News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Greg Beaulieu

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tiger's fatal flaw?
« Reply #50 on: July 23, 2012, 12:35:53 PM »
Is there a case that Tiger would do better with a new bag of implements and balls?  Is his big endorsement deal w/Nike an anchor around his neck? 

I think in the early days of him switching to Nike products you could make this case. Their early clubs were not particularly good and it seemed clear to me that he was only playing them because he was being paid handsomely to do so, his public comments to the contrary notwithstanding. Interesting that it was not until relatively recently that he abandoned his last Titleist club, the Cameron putter, for a Nike clone, after a long attempt by Nike to produce something he could live with.

But I think, in general, for the last few years the Nike hardware is probably comparable to most others on tour. I believe his problems, such as they are, are largely between his ears. He seems a very tortured person these days, almost lost at times, perhaps his own worst enemy. I have no sympathy for him because most of his problems are from his own hand, and I believe he is a pretty lousy person, but it is still difficult to watch someone with the talent he obviously has unable to harness it at important times the way he used to.

Greg Beaulieu

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tiger's fatal flaw?
« Reply #51 on: July 23, 2012, 12:39:31 PM »
No, I don't expect frankness or even truth from Tiger. Not his style. I guess I just happen to agree with his "nothing" this time around. Dude was putting more like Woody Austin than Tiger Woods this week.

I think he found it a lot easier to be a great putter when his short irons were stopping a few feet from the hole. Now when his is hitting wedges to 30 feet it is a lot more difficult to be a good putter.

Wade Whitehead

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tiger's fatal flaw?
« Reply #52 on: July 23, 2012, 12:41:30 PM »
To the equipment question: It's inconceivable to me that a player would win 13 majors with the same putter (having one the 1997 Masters with a slightly different one) and switch.  His blades are essentially the same as the Mizunos and Titleists with which he started his career.  To give up the mojo associated with his Cameron boggles my mind.

WW

JSlonis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tiger's fatal flaw?
« Reply #53 on: July 23, 2012, 12:45:04 PM »
To say that he was scared of his driver this week is silly.  He had a game plan and stuck to it.  If he had won everyone would be saying how brilliant he was for leaving the driver in the bag.  fyi- he's currently 3rd on tour in Overall Driving.

I'll play devil's advocate...Don't you think his game plan for the week was somewhat influenced by his lack of trust in the driver.  Saw many more drivers from Els and Scott.  Els bombed driver on #18 both Sat and Sunday and took those short left bunkers out of play. There is no question in watching Tiger play that he avoids his driver if possible.  Hank Haney would tell you that and Foley if honest, would say it as well.

Tiger is undoubtably one of the best ever but from my perspective his gameplan at Lytham this week did not give him enough good opportunities to make birdies. I don't care how good you are, you're just not going to get many good looks when your hitting approaches from 180-220 yds all day.  Even on a couple of the short holes, Tiger had 150+ yds in. Obviously Lytham was a very tough course for everyone. They didn't really tear it up the first 3 days in near perfect conditions.  I was just surprised that he didn't step on the pedal a bit and try to take advantage of his length on a couple of the short par 4's.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2012, 01:55:41 PM by JSlonis »

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tiger's fatal flaw?
« Reply #54 on: July 23, 2012, 12:45:43 PM »
Some time and somewhere recently I read some golfer of the past and of note who said:

"You only have one point of maximum acceleration on any golf swing--make sure that it is as late as possible."

Tiger is accelerating far too early.  Scott, who was and still is a (Butch Harmon) Tiger clone, accelerates at the proper point of the swing.

Game, set and match.....
That quote doesn't make much sense in terms of the physics.  Surely the key. Is to ensure that the moment of maximum club head velocity coincides with impact with the ball, in which case it's highly likely that the point of maximum acceleration is significantly before impact?  It the point of maximum acceleration is late, then theclubhead will b accelerating through and after impact, which is inefficient and must lead to a loss of distance.
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tiger's fatal flaw?
« Reply #55 on: July 23, 2012, 01:57:49 PM »
What he really needs is a belly putter or a broom stick like Adam has chosen.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tiger's fatal flaw?
« Reply #56 on: July 23, 2012, 01:59:02 PM »
What he really needs is a belly putter or a broom stick like Adam has chosen.


