@emncaity .... perhaps I would have been more accurate in saying AS A COMPETITOR Norman can't wash Tiger Woods' socks. Also, you mention Davis Love II and Fred Couples as guys nipping at Norman's heels. Wow each of them have as many Major championships as Steve Jones, Michael Campbell, Shaun Micheel, and Mark Brooks. And just 1 more than I do. For my money, Love and Couples are two of the biggest underachievers in the history of pro golf. Love in particular.
Re Jones, Campbell, Micheel, and Brooks--I get the point, but even here you imply that Couples and Love are well above that class of player. (I'm not dissing; if you're making a living playing golf, you're good.) I agree they've been underachivers and should've found out a long time ago what was keeping them from moving up the list of all-time greats. But he still had Faldo and Price. I don't see Anthony Kim or Dustin Johnston at that level, but maybe I'm wrong.
@emncaity i make a living pushing paper I teach golf, part time Love III and Couples are light years ahead of those guys in the talent dept., but their career records don't attest to their talent levels. You could say the same thing about David Duval. To me the difference between the 1B's of the past 20 years and the 1B's of the Nicklaus era is money; plain and simple. The all exempt Tour and the huge purses make guys play to keep their cards not to be great champions It's a shame, really
So right re Love, Couples, and Duval, and the effect of money and comfort.
Also: Love's dad was a crack teacher, as you know, but I wonder whether teaching a lot of amateurs tends to give you the sports psychologist mentality of a guy like Rotella--again, a likeable guy who has some good ideas, but much of his material seems geared toward the Rocco kind of mentality--happy to be there, win once in a while when it's your turn, etc....
@emncaity yeah, i'm not a big fan of the 'focus on the process, not the result - it's just another round of golf' mentality that's so en vogue these days. I think Dustin Johnson succumbed to that and so did Nick Watney. I think you have to embrace championship opportunities and feed off of them. Nicklaus certainly did. Woods does. Why try to fool yourself. I think Rocco had the right approach...
@emncaity .....he knew he had a once in a lifetime chance and he went for it. came up short, but he certainly didn't implode while trying to focus on his routine.
Also, re the Rocco mentality: That may have helped him become as good as he could be, and he's rich because of it, and has had a good life with a lot of travel and a lot of fun. I just think guys like Nicklaus and Woods have all that--fun, good times, etc.--but still play with some kind of real urgency that seems lacking in literally almost everybody almost all the time these days, other than Woods.
So maybe I should've gone back farther, since I'm really talking about the kind of player who didn't have Dad's insurance business or a corporate golf job to go to if they failed. I'm talking about guys who had the killer instinct because if they failed, they'd have to go back and pump gas or flip burgers, and be happy to have even that job. Tiger's the only guy out there who plays every week with the urgency of a guy who's gonna have to sell sweaters if he doesn't make it.
Talent and instruction, yes. Ridiculous advantages in conditioning and equipment, absolutely. But hit-you-in-the-teeth toughness? Not so much. Think about how happy ol' jolly Rocco was to be there at Torrey in the Open playoff, and how jolly he was afterward--when a bold shot to the 72nd might've ended in a birdie, and when a hacking bogey in sudden death (enabled by his insistence on the same tee shot with the same club that had failed before) allowed a routine par to win.
And the guy who beat him hit barely over 50% of fairways IN THE OPEN--and it's not like he burned it up in the final round OR the playoff. Different era, different standards, at times propped up by the Tour's need for hype of these allegedly superhuman guys. I actually wonder if he gets bored and would enjoy less domination and a better fight sometimes...
I don't wonder why he has such obvious contempt for other players. He shouldn't show it, just like he shouldn't curse in front of millions of kids; his behavior is a problem; but competitively, I can see why a guy who sees people fall down every time he says "boo" would be a little contemptuous.
Anyhow, I'll quit. Sorry. You got me rolling. I think I agree with almost everything you say other than the notion that failure equals a lack of fortitude. Sometimes it really is a technical problem or a problem of being smart about what you're doing. And sometimes it's just a physical reaction to unfamiliarity, which you overcome by continuing to put yourself in that position again and again (as Watson did in becoming #1).
