[Adam Clayman]

During the final telecast of Tiger's invitational yesterday, Roger Maltbie made the observation that when Tiger is given a finite target, through which to thread the ball, he's much better off then when he has some room for error.


Immediately Jones and Mackenzie's ANGC came to mind.

Tighter fairways or smaller targets assist the better golfer and this astute observation was further proof of that.


How can intellectual arguement for the consistent narrowing fairways be made?

[Rich Goodale]

What's your point, Adam?  Some of Tiger's best performances have come from the pre-narrowed ANGC and the supposedly wide TOC, but he played each of them AS IF they were narrow (viz. the no bunkers strategy at TOC in 2000).

Regardless of measured width, all of us look at a course narrowly, and so we should.  For each of us there is a target line and length that we aim at (or should) on every shot.  those of us who are less precise than Tiger will often choose a line and length which allows for error, even if not optimal for those rare occasions that we hit it crookedly or with not enough oomph.

What's worng with that?

[Lloyd_Cole]

I think Maltbie is underestimating Tiger's golfing intellect here. I'd guess that when Tiger has the small target he's not playing driver very often. If he was as good with the driver as he is with the other 13 clubs I doubt this idea would have occurred to Maltbie.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam,

Generally, I agree with your comment and most of the pros I know say the same thing - Augusta was actually harder when it had wide fw, less clear cut definition and more room to bail out away from Rae's Creek, etc.  No reason Tiger wouldn't be immune from similar, if not reduced impulses.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Adam,

Generally, I agree with your comment and most of the pros I know say the same thing - Augusta was actually harder when it had wide fw, less clear cut definition and more room to bail out away from Rae's Creek, etc.  No reason Tiger wouldn't be immune from similar, if not reduced impulses.

Jeff,

I agree with that general idea. Dye says that the minute he can get these guys thinking they're in trouble. However, Nicklaus, Faldo and Woods are not, in my opinion, like other pros. They are smarter.

[Jim Nugent]

Jeff, if you are right, why have the scores gone up so much since they changed the course?  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lloyd,

Your comments and those of Pete Dye may not reflect smarts as much as it reflects confidence in their swings or ability to handle pressure.

Jim Colbert told me that the few times he got into the Masters, he would rope hooks around the corner on 13 in all the practice rounds, but when the tourney started, he found he shifted, at the last second, his aim out to the right and made all sorts of swing contortions to avoid going left.  And, it got worse each day as making the cut, or making the top 16 raised the stakes.

And, Jim was a pretty good pressure player of more modest natural talent.  He was also good at course management and felt he was one of a few (Faldo also being one) that tried to play all the shots, rather than rely on the Nicklaus fade, for example, to max out his chances.

He always felt that the wide fw helped his type of player, even though the longer bombers had a little more breathing room. I do recall he liked the idea of sharper fw contours in the longer landing areas.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff, if you are right, why have the scores gone up so much since they changed the course?  

Jim,

I would have to look it up, but the first year of the Fazio changes, they went down a bit.  Then there were some weather years and of course, more length every year.

But, as always, I could be wrong.

[tlavin]

With Tiger, the important "width" measurement relates to his golf brain.  It's better than anybody else's on tour.  So is his fitness.  So is his hunger.  So is his thirst for a legacy.  Wide fairways, narrow fairways, long holes, short holes it doesn't matter in the long run.

[Matt_Cohn]

Adam,

Are you sure that's what Maltbie said? I wasn't listening very carefully but I thought it was the opposite. If you tell me you're right and I'm wrong, though, I'll believe you.

[Adam Clayman]

Matt, It was on the approach shot to a par 5 late in the round. He described the window between the trees as tiny. Then he made the comment I'm referring to. It was along the lines of describing how loose his swing could get without the dictation.

Rihc, You points are excellent but 2000 was a crazy year for the then 25 year old. The only rebut I do have for you is that having the target spelled out so clearly, as is the case with a typical US open set-up, thinking, knowing, or figuring out the ideal spot has already been predetermined.

Jeff, Thanx for the confirmation from a real pro who has been there. Tiger's mental toughness is amazing. I'm not sure there'[s much a designer could do to get into his head. Do you?

[Matt_Cohn]

Interesting. Somebody made a comment on the same topic when Tiger was on the 14th tee. That's the one that I'm thinking of and may have misheard.

[Scott Szabo]

Regardless of measured width, all of us look at a course narrowly, and so we should.  For each of us there is a target line and length that we aim at (or should) on every shot.  those of us who are less precise than Tiger will often choose a line and length which allows for error, even if not optimal for those rare occasions that we hit it crookedly or with not enough oomph.

What's worng with that?

I agree that we all should, but in reality how many of us actually do this on every shot?  

It's much easier to focus on a shot if there is a finite target.  I've heard many comments over the years about how players are lulled to sleep on a shot (especially on the layup second shot on a par five, or an iron off the tee).