Garland -- I will win the Masters before that happens. Too much pride for him to do that.

Tim Pitner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tiger's fatal flaw?
« Reply #57 on: July 23, 2012, 03:22:33 PM »
Doug Siebert,

It was amazing how the field used to fall away from him, unlike anything I've ever seen on the PGA Tour.

To me, from my limited vantage point, many of his swings look like he's trying to muscle the ball.

His swing used to seem much smoother, less reliant on his big muscles

I think it's pretty clear that his legs -- particularly his knees -- are still giving him trouble. He was limping noticeably when he got up from that awkward squat on the edge of the greenside bunker.

The way he's digging at the ball and the way he's become so right-side dominant to take pressure off his left leg, I will not be surprised when he comes down with some sort of right wrist, elbow or shoulder injury.  He's basically switched to the same sort of Trevinoish left-side-open, right side shove (to take out the left side of the course) that landed me with medial epicondyllitis in the right elbow... It's a great swing, and it'll protect the left side of both your body and the golf course ... assuming the right side of your body can stand up to it...

Maybe that's the swing his body requires at this point, but it does seem to have taken away one of his big advantages--that he could hit all the shots better than anyone else.  His ball-striking on Sunday was not good.

Matthew Petersen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tiger's fatal flaw?
« Reply #58 on: July 24, 2012, 02:59:01 PM »
No, I don't expect frankness or even truth from Tiger. Not his style. I guess I just happen to agree with his "nothing" this time around. Dude was putting more like Woody Austin than Tiger Woods this week.

I think he found it a lot easier to be a great putter when his short irons were stopping a few feet from the hole. Now when his is hitting wedges to 30 feet it is a lot more difficult to be a good putter.

Greg,

I think it's almost the opposite case. Tiger from 97-08 had no fear of drilling a putt 3-4 feet by the hole because he was absolutely confident he could make the comebacker. As a result, he holed a ton of putts that everyone else in the field was more cautious with. And he virtually never missed the comebackers. On the rare occasions he did, he didn't let it bother him.

When he started missing the 3-4 footers, he got more cautious with his first putts. To some extent that may have echoed all the way down through his game. He was always a magician at making pars out of very serious trouble, and the main reason wasn't absurd creativity at recovery like with Mickelson (though he had a flair for that) but that he could make a 20-footer for par if he needed to (and in terms of being cautious with your first putt, almost everyone is even more cautious with a 20-footer for par than the same putt for birdie).

Now he fears ever getting into trouble, off the tee, on approaches, and around the greens. All an echo back from his newfound mortality w/r/t to the putter.

Chris DeNigris

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tiger's fatal flaw?
« Reply #59 on: July 24, 2012, 04:18:53 PM »
Well...for a guy who can't putt, has no short game, is striking the ball horribly, doesn't trust his driver, can barely walk and had a bass ackwards strategy at Royal Lytham...finishing at -3 in 3rd place and one pulled approach away from a possible Open Championship- that must go down as one of the most Amazing performances in all of golf history.

When Tiger gets just a few of those fatal flaws worked out he's going to be winning each week by a dozen shots.

He was never quite as good as people remember and he's not nearly as weak as many characterize him now.

He's still the best golfer on the planet though.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tiger's fatal flaw?
« Reply #60 on: July 24, 2012, 04:44:17 PM »

JSlonis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tiger's fatal flaw?
« Reply #61 on: July 24, 2012, 08:21:46 PM »
Well...for a guy who can't putt, has no short game, is striking the ball horribly, doesn't trust his driver, can barely walk and had a bass ackwards strategy at Royal Lytham...finishing at -3 in 3rd place and one pulled approach away from a possible Open Championship- that must go down as one of the most Amazing performances in all of golf history.