@emncaity anytime. great conversation. enjoyed it. Chronic habitual failure is rooted in something far deeper than swing flaws and bad breaks. Some guys can handle the pressure, others can't. That's life, i guess. See you on another post sometime. Hit 'em straight.
"Chronic habitual failure is rooted in something far deeper than swing flaws and bad breaks. Some guys can handle the pressure, others can't.."
True, but the reasons for not handling it differ. I do think, though, that the problem is really similar with Mickelson and Norman. They have sort of a second track running in the background all the time, the need to project some kind of "bold player" image, rather than having winning as literally the only purpose....
...and, it does seem like that's kind of a defense mechanism sometimes. You can always say you lost while trying to hit that 40-yard cut with a 3-wood around the trees and over the lake "because I was trying to win the tournament, dammit"--when a smarter play would result in an 80% chance of a tie and an 18% chance of a win, with only a 2% chance of a loss. Or whatever. Even Tiger could use a little more of that Jackish mentality at times, but mostly he's got it.
@emncaity ....and the idea that Norman held the #1 ranking longer than anyone but Woods is a bit skewed considering they didn't keep an official world ranking prior to 1986. that's not Norman's fault, but it's not Hogan's or Jack's fault, either. Norman was a tremendous talent, but he had NO STONES. Period. That's not just my opinion. His performance in big events speaks for itself.....
Agreed on the rankings. I'm just saying he was not exactly chopped liver, but of course you couldn't put him the class of top-top players in history.
But on this matter of "no stones": Are you a competitive player yourself, at a high level? I'm asking because guys who've competed know there are more reasons for failure in big events than a lack of stones. In fact, in Norman's case it might be a matter of too _many_ stones--again, overconfidence and lack of perspective.
@emncaity well, i certainly don't play competitively at that level. But, I don't know how else to describe his short comings in the biggest events. Technically, he did possess a fatal swing flaw that reared it's ugly head at the '84 US Open and the '86 Masters, each time on the 72nd hole. Whatever you want to call it, the guy just flat didn't get it done. Great guy, super talent, just lacks the championship resume' in my view.
You're right; Norman's lapses were consistent. In his case, these were manifested in a technical flaw that he just never bothered to fix--which is just another way of not being _quite_ at the level of a Hogan or Nicklaus, whom you could not IMAGINE doing such a thing ("eh, I'll just leave that alone and maybe it won't come up").
And btw, that's not the same thing as saying the lapses were CAUSED by the technical flaw. More like the other way around.
Re taking care of technical flaws before they kill you: That's one of the things I admire about TW's game, even while finding him disgusting as a person. He really does work his ass off, and despite critics, I think it's usually on the right things. Right now, though, he's getting back into that huge down-move with his head and upper body that make him wild when he really goes after a shot, and it's gonna be really hard for him to play well for four straight rounds with that.
@emncaity i'm a 'Tiger guy' (the off course bs is another conversation) precisely because of what you've described. For the same reason, I'm a Nicklaus guy. I'm not a front runner, but, I have a tremendous appreciation for preparation, athletic intelligence, and an innate ability to execute under pressure. I think there is something to be said for the athlete who, even though he's favored, can still make it happen. The 'underdog' has it easy. ie Rocco and the 'nothing to lose' '08 Open.
Also, re '96 Masters (Faldo and Norman): I agree Norman blew it, but I'm telling you, going into that final round I was apoplectic about how reporters were talking. A six-shot lead really is not insurmountable, not even close, especially in a major. You can shoot 74 hitting it about like you do when you shoot 69, and another guy--especially a guy like Faldo--can shoot 67 and pass you. Having said that...a smarter way of playing would've sealed it for Norman.
I believe he knows this. He needs to throw away those Nike woods and get the titleist ones back out for a start. I have never heard anyone knowledgable about the history of the game saying Tiger woods is the greatest player ever. He can win another 10 Majors but if he doesn't sharpen up off the tee he will never be regarded in the same light as these players, he will just be another car park golfer like Seve. BTW I think Seve was great and so is Tiger but we should look at the whole.
