Tiger speaks

« **on:** March 10, 2006, 04:48:57 PM »

"I'd like to see more spin added to the golf ball, so misses would be more pronounced and good shots more rewarded," he said. "Anytime ou bring maneuverability back into the game of golf, it's going to favor the better players who understand how to control the golf ball. It still matters in firm conditions or in wind. I always like to shape something in there a little bit just because I'm giving myself a fatter area for playing a miss, because it's not a game of perfect. I'd eliminate the 60-degree wedge and set a 56-degree limit. For one, it would bring more feel back into the game. Because now gus lay up to exact yardages and hit nothig but full shots. Nobody hits half shots anymore. And it would make the short game around the green a lot harder. If guys didn't have a 60-degree or even a 64-degree wedge to save them, you wouldn't see them being as aggressive going into the greens, because they couldn't short-side themselves as much.
"It's all about keeping the skill factor. At the moment, equipment has brought everyone closer together. It's harder to separate from the field, without a doubt. It's a challenge."
From Tiger Woods interview 1/06

I wonder if Tiger's short-siding comment near the end of the statement accounts at least partially for the super low winning scores in recent years?

« **Reply #1 on:** March 10, 2006, 05:38:56 PM »

Quote from: Shivaschmidt on March 10, 2006, 04:54:43 PM

Yes. That and the depth of talent. Every guy goes out there thinking that he has to turn the front 9 on Thrusday in 33 -- just to stay in the hunt to win -- because if they don't there are probably 25 guys who will.

I don't get this Shivas. I understand Tiger to be saying the depth of talent is not as great as it appears. If the ball spins more and wedges are limited to 56, that will expose those without the talent. He is saying the equipment is making up for the lack of talent and only making it seem as though the talent is deep.

« **Reply #2 on:** March 10, 2006, 06:25:34 PM »

What he's saying is that technology hurts the best players. This, of course, is relative to the field in a PGA Tour event (his context of opinion), not a blanket statement of the game in total.

This comment is both accurate and self-serving.

« **Reply #3 on:** March 10, 2006, 08:18:13 PM »

Sully:

Self-serving is small potatoes. I like that what Woods says is accurate. Equipment has overwhelmed real skill a whole lot more recently than the not too distance past.

I'll give you an example. Maybe 20 years ago Peter Jacobsen came to GMGC and gave a lot of us an exhibitoin. He's something else. At the end he got into bunker shot technique and to demonstrate real technique and talent and skill he took us all over the bunker behind the green on #18. As you know that runs straight down the slope of the green. He tried to hit some little bunker shots with a 6 iron and actually pulled a few off pretty well. And then he said to us; "You want to talk true skill?" He said Ballesteros could hit these little short lofted bunker shots out of a bunker with a 3 iron which just blew the rest of the Tour player's minds when he'd demonstrate it. Now that's REAL skill.

« **Reply #4 on:** March 10, 2006, 08:29:01 PM »

Quote from: ed_getka on March 10, 2006, 04:48:57 PM

"I'd like to see more spin added to the golf ball, so misses would be more pronounced and good shots more rewarded," he said. "Anytime ou bring maneuverability back into the game of golf, it's going to favor the better players who understand how to control the golf ball. It still matters in firm conditions or in wind. I always like to shape something in there a little bit just because I'm giving myself a fatter area for playing a miss, because it's not a game of perfect. I'd eliminate the 60-degree wedge and set a 56-degree limit. For one, it would bring more feel back into the game. Because now gus lay up to exact yardages and hit nothig but full shots. Nobody hits half shots anymore. And it would make the short game around the green a lot harder. If guys didn't have a 60-degree or even a 64-degree wedge to save them, you wouldn't see them being as aggressive going into the greens, because they couldn't short-side themselves as much.
"It's all about keeping the skill factor. At the moment, equipment has brought everyone closer together. It's harder to separate from the field, without a doubt. It's a challenge."
From Tiger Woods interview 1/06

I wonder if Tiger's short-siding comment near the end of the statement accounts at least partially for the super low winning scores in recent years?

I think Tiger is dead wrong. There are more fantastic players than ever before. Changing the things he thinks should be changed (while perhaps good ideas), will do nothing to separate the great from the good. That's already happening. If it weren't happening, Tiger wouldn't win 4 to 9 tournaments a year! Does he think he'll win 20 tournaments if all the cheaters that use 60 degree wedges were unable to use them?

There are more good athletes playing golf today than ever before, BY FAR. All you have to do to know this is a fact is to speak to any college golf coach who has been coaching the game for over 20 years.