When Tiger gets just a few of those fatal flaws worked out he's going to be winning each week by a dozen shots.

He was never quite as good as people remember and he's not nearly as weak as many characterize him now.

He's still the best golfer on the planet though.

Chris,

I wouldn't call any of the things I pointed out in this thread as fatal flaws.  I clearly see them as areas of his game that are not currently as good as they were before. We all remember his "iron only" performance at Hoylake in 2006 but it's tough to compare that to this year at Lytham. From just a course perspective, Hoylake was baked out pretty good and Lytham was soft for a links.  I also think his short game was superior in 2006. Even if his ball striking was similar, he gave away yards to the field on his approaches all week. That combined with a short game that's no longer the best leaves him less margin for error.  I'd agree that he's still the best player in the world right now but he used to be able to win when all facets weren't clicking.  I don't see that anymore.

I'd disagree with you on one thing...I actually think he was better than people remember.  He was beyond dominant. If you recall at one point, when he was #1, there was a time where the point differential between 1 and 2 was great than it was from 2 to 200. He also made 142 cuts in a row!  That's insane! He's missed less cuts in his entire career than most top players miss in a couple of years.


Brad Isaacs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tiger's fatal flaw?
« Reply #62 on: July 25, 2012, 08:55:55 AM »
The R&A and USGA have yet to act on attached to the body putting. Once that occurs, Tiger is
in a playoff for the Open.

Brent Hutto

Re: Tiger's fatal flaw?
« Reply #63 on: July 25, 2012, 09:00:17 AM »
Yeah, because everybody knows Ernie Els never won jack-shit with a regular putter.

Brad Isaacs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tiger's fatal flaw?
« Reply #64 on: July 25, 2012, 09:11:46 AM »
Yeah, because everybody knows Ernie Els never won jack-shit with a regular putter.


I thought Ernie won three majors with a short putter before he lost his putting stroke. :)

Brent Hutto

Re: Tiger's fatal flaw?
« Reply #65 on: July 25, 2012, 09:17:42 AM »
Then obviously it was not the long putter that caused him to win this year's Open, eh? Ernie just wins a major every few years no matter what kind of clubs he's using. Probably something to do with talent or some such...

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tiger's fatal flaw?
« Reply #66 on: July 25, 2012, 09:33:13 AM »
The biggest problem in talking about Tiger is the comparison will inevitably himself during the golden years.  Thats a tough standard even for Tiger to meet.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024:Winterfield, Alnmouth, Camden, Palmetto Bluff Crossroads Course, Colleton River Dye Course  & Old Barnwell

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tiger's fatal flaw?
« Reply #67 on: July 25, 2012, 01:12:47 PM »
Tiger's fatal flaw is his patience, something all of his critics lack.

 :)

He'll never be Tiger 2K again, but I don't know if anyone else will, either. He will win a lot more regular events, and more majors as well. Some sportswriter noted that the biggest thing Tiger and Jack did was constantly put themselves in the mix, which allowed them to come away with wins a good bit of the time. Tiger won't have 6-10-15 stroke victories in majors anymore, but he will put himself in the mix often enough to win a few more.

It's incredible how much criticism he takes for top 5s, and it's simply a matter of time before a few become top 1s. Then we'll see how all those guys who aren't intimidated by him anymore react.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tiger's fatal flaw?
« Reply #68 on: July 25, 2012, 02:44:52 PM »
Tiger's fatal flaw is his patience, something all of his critics lack.

 :)

He'll never be Tiger 2K again, but I don't know if anyone else will, either. He will win a lot more regular events, and more majors as well. Some sportswriter noted that the biggest thing Tiger and Jack did was constantly put themselves in the mix, which allowed them to come away with wins a good bit of the time. Tiger won't have 6-10-15 stroke victories in majors anymore, but he will put himself in the mix often enough to win a few more.

It's incredible how much criticism he takes for top 5s, and it's simply a matter of time before a few become top 1s. Then we'll see how all those guys who aren't intimidated by him anymore react.