Would any golf instructor tell you to copy tiger's swing? They might tell you copy how he putts! Next time you get a lesson ask him who you should copy; Hogan or Woods? Imagine how good Woods would be if he could put the ball in the fairway time after time like Greg Norman. Hogan or Nicklaus. Why does Tiger settle for second best in this part of his game? Who was the greatest Tiger or Seve? Both absolutely top of the tree in their time but think, Nicklaus and Hogan these are the pinnacle.
@coopersx19 no golf instructor these days would tell you to copy Nicklaus swing, and they certainly wouldn't advocate Hogan's grip nor his cupped left wrist at the top. I agree w/ you. It's puzzling that Tiger accepts being a poor driver of the golf ball. One year he worked w/ Harmon, i think he hit 70% fairways. I don't think he can control the longer clubs with the flatter swing plane that he's developed w/ Haney. He has completely 'overdone' that laid off look at the top.........
@coopersx19 cont'd..... and some of the tee shots he hit at the Masters were atrocious. But, Nicklaus didn't have Woods' short game. Nor did Hogan. Greg Norman? Yes, he was an accurate driver of the ball = long and straight. But, as a player, Greg Norman can't wash Tiger Woods' socks. Norman had the least mental toughness of all the players you mention. To me, the thing that separates Nicklaus is his overall major performance. 18 wins, 19 seconds, 73 top tens. Woods won't beat that.
Norman was #1 in the world for longer than anybody but Woods, with guys like Faldo and Price, Love and Couples chasing him. Who's Tiger got at that level, with that kind of mental toughness? I'm not making the case that Norman was as great as Tiger, but these extreme "can't wash his socks" statements are just trash.
If Norman at his best had played Woods in 10 matches, I'd bet on Woods, probably, to win about six, or maybe seven. The difference between players of that caliber just isn't extreme enough to warrant such trash talk.
@emncaity well, i'm sorry you disagree w/ my opinion of Norman. perhaps 'can't wash his socks' is extreme, but name a time when Greg Norman stepped on somebody's throat and won a Major championship. I'm thinking that if Tiger Woods had held the lead going into the final round of all four majors in a year, he'd win at least three; not lose three as Norman did in '86. Never mind Augusta in '96. That WAS trash....
You won't get an argument from me about the fact that TW is more likely to close out a tournament, esp. if you compare whole career with whole career. I think it's a bit unfair to Norman to act as if it's some kind of character flaw (as others have); it's more like guys like Nicklaus, Hogan, and Woods have some kind of uberintelligence in terms of how they prepare for those moments, what they do with technique to mitigate against their bad habits, etc...
...which Norman, as much as I like him and as underappreciated as I believe his talent to be, really needed. In
As for Tiger holding onto the lead in majors, well...you're right, but one of the reasons you're right is that he doesn't have guys like Snead or Palmer or Watson coming after him. He has guys who can't remember what the rules are re bunkers, who are passive and noncombative, who insist on compounding their errors, and so forth.
Not that any of that is TW's fault. He can beat only who's put in front of him, and so far (until his sluttiness became a public matter, anyhow) he's been doing it like a man among boys.
As for '96...perfect example. Go back and look at the tape. Norman started believing he was so perfect he could actually control the difference between, say, 102 and 104 in the air. Nicklaus would've had the intelligence and perspective to realize that no matter how much he believed that, it wasn't true--and therefore he'd better allow some margin for error. Not Norman, boy...
...Norman actually believed his own "feeling" about what he could do. (And I don't care what anybody says, it's a complete myth that--as Norman once insisted in an interview--a good pro can tell the difference between 166 and 168 when he hits it. All prospective testing shows otherwise; it's only logical fallacy and retrospective "evidence" that gives that illusion.)
I see a lot of that in Mickelson, who I also like but who also just HAS to play "his way," without adjusting
@emncaity i'd say that's a pretty good comparison (major results not withstanding). It seems Mickelson, as with Norman before him, just goes out and plays, and if it's good enough to win, great, but if not, then, aw shucks, that's golf and I relish the opportunity to give it another try next year. I just don't see a passion to be great. I think Norman wanted to be great, and maybe that pressure manifested itself in majors. his place in history sure could've been a lot different.
Re Mickelson--yup, that's it. I love the guy, he has crazy talent, love to go hang out and have dinner and all that, but he really is infuriating because--and I think Norman had a bit of this--it's self-sabotage, knowing you can always say "but I did the bold thing, etc.," hoping people will get behind you. ...