A perfect example of this is at my home course.  Number 2 is a short par four (310 yards) with a creek angling across the fairway, requiring a carry of approximately 225-250 yards to cross it.  The typical tee shot for most of us is a layup of approximately 180 yards or so, leaving a wedge to the green.  The fairway is not narrow by any means, with a group of trees overhanging the left front of the green.  The preferred angle into the green is from the right side of the fairway, thus avoiding having the trees encroach on the second shot.  

I had the pleasure of playing in the final group of our Labor Day tournament, with the others golfers ranging from scratch to a plus-four handicap.  All chose to lay up that round, and nobody hit the fairway (keep in mind the tee shots were played with 5 and 6 irons).  We were a combined three over on that hole, which is not a difficult one by any stretch of the imagination.  Perfect example of being lulled to sleep!

Scott

[Jason Connor]

I think Maltbie is underestimating Tiger's golfing intellect here. I'd guess that when Tiger has the small target he's not playing driver very often. If he was as good with the driver as he is with the other 13 clubs I doubt this idea would have occurred to Maltbie.

I had the exact same thought.  

My general take on the cause-effect relationships discussed by commentators:

My career is to separate causal relationships from mere correlation.  And I get annoyed or amused (depending upon my mood) at how easily commentators in all sports discuss relationships they claim are causal.

First to Maltbie I'd say "Show me the data."  Show me driving numbers from open vs. tight driving holes for Tiger.  Our memories are quite selective and many, many studies have shown we humans do a poor job of remembering and correctly quantifying own experiences & experiences we observe.  So it's quite possible that these tight, heroic shots are more memorable.  Likewise when Tiger has a wide fairway and hits it over the clubhouse that's also more memorable.  We may tend to forget the narrow fairways missed and wide fairways hit.

Commentators make their living talking.  And to fill time they often claim relationships with no basis in fact.  That's all this is to me, a 100% unsubstantiated claim by Maltbie.

[CHrisB]

Adam,
I view Maltbie's comment in the same way I view Hank Haney's recent observation that, while Tiger was/is "learning" the current (Haney) version of his swing, that it seemed that at times when he had "wiggle room" (i.e., a wide target) off the tee that he would "wiggle" by bailing out on the swing that he needed to try to make, and that when he had a hit-it-or-else (i.e., narrow target) shot he would force himself to make the swing that he needed to try to make. More of a trust/commitment issue.

I disagree that smaller targets "assist" the better player in playing the game--certainly there are plenty of better players who have the opposite reaction from Tiger when the target narrows (i.e., tightness, disruption of timing, steering the shot, playing too conservatively, etc.).

How can intellectual arguement for the consistent narrowing fairways be made?

The argument (whether you and I agree with it or not) would be that the ability to narrow your focus and pull off the selected shot when there is little margin for error is an elusive and valued golf skill, and that architectural features that allow the player to utilize this skill are a good thing. (The same argument has been made many times in this discussion group for the skill of being able to hit recovery shots.)

Of course, there are other skills in golf, so a steady diet of such architectural features might not be such a good thing, but an overly wide course wouldn't necessarily be any better. A variety of narrow and wide would probably be best.

[CHrisB]

Tiger's mental toughness is amazing. I'm not sure there'[s much a designer could do to get into his head. Do you?

I don't think a designer can do much to get into Tiger's head (besides maybe making the course too easy), but I think the superintendent can get into his head. The only time I can ever remember Tiger complaining about a course is when the greens are bumpy and inconsistent (e.g., Pebble Beach National Pro-Am and others).

[Peter Pallotta]

Interesting discussion gents, thanks.

If we're talking about "meaningful width", I think it's probably more meaningful than ever before, given that today's equipment makes playing out of the rough so easy for top players.

Peter

[Phil McDade]

What's your point, Adam?  Some of Tiger's best performances have come from the pre-narrowed ANGC and the supposedly wide TOC, but he played each of them AS IF they were narrow (viz. the no bunkers strategy at TOC in 2000).

Regardless of measured width, all of us look at a course narrowly, and so we should.  For each of us there is a target line and length that we aim at (or should) on every shot.  those of us who are less precise than Tiger will often choose a line and length which allows for error, even if not optimal for those rare occasions that we hit it crookedly or with not enough oomph.

What's worng with that?

Rich:

I'm not entirely sure Tiger had a no-bunker strategy at TOC in 2000 (Matt Ward's comments notwithstanding) so much as a no-bunker ability. But to the extent that he did have a no-bunker strategy, I'd argue it had as much to do with length as width. Take the 12th, for instance: for nearly everyone, a very testing drive because of the hidden nature of the fairway bunkering and the precise nature -- even if you've avoided the fairway bunkers -- of the approach shot you are left with from the fairway.

Tiger, proving once again that his brain is bigger than anyone else out there (and watching him play TOC absolutely convinces me he has studied the Reverse TOC documents) simply took driver and bombed it over everything, including the green, and played back to the hole from the backside of the green (an easier approach than from the very tricky front of the green).

Tiger has pretty much proven to me -- and I was something of a Tiger doubter pre-Hoylake -- that he can take on any kind of course set-up and handle it. His performance at the last two PGAs -- Medinah and Southern Hills, both semi-claustrophobic set-ups -- suggest he can adjust to whatever is thrown at him.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()