George:

Tiger gets scrutinized (and even criticized) because he's not Ernie Els or Phil Mickelson; he's one of the two best golfers to ever walk the planet. His majors record is what matters, by his own doing; Tiger's the one who has said he wants to be judged on his record in majors, and considers his foremost goal in golf to beating Nicklaus' record wins in majors.

I think you raise a good point about being in contention. Let's take a look at the record.

Tiger won his last major in 2008, the US Open,when he was 32. Discounting, appropriately, the next two majors immediately after that because of his knee injury, Tiger has played in 13 majors (he missed another two majors in 2011 with his foot/leg injury), and will play his 14th since then in a couple of weeks. In those majors, he's had seven top-10 finishes, including five in the top-5, and one runner-up finish. Pretty solid. But he also had two missed cuts, and four other finishes outside the top 20.

Nicklaus won two majors when he was 32. In the proceeding 14 majors (through the 1975 PGA), he won three times, had two other runner-up finishes, and six other top-five finishes. He never missed a cut, and finished out of the top 10 once.  (Amazingly, in the next five years after that run, he had a record in majors just as good: 3 wins, 3 runner-up finishes, five other top-5 finishes, and only one missed cut).

In short, Nicklaus was able to win a bunch of majors after he turned 32 because he kept putting himself in contention. Tiger's record -- so far, since he won his last major -- is not as consistent in terms of putting himself in contention.

Winning several majors after age 32 or so is pretty rare; the list of golfers who have done so is slim, notably including Jack and Hogan. Of course, those guys are probably #1 and #3 on the all-time list of great golfers, and Tiger is certainly the only person of his generation that one can reasonably argue could match their majors record in his 30s. But he's now 36, and in the past few years has missed out on a bunch of majors at courses (Bethpage Black, Hazeltine, The Old Course, Sandwich, Pebble Beach) where he'd played well or won in past majors.

I was struck, after his three wins this season and putting himself into solid contention at the Open at Lytham, how tentative his play was, and how some of his course-management decisions seemed off. His talent alone will put him in contention for many majors to come, but to me he doesn't quite look like a guy who knows how to close the door on one.

David Davis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tiger's fatal flaw?
« Reply #69 on: July 25, 2012, 02:49:13 PM »
He seems to be hitting the mid - long irons as good as ever with his new swing but it does seem the angle of attack is too steep to hit the driver consistently and perhaps he's delofting the short irons so much that under pressure all the control is lost. Even if this is not the case my question is everyone would probably agree he is at least one of the best ever and most talented, if not THE best ever, so why can't he just literally have 3 different swings. A driver swing that allows for a better and more consisten angle of attack resulting in a more consistent and straighter flight and a more accurate swing inside of like 120 yds which he at least seem to be among the worst at during the Open. The other guys were taking on the pin from a 100 yds out and Tiger sometimes missed the green or blamed the wind when there was absolutely none. I would guess for someone of his level a miss by more than 2 meters from a 100 yds out is quite a bad miss when there is no wind. Perhaps I expect too much...
Sharing the greatest experiences in golf.

IG: @top100golftraveler
www.lockharttravelclub.com

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tiger's fatal flaw?
« Reply #70 on: July 25, 2012, 03:18:07 PM »
I was struck, after his three wins this season and putting himself into solid contention at the Open at Lytham, how tentative his play was, and how some of his course-management decisions seemed off. His talent alone will put him in contention for many majors to come, but to me he doesn't quite look like a guy who knows how to close the door on one.

Maybe. Or maybe he's just a guy on the slow road back from a combination of major injury, major life-change.

