The Tiger Woods saga

[kiddiedoc]

I'll admit it -- when he took the lead today, I really thought he might pull off one of the greatest comebacks in sports history. Once again, though, he had a couple of lapses and it cost him the tournament. These things hardly ever happened in his prime, and I am just not convinced he will get over the hurdle. With his physical condition/injury+surgical history, time is not his friend.

 

[Blake25p]

If he stays healthy and gets more rounds under his belt he’ll win another major, maybe more.

 

[05_never_again]

I'll admit it -- when he took the lead today, I really thought he might pull off one of the greatest comebacks in sports history. Once again, though, he had a couple of lapses and it cost him the tournament. These things hardly ever happened in his prime, and I am just not convinced he will get over the hurdle. With his physical condition/injury+surgical history, time is not his friend.

I still think if he wins another major, it'll come at Augusta. He needs to do it in 2019 or 2020 though. Time is running out. It probably won't be too much longer before his body starts to break down again.

The shot out of the bunker on 10 still shows that he has it, at least in fits and starts.

 

[1972 Grad]

I'll admit it -- when he took the lead today, I really thought he might pull off one of the greatest comebacks in sports history. Once again, though, he had a couple of lapses and it cost him the tournament. These things hardly ever happened in his prime, and I am just not convinced he will get over the hurdle. With his physical condition/injury+surgical history, time is not his friend.

I had an interesting thought this morning. What does everyone think about this?


1) Tiger played very well, with hardly any wayward shots. He led the field in driving accuracy.

2) He putted pretty well in my mind.

3) He can still hit the incredible shots that most can't. He still has some great par saves, although he didn't need too many because he hit the ball so well.

4) In the old days, when he took the lead, it was over.

5) In the old days, when he took the lead, the Montgomeries, the Lehmans, the Els, the Loves, the Singhs, the Bjorns, etc. started backing up because they were intimidated. Tiger won because everybody else went backwards. He never came from behind to win.

6) A couple of lesser known pros who weren't intimidated (Beam and Yang) beat him down the
stretch.

7) On a few occasions, he blew away the field, but others have won by large margins in tournaments when they got hot.

Possible conclusion: He's not playing the same guys anymore. They aren't intimidated when his name is on the leaderboard. Maybe this Tiger plays about as well as the old Tiger. The difference may be the mental state of the rest of the field, and maybe his mental state as well.

 

[05_never_again]

I had an interesting thought this morning. What does everyone think about this?


1) Tiger played very well, with hardly any wayward shots. He led the field in driving accuracy.

2) He putted pretty well in my mind.

3) He can still hit the incredible shots that most can't. He still has some great par saves, although he didn't need too many because he hit the ball so well.

4) In the old days, when he took the lead, it was over.

5) In the old days, when he took the lead, the Montgomeries, the Lehmans, the Els, the Loves, the Singhs, the Bjorns, etc. started backing up because they were intimidated. Tiger won because everybody else went backwards. He never came from behind to win.

6) A couple of lesser known pros who weren't intimidated (Beam and Yang) beat him down the
stretch.

7) On a few occasions, he blew away the field, but others have won by large margins in tournaments when they got hot.

Possible conclusion: He's not playing the same guys anymore. They aren't intimidated when his name is on the leaderboard. Maybe this Tiger plays about as well as the old Tiger. The difference may be the mental state of the rest of the field, and maybe his mental state as well.

Great post.

#2 - the single biggest reason for his 2018 resurgence is his putting. He's had 2 distinct resurgences post-scandal...one in 2012-13 and 2018-?. In each of them, he's putted well and had a good short game. In 2010-11 and 2014-15, his back injury would come and go but the worst part of his game was his short game, which you think would be the least affected from a bad back. A lot has been made of his bad driving, but even in his prime he wasn't all that accurate with the driver.

On #3, I think there are probably more guys today than when he was in his prime who can hit those incredible shots. This Tiger, even when he is healthy and playing well, does not play as well as the old Tiger. I think this Tiger is able to summon great shots here and there, but not as consistently over the course of a round or an entire tournament. I do still think he is capable of winning a major though.