« **Reply #5 on:** March 10, 2006, 08:55:02 PM »

It does sound like a precursor of what will come.
Tiger should be respected for his opinion and with his diplomacy, he will make it happen. I speculate that even the R&A will listen to Tiger.

« **Reply #6 on:** March 10, 2006, 10:34:29 PM »

David,
Why is he wrong in your opinion? Which of these fantastic athletes is competing with him on a regular basis? I agree there are a lot of kids who are in shape and keep beat the snot out of the ball, I don't agree that there are lots of kids who have the skill to hang with Tiger without some of the technology we are seeing today.

JES,
Why is Tiger's statement self-serving in your opinion?

« **Reply #7 on:** March 11, 2006, 12:00:18 AM »

Quote from: ed_getka on March 10, 2006, 10:34:29 PM

David,
Why is he wrong in your opinion? Which of these fantastic athletes is competing with him on a regular basis? I agree there are a lot of kids who are in shape and keep beat the snot out of the ball, I don't agree that there are lots of kids who have the skill to hang with Tiger without some of the technology we are seeing today.

JES,
Why is Tiger's statement self-serving in your opinion?

Tiger is saying all these guys compete with him because they have the advantage of all this wonderful equipment and a ball that doesn't spin.

I'm saying that they aren't doing a very good job of competing with him if he's on his way to breaking Nicklaus' Majors record and Sneads overall win record, so what the heck is he talking about?

What's amazing is that Tiger is able to do what he's doing in an age when the players are without a doubt (in my mind) better than they have ever been before, not just at hitting the ball a long way, but at playing the game of golf. Has technology helped with that? Sure, but it's only natural in my mind that the players of today are better than they were at any time in the history of the game -- more ATHLETES are playing the game.

I could give you direct evidence of this, but why? It's anecdotal and would really prove nothing anyway.

All I know is this: Time was, you could play high level Division I college golf as a 0 or 1 handicap. Those days are LONG gone.

« **Reply #8 on:** March 11, 2006, 12:31:47 AM »

Quote from: ed_getka on March 10, 2006, 10:34:29 PM

JES,
Why is Tiger's statement self-serving in your opinion?

Ed,

To answer your question to the fullest degree, because he knows that if the Tour allowed play with only 3 or 4 clubs, and an old-fashioned ball he'd win every time. He knows that because he has the most imagination since Seve and the strongest mind since Nicklaus. Todays equipment in the hands of a mid-level PGA Tour player can be molded to let a player virtually shift into auto-pilot and if all goes well he might have a chance to win. Now comprimise my "fullest degree" scenario to whatever level you want and it still plays a bit more into Tiger's hands than todays situation.

« **Reply #9 on:** March 11, 2006, 12:22:02 PM »

Quote from: DCronan on March 11, 2006, 11:28:47 AM

I take issue with some of the things written on this thread. Yes, there are a greater number of better athletes playing the game of golf presently but does that make them better golfers?

Does carrying a driver 347 yards make for a more creative, talented or better shot than hitting a knockdown 6 iron from 137 yards?

Does hitting a full 8 iron 172 yards because "I had the perfect yardage" identify a better golfer than one who hits a 3/4 4 iron to keep it out of the wind?

Do we now place a greater emphasis on the physical/bulk/distance than we do on the imaginative/creative?

It seems as though the answer to all these questions is yes, at least with respect to the PGA Tour. And this is NOT an indictment against those guys who play the tour. They are simply competing within the confines of what the ruling bodies deem acceptable.

I, for one, find the professional game completely boring these days and seldom find myself watching it, either on television or in person. Not because of the players and their personalities or even some of the mundane golf courses over which the tournaments are competed. The game I play and love and the game they play and love have as much in common as a John Holmes porno flick and my honeymoon. Same equipment, completely different motivation, emotion and ultimately, results. The professional game has become a 1 dimensional, "Hit the effing ball as hard as possible, find it and hit my wedge as hard as possible to the green and hope I have a hot putter this week", which, to me, has the same effect as washing down a fistful of Ambien with a tumbler of Maker's Mark. The upside is that it is nowhere near as addictive.

On a micro level (1 golfer), of course it doesn't make them better golfers. Meaning: just because one guy is a great athlete, doesn't mean he's going to excel at golf.

But on a macro level (all golfers), yes, I would say that because there are many better athletes taking up the game than ever before, that will lead to professional golfers today being better (at putting the ball in the hole in as few strokes as possible) than they ever have been before.