Nice analysis, though. I may have agreed, had you referred to Jack and Ben as #2 and #3, or even #3 and #2, or even any combination of 2, 3, and 4... :) There can be only 1, and it ain't either of them.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tiger's fatal flaw?
« Reply #71 on: July 25, 2012, 03:26:46 PM »
George,

Why is it "simply a matter of time" before his top 5s become wins?  Because he's Tiger?  How many times in the past five years have we seen him throw away a lead in a major?  It started in 2007 at the Masters, and he's done it several times since (not last week though, he was never in the lead)  Part of the reason he was invincible, both in his own mind as well as in the minds of his competitors, was that once he took the lead in a major, he never relinquished it.  Maybe someone can come up with a time before 2007 where he did so, but if so I can't recall it.

So now he's not only got the "never come from behind to win a major" monkey on his back, he's got a new "these days even when I'm ahead I lose more often than I win" monkey on his back.  Sure, he'll win more majors, but those top 5s becoming wins will be very much the exception than the rule, just as they are for other guys who constantly put themselves in the mix but only win once in a while, like Els.
My hovercraft is full of eels.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tiger's fatal flaw?
« Reply #72 on: July 25, 2012, 03:53:01 PM »
George,

Why is it "simply a matter of time" before his top 5s become wins?  Because he's Tiger?  How many times in the past five years have we seen him throw away a lead in a major?  It started in 2007 at the Masters, and he's done it several times since (not last week though, he was never in the lead)  Part of the reason he was invincible, both in his own mind as well as in the minds of his competitors, was that once he took the lead in a major, he never relinquished it.  Maybe someone can come up with a time before 2007 where he did so, but if so I can't recall it.

So now he's not only got the "never come from behind to win a major" monkey on his back, he's got a new "these days even when I'm ahead I lose more often than I win" monkey on his back.  Sure, he'll win more majors, but those top 5s becoming wins will be very much the exception than the rule, just as they are for other guys who constantly put themselves in the mix but only win once in a while, like Els.

An interesting perspective, from a highly thoughtful poster. Here are my thoughts on your argument:

He didn't lose his game, post 2007. He had a very very serious injury for a golfer, one that takes far longer to recover from than most think. He coupled that with a major life change and a swing change (which I think was crazy, but then again, he's won 14 and I struggle to break 90). I think it's just a matter of time before he starts converting those top 5s. Why would he do it more than Els? He has 14 - 14!! - majors to Els' 4. He has already done it more than Ernie, many times. And, I'm just guessing here, haven't checked the stats, but I think he has far more top 5s and top 10s than Ernie over this same dry period. I could be way off on this, of course, I'll have to dig a bit to see.

People love to find analogies to other golfers, but there simply is no one analogous to Tiger, as there was no one analogous to Jack. Even if there were, the sample size is so small as to be meaningless.

How many majors would Hogan have won without the accident? Who knows? How many would he have won if Nelson hadn't preferred the life of a farmer/rancher? Who knows?

I just don't see Tiger forgetting what has happened. He knows he's the best, everyone else knows he's the best, he knows they know - it's simply a matter of time.

But I could be wrong, of course, it may simply be a matter of time before we know. :)
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tiger's fatal flaw?
« Reply #73 on: July 25, 2012, 03:58:45 PM »
Purely coincidentally (I do not time my very occasional desk-cleanings to coincide with anything in the golf season), my desktop today spat forth a magazine called "The Majors of Golf (2006)."

"The Majors of Golf" was, and perhaps still is, a freebie quarterly distributed through golf clubs. A buddy of mine got into the habit of picking up a copy for me at his club, four times each season.

This one is for the British Open of 2006. The "SWING SEQUENCE" in this issue: "TIGER WOODS' SUPERLATIVE SHORT-IRON ACTION."

Mr. Woods should read it!
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

JMEvensky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tiger's fatal flaw?
« Reply #74 on: July 25, 2012, 04:29:19 PM »


He didn't lose his game, post 2007. He had a very very serious injury for a golfer, one that takes far longer to recover from than most think.


My layman's opinion is that everything begins and ends with the knee problem--especially the search for a new swing.

I just think the odds are against him becoming the most dominant golfer again--although I'll never understand why any golf fan would root against him.Who wouldn't want to watch,at worst,the 2nd best player ever?

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back