(re Mickelson, ct'd:) Players like Nicklaus and Hogan have a different sensibility--intelligence and discipline, brutal self-realism in the middle of a confident streak that makes you feel literally all-powerful, the right balance between boldness and control. I mean, when you think about a guy with the natural talent of Mickelson coupled with that kind of mentality, it's staggering. Maybe that's why God prevented it, or something.
@emncaity well, as he stood on the 72nd tee of the '06 Open, I thought Phil had finally exorcised the demons. Funny how that tee shot on 18 destroyed the cocoon of confidence he'd been enveloped in since the '04 Masters. After he putted out for a championship losing double, it was back to the same 'sheepish', apologetic approach to majors until this year at Augusta.
Re Nicklaus: You're probably right about the short game as a whole, but specifically regarding putting, Nicklaus and Woods are the greatest championship putters. Hard to pick one over the other, which is a huge compliment to Woods, as far as I'm concerned. I never thought I'd ever see anybody in Jack's class for making an absurd number of five-footers for an entire championship, until Woods came along.
As for Jack's record, you're right. What's more, Nicklaus piled up that record against guys who were #1-quality players, most of them in their prime. Palmer, Player, Casper (don't laugh--more majors than almost any of the 1Bs now), Trevino, Watson, you name it. (We'll see what Tiger's doing when he's 46.) None of Tiger's 1Bs are close. I'm not sure any of them could beat guys like Irwin and Floyd consistently or that they had anything close to that kind of mental toughness.
If the 'secret' is how to miss the fairway, I think I've already got it... :-(
jpsartrean 9 months ago
@emncaity .... perhaps I would have been more accurate in saying AS A COMPETITOR Norman can't wash Tiger Woods' socks. Also, you mention Davis Love II and Fred Couples as guys nipping at Norman's heels. Wow each of them have as many Major championships as Steve Jones, Michael Campbell, Shaun Micheel, and Mark Brooks. And just 1 more than I do. For my money, Love and Couples are two of the biggest underachievers in the history of pro golf. Love in particular.
earthshine2k 1 year ago
@earthshine2k
Re Jones, Campbell, Micheel, and Brooks--I get the point, but even here you imply that Couples and Love are well above that class of player. (I'm not dissing; if you're making a living playing golf, you're good.) I agree they've been underachivers and should've found out a long time ago what was keeping them from moving up the list of all-time greats. But he still had Faldo and Price. I don't see Anthony Kim or Dustin Johnston at that level, but maybe I'm wrong.
emncaity 1 year ago
@emncaity i make a living pushing paper I teach golf, part time Love III and Couples are light years ahead of those guys in the talent dept., but their career records don't attest to their talent levels. You could say the same thing about David Duval. To me the difference between the 1B's of the past 20 years and the 1B's of the Nicklaus era is money; plain and simple. The all exempt Tour and the huge purses make guys play to keep their cards not to be great champions It's a shame, really
earthshine2k 1 year ago
@earthshine2k
So right re Love, Couples, and Duval, and the effect of money and comfort.
Also: Love's dad was a crack teacher, as you know, but I wonder whether teaching a lot of amateurs tends to give you the sports psychologist mentality of a guy like Rotella--again, a likeable guy who has some good ideas, but much of his material seems geared toward the Rocco kind of mentality--happy to be there, win once in a while when it's your turn, etc....
emncaity 1 year ago
@emncaity yeah, i'm not a big fan of the 'focus on the process, not the result - it's just another round of golf' mentality that's so en vogue these days. I think Dustin Johnson succumbed to that and so did Nick Watney. I think you have to embrace championship opportunities and feed off of them. Nicklaus certainly did. Woods does. Why try to fool yourself. I think Rocco had the right approach...
earthshine2k 1 year ago
@emncaity .....he knew he had a once in a lifetime chance and he went for it. came up short, but he certainly didn't implode while trying to focus on his routine.
earthshine2k 1 year ago
@earthshine2k
Also, re the Rocco mentality: That may have helped him become as good as he could be, and he's rich because of it, and has had a good life with a lot of travel and a lot of fun. I just think guys like Nicklaus and Woods have all that--fun, good times, etc.--but still play with some kind of real urgency that seems lacking in literally almost everybody almost all the time these days, other than Woods.