More excellent athletes playing the game means that there are more potentially great players coming up every year. It's a simple numbers game. And remember, the loss of "shotmaking" that I hear everyone decry is really pointless. It's simply not a necessary component of the game for these guys to shoot great scores! If it were necessary (because the equipment changed or the ball changed) they would ADAPT and play the game differently!

They are playing the game that technology allows them to play. Change it, and they will still whip this game, just in a different way -- that's what they get paid to do.

« **Reply #10 on:** March 11, 2006, 12:50:50 PM »

I'll admit it right here:

I only watch golf on TV if Tiger is playing.

Having not seen Nicklaus or Palmer in their prime, Tiger is Nicklaus and Palmer rolled into one for me. Sorry, but none of these bland PGA Tour guys (not ONE) matches Tiger's intensity, work ethic, killer instinct, and skill. Not one. Honestly, I don't care about the rest of the Tour. They are boooooring, compared to El Tigre. Tiger can both expertly work the ball and bomb it a long way.

It is like watching a legend in the making.

I feel very privileged to be able to do it.

« **Reply #11 on:** March 11, 2006, 01:30:15 PM »

David O,
You have some interesting things to say, which I mostly disagree with, but I have respect for your opinion since you play the game at a level I will never approach.
I simply don't buy the ATHLETE argument, because I don't care how great a physical specimen you are, golf is more of a mental game, at any level IMO.
I'm pretty sure I could be a low single digit handicap if I had a lobotomy.

As far as the numbers game goes, the more skill the equipment requires the LESS number of golfers there are that will be able to compete at or near Tiger's level.

JES,
I see what you were getting at by the self-serving statement.

« **Reply #12 on:** March 11, 2006, 01:57:36 PM »

I'm with Ed on this athlete stuff, its Tiger's mental toughness that sets him apart from the rest. If you look at the professional athletes who play golf its usually the pitchers and quarterbacks who make the best golfer, who may not the best athletes necessarily but tend to be mentally tough. Being athletic is a big help, but if that's all it took then Michael Jordon would be a pro.

« **Reply #13 on:** March 11, 2006, 01:59:27 PM »

Ed, you don't think swinging a golf club at Tigers level takes a high degree of athleticism?

There have been many great minds. Strong minds, but few athletes that can swing a club and get the results that Tiger gets.

I think Tiger takes enormous pride in what he has accomplished and in what he can do on a golf course. Is it self serving to suggest that others have been successful even though they do not possess his skills? Is it self serving to say lets put equipment that require skill to be successful in the hands of all the pros , and see who comes out on top?

« **Reply #14 on:** March 11, 2006, 02:17:11 PM »

Quote from: Craig Edgmand on March 11, 2006, 01:57:36 PM

I'm with Ed on this athlete stuff, its Tiger's mental toughness that sets him apart from the rest. If you look at the professional athletes who play golf its usually the pitchers and quarterbacks who make the best golfer, who may not the best athletes necessarily but tend to be mentally tough. Being athletic is a big help, but if that's all it took then Michael Jordon would be a pro.

The pitchers and quarterbacks are EXACTLY the guys I'm talking about! THAT'S what I mean when I say "great athletes." To me, quarterbacks and pitchers and shortstops are the great athletes -- the ones with SUPERB hand-eye coordination -- NOT the guys that can run fast and jump high. That stuff has very little to do with golf.

So what I'm saying is that there are a LOT more true athletes (the quarterbacks/pitchers/shortstops) that are taking up golf than ever before. It used to be that those kids all would rather play quarterback or pitch or do ANYTHING than play golf. Now, a much higher percentage of them (but still a very low one) are actually playing -- and excelling at -- GOLF!

« **Reply #15 on:** March 11, 2006, 02:47:07 PM »

I agree with the premise.
Though a ball with less spin is not necessary.
How can you not?
It's robo-golf.

I've said it before;
1) 10 or 11 club set will bring in tons of half shots.
2) No grooves, or markings, (and an abrasion standard) on any clubs. A ball hit from the fairway with "V" grooves will spin as much as a ball hit with no grooves. The difference is when the ball is in the rough.
3) Roll back the ball so Tiger's drives were a little longer than Nicklaus in his ball bashing prime.

Then we'd find out who the "shotmakers" and players are.

When Tiger, or anyone who launches it 6 miles is only hitting a few fairways per round, winning might be a little more difficult.

« **Reply #16 on:** March 11, 2006, 03:35:57 PM »

Shivas,
Are you trying to tell me Tiger isn't mentally tough? Did you see the last Amateur he won? He practically willed the ball into the hole on a 30 foot putt he had no business making. Yes, he PHYSICALLY moved the ball, I know!This on a day when I would say he didn't have every shot at his disposal. Or do you think he just spotted Steve Scott a big lead for fun?
edited after I came to my senses.