Not only are folks not intimidated anymore, but the young guns (Spieth, Thomas, etc.) don't have any personal memory of being intimidated by him to begin with. I think that's a key difference too. Spieth, for example, was 15 when Tiger won his last major. He was 7-8 years old when he won the Tiger Slam. When Spieth says he wants to face off with Tiger, I'm sure he really does because it probably brings back positive feelings of nostalgia more than anything, and seems cool to him that he can actually face off against a guy he watched as a kid. He isn't intimidated in the slightest, not only because Spieth never felt the intimidation to begin with but post-scandal Tiger is a very human figure. Before that happened, the stuff he was doing on the golf course was so machine-like.

Couple of more observations about Tiger:

- The ironic thing about Tiger is that despite being the intimidating figure that he was, he never came from behind on a Sunday to win a tournament.

- There were a couple of signs pre-scandal that perhaps he didn't "have it" quite like he used to: the 2007 Masters and (more obviously) the 2009 PGA as you mentioned in reason #6. In that '07 Masters Tiger wasn't the 54-hole leader, but he did have the lead on Sunday in poor conditions and then threw a few shots away. A locked-in Tiger would've seized control at that point and never looked back.

The '09 PGA was absolutely a clear indicator that maybe he was going from superhuman to simply really good. That still is one of the most memorable golf tournaments I've ever watched. A buddy of mine and I watched it at his house on Sunday afternoon and saw every shot he hit. There was just an assumption on our parts that Tiger was going to win, and neither of us were fans of his either. It wasn't until Yang chipped in on 14 that we actually thought he might lose, and we didn't become convinced Yang would win until he stuck the approach on 18. That chip in particular was something Tiger did to other people, not what other people did to him.

 

[GAVol]

Possible conclusion: He's not playing the same guys anymore. They aren't intimidated when his name is on the leaderboard. Maybe this Tiger plays about as well as the old Tiger. The difference may be the mental state of the rest of the field, and maybe his mental state as well.

I can't imagine that old Tiger misses 2 fairways on the back 9 with 3 iron and decels and misses a 6 footer on the low side on 18.

But... it's a major and **** just happens. That's why Jack Nicklaus finished 2nd so many times. We've just never seen anyone more immune to **** happening than Tiger Woods was for about 10 years.

 

[volfanbill]

To be clear, Tiger lost the Open yesterday. Going +3 on 11 and 12 due to two straight bad tee shots cost him. It wasn’t an intimidation factor/nor lack thereof. 72 just saw an opening to bring back this dumb argument.

 

[05_never_again]

To be clear, Tiger lost the Open yesterday. Going +3 on 11 and 12 due to two straight bad tee shots cost him. It wasn’t an intimidation factor/nor lack thereof. 72 just saw an opening to bring back this dumb argument.

A lack of an intimidation factor had nothing to do with his losing the Open, I agree. However, if you think that intimidation wasn't a factor in the incredible run of success he had in the 2000s, I think you're mistaken.

72 is correct when he says that guys folded like a tent when it was apparent that he "had it" that week. And they didn't even fold on Sundays necessarily...it was in the earlier rounds. By Sunday he typically already had a sizable lead.

 

[1972 Grad]

To be clear, Tiger lost the Open yesterday. Going +3 on 11 and 12 due to two straight bad tee shots cost him. It wasn’t an intimidation factor/nor lack thereof. 72 just saw an opening to bring back this dumb argument.

Tiger has played in 3 British Opens at Carnoustie.

1999: Finished T7 - 4 shots back.


2007: Finished T12 - 5 shots back.


2018: Finished T6 - 3 shots back.


My point is that he is playing as well as he did then at Carnoustie. It will be much harder for him to win now , with Spieth, D.J., Koepka, Day, J.T., McIlroy, etc. in the field. They are much better than Lehman, Monty, Els, Love, etc.


Edit: I'm not saying that he can't or won't win again. He probably will since he is able to get in the hunt now, but it will be harder than it was then.

 

[GAVol]

Tiger has played in 3 British Opens at Carnoustie.

1999: Finished T7 - 4 shots back.


2007: Finished T12 - 5 shots back.


2018: Finished T6 - 3 shots back.


My point is that he is playing as well as he did then at Carnoustie. It will be much harder for him to win now , with Spieth, D.J., Koepka, Day, J.T., McIlroy, etc. in the field. They are much better than Lehman, Monty, Els, Love, etc.

