming. I just watched most of the Olympic swimming trials, and although there were certainly some surprises, mostly there weren't. It's absolutely not surprising that Phelps and Lochte emerged as the top swimmers in their events -- it would've been downright shocking if they weren't. Same with tennis -- anyone surprised that Federer, Djokovic and Murray were among the last four standing? Sure, Nadal got beat early, but his place in the semi's wasn't exactly taken by a nobody -- Tsongas was the 5th seed!

Golf seems more akin to baseball, where the very best teams are a sure bet to lose a third of their games every year, and players like Luke Scott can find their way onto a very good major league roster (Rays), go 0-for-41, then hit a home run to help beat my Tribe yesterday.

[Jason Thurman]

If it's the architecture or the setup, you'll have to explain to me how Tiger played four rounds at Olympic under the same conditions with such wildly variant results. The architecture and setup were the same all four days, but the golfer's performance was inconsistent.

[George Pazin]

If it's the architecture or the setup, you'll have to explain to me how Tiger played four rounds at Olympic under the same conditions with such wildly variant results. The architecture and setup were the same all four days, but the golfer's performance was inconsistent.

This is a very fair observation, and I am thrilled you posted this, because I think it gets at the heart of a serious flaw in most folks interpretation of golf results in relation to architecture. I could - and likely should - write an essay on this, but I will try to be more succinct here.

Imho, the line between success and failure, particularly under the extreme setups and extreme pressure of tournament golf, is so fine that it's possible to shoot a significantly different - say, 75 versus 70 - score, while the play is almost the same. So many base their conclusions on outcomes of sample sizes that are far too few to be meaningful, yet most do it, and do it repeatedly.

As a simple example, if one plays a certain hole that favors, say, the right side of the fairway one or two or even four times, it's possible that this favoring will not be revealed, due to an excellent shot. If one plays it many times, it's almost certain that the favoring will become obvious.

Hope that makes sense without being either too cryptic or too simplistic.

[Phil McDade]

George:

What's an appropriate sample size?

[George Pazin]

34.233





Obviously, it differs from golfer to golfer, observer to observer. I suspect it wouldn't take someone who relies on cunning play and a good short game very long, might take a bomb and gouge guy a lot longer, some folks might never see it.

It would obviously only take Matt Ward one play. He sees all and knows all.