emncaity 1 year ago
@earthshine2k
So maybe I should've gone back farther, since I'm really talking about the kind of player who didn't have Dad's insurance business or a corporate golf job to go to if they failed. I'm talking about guys who had the killer instinct because if they failed, they'd have to go back and pump gas or flip burgers, and be happy to have even that job. Tiger's the only guy out there who plays every week with the urgency of a guy who's gonna have to sell sweaters if he doesn't make it.
emncaity 1 year ago
@earthshine2k
Talent and instruction, yes. Ridiculous advantages in conditioning and equipment, absolutely. But hit-you-in-the-teeth toughness? Not so much. Think about how happy ol' jolly Rocco was to be there at Torrey in the Open playoff, and how jolly he was afterward--when a bold shot to the 72nd might've ended in a birdie, and when a hacking bogey in sudden death (enabled by his insistence on the same tee shot with the same club that had failed before) allowed a routine par to win.
emncaity 1 year ago
@earthshine2k
And the guy who beat him hit barely over 50% of fairways IN THE OPEN--and it's not like he burned it up in the final round OR the playoff. Different era, different standards, at times propped up by the Tour's need for hype of these allegedly superhuman guys. I actually wonder if he gets bored and would enjoy less domination and a better fight sometimes...
emncaity 1 year ago
@earthshine2k
I don't wonder why he has such obvious contempt for other players. He shouldn't show it, just like he shouldn't curse in front of millions of kids; his behavior is a problem; but competitively, I can see why a guy who sees people fall down every time he says "boo" would be a little contemptuous.
emncaity 1 year ago
@earthshine2k
Anyhow, I'll quit. Sorry. You got me rolling. I think I agree with almost everything you say other than the notion that failure equals a lack of fortitude. Sometimes it really is a technical problem or a problem of being smart about what you're doing. And sometimes it's just a physical reaction to unfamiliarity, which you overcome by continuing to put yourself in that position again and again (as Watson did in becoming #1).
emncaity 1 year ago
@emncaity anytime. great conversation. enjoyed it. Chronic habitual failure is rooted in something far deeper than swing flaws and bad breaks. Some guys can handle the pressure, others can't. That's life, i guess. See you on another post sometime. Hit 'em straight.
earthshine2k 1 year ago
@earthshine2k
"Chronic habitual failure is rooted in something far deeper than swing flaws and bad breaks. Some guys can handle the pressure, others can't.."
True, but the reasons for not handling it differ. I do think, though, that the problem is really similar with Mickelson and Norman. They have sort of a second track running in the background all the time, the need to project some kind of "bold player" image, rather than having winning as literally the only purpose....
emncaity 1 year ago
@earthshine2k
...and, it does seem like that's kind of a defense mechanism sometimes. You can always say you lost while trying to hit that 40-yard cut with a 3-wood around the trees and over the lake "because I was trying to win the tournament, dammit"--when a smarter play would result in an 80% chance of a tie and an 18% chance of a win, with only a 2% chance of a loss. Or whatever. Even Tiger could use a little more of that Jackish mentality at times, but mostly he's got it.
emncaity 1 year ago
Comment removed
earthshine2k 1 year ago
@emncaity ....and the idea that Norman held the #1 ranking longer than anyone but Woods is a bit skewed considering they didn't keep an official world ranking prior to 1986. that's not Norman's fault, but it's not Hogan's or Jack's fault, either. Norman was a tremendous talent, but he had NO STONES. Period. That's not just my opinion. His performance in big events speaks for itself.....
earthshine2k 1 year ago
@earthshine2k
Agreed on the rankings. I'm just saying he was not exactly chopped liver, but of course you couldn't put him the class of top-top players in history.