... Yet he beat basically all those guys last week.

Mickelson, Vijay, Harrington, Els, etc etc were just fine back in the day.

 

[OrangeSticks]

...
The shot out of the bunker on 10 still shows that he has it, at least in fits and starts.

I watched that replay 5 times and I still can’t figure out how a 42 year old man with fused discs in his lower back made that swing.

 

[05_never_again]

I watched that replay 5 times and I still can’t figure out how a 42 year old man with fused discs in his lower back made that swing.

Yep. Before he hit the shot you could tell what he was trying to do, and I was afraid he was going to snap his spine in two.

 

[1972 Grad]

... Yet he beat basically all those guys last week.

Mickelson, Vijay, Harrington, Els, etc etc were just fine back in the day.

I'm not saying they were chopped liver, but they rarely played their best when Tiger was in contention. I specifically remember Singh duck hooking one o.b. when coming down the stretch battling Tiger, and that isn't he go to shot.

 

[volfanbill]

A lack of an intimidation factor had nothing to do with his losing the Open, I agree. However, if you think that intimidation wasn't a factor in the incredible run of success he had in the 2000s, I think you're mistaken.

72 is correct when he says that guys folded like a tent when it was apparent that he "had it" that week. And they didn't even fold on Sundays necessarily...it was in the earlier rounds. By Sunday he typically already had a sizable lead.

Meh. He was just world’s better and none of his competition back then was consistent. Duval fell off due to the vertigo, Singh couldn’t string long runs of consistency, Lehman, Furyk and especially Mick would shoot mid 60s one week and struggle to make pars the next. It wasn’t a Tiger thing altogether. But this current bunch learned to play by watching Tiger. They’re better. More aggressive. On the same token, Rory, Spieth, Fowler and D.J. have folded like a cheap tent dozens of times. There are about 20 golfers who can win any given week. Tiger never faced that in his prime

 

[GAVol]

Meh. He was just world’s better and none of his competition back then was consistent. Duval fell off due to the vertigo, Singh couldn’t string long runs of consistency, Lehman, Furyk and especially Mick would shoot mid 60s one week and struggle to make pars the next. It wasn’t a Tiger thing altogether. But this current bunch learned to play by watching Tiger. They’re better. More aggressive. On the same token, Rory, Spieth, Fowler and D.J. have folded like a cheap tent dozens of times. There are about 20 golfers who can win any given week. Tiger never faced that in his prime

I'm telling you... They're not really significantly any better. They're just what's in front of you now.

 

[volfanbill]

I'm telling you... They're not really significantly any better. They're just what's in front of you now.

I disagree. They’re longer, straighter, more creative and have better touch as a whole. Maybe it’s the clubs, balls, and pristine course conditions (outside of a dumb US Open), but they’ve evened the playing field a lot more. But the biggest thing is Tiger ushered in such a new era that there are SOOO many more now

 

[05_never_again]

Meh. He was just world’s better and none of his competition back then was consistent. Duval fell off due to the vertigo, Singh couldn’t string long runs of consistency, Lehman, Furyk and especially Mick would shoot mid 60s one week and struggle to make pars the next. It wasn’t a Tiger thing altogether. But this current bunch learned to play by watching Tiger. They’re better. More aggressive. On the same token, Rory, Spieth, Fowler and D.J. have folded like a cheap tent dozens of times. There are about 20 golfers who can win any given week. Tiger never faced that in his prime

He was worlds better...that's why they were intimidated. He was more talented, but golf perhaps more than any other game is psychological. Nobody had ever seen a physical freak like him play golf before and hit the ball as long as he did.

For a while there, probably from 1999 to 2002, I think everyone, including his fellow pros on Tour, were just in awe of him. How many times did you hear "When Tiger is on, we have no chance." As good as some of these young players are today, nobody says that about them. Nobody has come close, and I don't think ever will come close, to having that perception in the minds of people.

 

[volfanbill]

He was worlds better...that's why they were intimidated. He was more talented, but golf perhaps more than any other game is psychological. Nobody had ever seen a physical freak like him play golf before and hit the ball as long as he did.