« **Reply #17 on:** March 11, 2006, 03:58:45 PM »

Shivas,
What I am saying is that anyone who can feed themselves and wipe their ass can swing a golf club and within a year of starting golf and taking lessons will physically be able to swing a club fairly proficiently, and making strides in the game are more mental from that point. In that way the game is more mental than physical.
If golf is more physical than mental, and Woods and all the pros have these great swings, how do you account for bad shots, physical disability? Or is it somehow possible that their brain has something to do with it?
When a player "chokes" what is the physical cause of that since it is not mental? Right?

« **Reply #18 on:** March 11, 2006, 04:44:26 PM »

Shivas,
First I want to apologize for my rant. It was not called for. Sorry.
As to the rest I am fine to agree to disagree. IMO, once someone has learned to hit a proper shot, the thing that keeps them from doing it regularly is their brain. They simply don't believe they can do it regularly, but they are willing to try anyway.
If the mental part of it is 10%, then only 10% of shots during competition would be worse than the driving range shots right? Then you bring up target issues, and whatever else.
I have one question for you. When pressure causes a golfer to tighten up, tension thus making it hard to make a good swing, does the "mental" part have anything to do with that?

« **Reply #19 on:** March 11, 2006, 04:59:09 PM »

redanman® speaks: wooof!

Sorry... back to the thread ...

Does it really make a difference that el tigre want to eliminate 60* wedges and make the ball spin more? Nike® must have a ball ready, I guess.

Same basic area:
Honestly it was refreshing to see Arnold Palmer decry the cart allowance issue for the Champions Tour® on Golf Central. It doesn't un-do his ERC stance, but he's thinking straight on the current topic.

Voytek:
Then I must be the anti-Voytek, because I usually can only watch so much when he's on. (Actually if Tiger's on, that's all you can watch.) LOL

« **Reply #20 on:** March 11, 2006, 05:05:53 PM »

Dave,
I am not looking at it as an either/or issue. I may not be articulating it that way, but that is not how I think of it. I just maintain that the mental is more than the physical in the spectrum of factors affecting the golf swing for someone who is beyond a beginning golfer.

« **Reply #21 on:** March 11, 2006, 05:08:41 PM »

Quote from: Shivaschmidt on March 11, 2006, 04:58:03 PM

And the mental side is nothing more than self-doubt.

So are you discounting that as insignificant?

« **Reply #22 on:** March 11, 2006, 09:21:50 PM »

Quote from: redanman® aka BillV on March 11, 2006, 04:59:09 PM

redanman® speaks: wooof!

Voytek:
Then I must be the anti-Voytek, because I usually can only watch so much when he's on. (Actually if Tiger's on, that's all you can watch.) LOL

Bill,

I concur wholeheartedly.

I have the untmost regard for Tiger's almost supernatural talent, his mental attitude, his helping little old ladies across the road and every other cliche that one could think of... however, the deification of this young man, especially by his resident sycophant, Jim Nance, makes me, like Chrstopher Robin, "want to thwow up."

Phew, Tom Paul, did I take away from you the longest sentence in GCA postings?

« **Reply #23 on:** March 11, 2006, 10:15:13 PM »

Quote from: Shivaschmidt on March 11, 2006, 03:46:10 PM

...
Tiger is no more mentally tough for what he does now, ten years and 60 wins after that Amateur, than my 4 year old daughter is for getting 2 + 2 right again for the ten thousandth time.
...

Congratulations Shivas,

With this statement, you reached the level of credibility only obtained by people such as RMN and GWB.

« **Reply #24 on:** March 12, 2006, 12:19:48 AM »

I agree with David Ober that hand-eye coordination is critical. If more of those guys take up the game, I think we'll see better golfers.

What usually is thought of as athleticism -- running, jumping, limit strength -- does not play much of a role in golf. That's why, IMO, golf will never be taken over by power forwards, home run hitting center fielders, or wide receivers who do the 40 in 4.2 seconds.

Aren't hockey players often the best crossovers from other sports into golf?

News:

ed_getka

Garland Bayley

JESII

TEPaul

David Ober

A_Clay_Man

ed_getka

David Ober

JESII

David Ober

Voytek Wilczak

ed_getka

Craig Van Egmond

Craig Sweet

David Ober

Tony Ristola

ed_getka

ed_getka

ed_getka

redanman

ed_getka

ed_getka

Bob_Huntley

Garland Bayley

Jim Nugent