For a while there, probably from 1999 to 2002, I think everyone, including his fellow pros on Tour, were just in awe of him. How many times did you hear "When Tiger is on, we have no chance." As good as some of these young players are today, nobody says that about them. Nobody has come close, and I don't think ever will come close, to having that perception in the minds of people.

Agree with all this, but they weren’t intimidated. They just weren’t as good. And they knew it. The bunch out there against him today grew up learning how to play like and beat him. No one in his prime knew how to play that way. Saying they couldn’t beat him wasn’t them being scared, it was them not having the talent.

 

[1972 Grad]

Agree with all this, but they weren’t intimidated. They just weren’t as good. And they knew it. The bunch out there against him today grew up learning how to play like and beat him. No one in his prime knew how to play that way. Saying they couldn’t beat him wasn’t them being scared, it was them not having the talent.

They won tournaments when they were on, so they must have had some talent.

 

[05_never_again]

Agree with all this, but they weren’t intimidated. They just weren’t as good. And they knew it. The bunch out there against him today grew up learning how to play like and beat him. No one in his prime knew how to play that way. Saying they couldn’t beat him wasn’t them being scared, it was them not having the talent.

I guess I can't prove it, but I don't think his contemporaries played their best when Tiger was at his best. Would they have beaten Tiger if they did play their best? No, but Tiger wouldn't have won that 2000 US Open by 15 shots, and he wouldn't have won The Masters by 12 shots as a 21-year-old either. His complete domination of a deep, established sport like men's golf was unlike anything anybody had ever seen before. We'll probably never see it again, because he made the sport deeper himself.

Like I said, I remember hearing "When Tiger is on, nobody else has a chance" not just from members of the media but his fellow Tour players when he was in his prime. Was that a true statement? Probably. I totally get he was a shiny new car going 125 MPH that was passing older cars that were going 50. He was also young, in great shape athletically, and put a priority on physical fitness that basically no other golfer did in those days, but I also think there was an element of intimidation/give up when he went soaring up a leaderboard. It took many years for the rest of the sport to catch up with him and start doing things the way he did, and the result is the sport we have today.

He might have more influence on his sport than anybody else has on theirs, and that includes Jordan.

 

[volfanbill]

They won tournaments when they were on, so they must have had some talent.

There’s a large difference between not as good as Tiger and no talent, Charles Barkley-style hacks. Don’t pretend like there is many levels in between

 

[volfanbill]

I guess I can't prove it, but I don't think his contemporaries played their best when Tiger was at his best. Would they have beaten Tiger if they did play their best? No, but Tiger wouldn't have won that 2000 US Open by 15 shots, and he wouldn't have won The Masters by 12 shots as a 21-year-old either. His complete domination of a deep, established sport like men's golf was unlike anything anybody had ever seen before. We'll probably never see it again, because he made the sport deeper himself.

Like I said, I remember hearing "When Tiger is on, nobody else has a chance" not just from members of the media but his fellow Tour players when he was in his prime. Was that a true statement? Probably. I totally get he was a shiny new car going 125 MPH that was passing older cars that were going 50. He was also young, in great shape athletically, and put a priority on physical fitness that basically no other golfer did in those days, but I also think there was an element of intimidation/give up when he went soaring up a leaderboard. It took many years for the rest of the sport to catch up with him and start doing things the way he did, and the result is the sport we have today.

He might have more influence on his sport than anybody else has on theirs, and that includes Jordan.

Deep? Maybe established, not deep during that era. No one had sticking power. Prove me wrong

 

[GAVol]

You're selling a lot of guys short IMO. I could run off a pretty solid list of major winners that were a factor for years from the mid 90s to late 2000s.

 

[1972 Grad]

You're selling a lot of guys short IMO. I could run off a pretty solid list of major winners that were a factor for years from the mid 90s to late 2000s.

Els, Mickelson, Singh, Payne Stewart, Harrington all won 3 to 5 majors, I think. I can't think off hand who else won multiples. Of course Tiger winning 14 or whatever narrows the chances.

 

[GAVol]

Els, Mickelson, Singh, Payne Stewart, Harrington all won 3 to 5 majors, I think. I can't think off hand who else won multiples. Of course Tiger winning 14 or whatever narrows the chances.

I think Goosen got 2. O'Meara got 2. Maybe Lee Janzen? There were plenty of guys that played well for extended periods.