But on this matter of "no stones": Are you a competitive player yourself, at a high level? I'm asking because guys who've competed know there are more reasons for failure in big events than a lack of stones. In fact, in Norman's case it might be a matter of too _many_ stones--again, overconfidence and lack of perspective.
emncaity 1 year ago
@emncaity well, i certainly don't play competitively at that level. But, I don't know how else to describe his short comings in the biggest events. Technically, he did possess a fatal swing flaw that reared it's ugly head at the '84 US Open and the '86 Masters, each time on the 72nd hole. Whatever you want to call it, the guy just flat didn't get it done. Great guy, super talent, just lacks the championship resume' in my view.
earthshine2k 1 year ago
You're right; Norman's lapses were consistent. In his case, these were manifested in a technical flaw that he just never bothered to fix--which is just another way of not being _quite_ at the level of a Hogan or Nicklaus, whom you could not IMAGINE doing such a thing ("eh, I'll just leave that alone and maybe it won't come up").
And btw, that's not the same thing as saying the lapses were CAUSED by the technical flaw. More like the other way around.
emncaity 1 year ago
@earthshine2k
Re taking care of technical flaws before they kill you: That's one of the things I admire about TW's game, even while finding him disgusting as a person. He really does work his ass off, and despite critics, I think it's usually on the right things. Right now, though, he's getting back into that huge down-move with his head and upper body that make him wild when he really goes after a shot, and it's gonna be really hard for him to play well for four straight rounds with that.
emncaity 1 year ago
@emncaity i'm a 'Tiger guy' (the off course bs is another conversation) precisely because of what you've described. For the same reason, I'm a Nicklaus guy. I'm not a front runner, but, I have a tremendous appreciation for preparation, athletic intelligence, and an innate ability to execute under pressure. I think there is something to be said for the athlete who, even though he's favored, can still make it happen. The 'underdog' has it easy. ie Rocco and the 'nothing to lose' '08 Open.
earthshine2k 1 year ago
@emncaity
Also, re '96 Masters (Faldo and Norman): I agree Norman blew it, but I'm telling you, going into that final round I was apoplectic about how reporters were talking. A six-shot lead really is not insurmountable, not even close, especially in a major. You can shoot 74 hitting it about like you do when you shoot 69, and another guy--especially a guy like Faldo--can shoot 67 and pass you. Having said that...a smarter way of playing would've sealed it for Norman.
emncaity 1 year ago
I believe he knows this. He needs to throw away those Nike woods and get the titleist ones back out for a start. I have never heard anyone knowledgable about the history of the game saying Tiger woods is the greatest player ever. He can win another 10 Majors but if he doesn't sharpen up off the tee he will never be regarded in the same light as these players, he will just be another car park golfer like Seve. BTW I think Seve was great and so is Tiger but we should look at the whole.
coopersx19 2 years ago
Tiger not considered the best? You nuts?
tihannorubato 2 years ago
Would any golf instructor tell you to copy tiger's swing? They might tell you copy how he putts! Next time you get a lesson ask him who you should copy; Hogan or Woods? Imagine how good Woods would be if he could put the ball in the fairway time after time like Greg Norman. Hogan or Nicklaus. Why does Tiger settle for second best in this part of his game? Who was the greatest Tiger or Seve? Both absolutely top of the tree in their time but think, Nicklaus and Hogan these are the pinnacle.
coopersx19 2 years ago
@coopersx19 no golf instructor these days would tell you to copy Nicklaus swing, and they certainly wouldn't advocate Hogan's grip nor his cupped left wrist at the top. I agree w/ you. It's puzzling that Tiger accepts being a poor driver of the golf ball. One year he worked w/ Harmon, i think he hit 70% fairways. I don't think he can control the longer clubs with the flatter swing plane that he's developed w/ Haney. He has completely 'overdone' that laid off look at the top.........
earthshine2k 1 year ago
@coopersx19 cont'd..... and some of the tee shots he hit at the Masters were atrocious. But, Nicklaus didn't have Woods' short game. Nor did Hogan. Greg Norman? Yes, he was an accurate driver of the ball = long and straight. But, as a player, Greg Norman can't wash Tiger Woods' socks. Norman had the least mental toughness of all the players you mention. To me, the thing that separates Nicklaus is his overall major performance. 18 wins, 19 seconds, 73 top tens. Woods won't beat that.
earthshine2k 1 year ago
@earthshine2k
Norman was #1 in the world for longer than anybody but Woods, with guys like Faldo and Price, Love and Couples chasing him. Who's Tiger got at that level, with that kind of mental toughness? I'm not making the case that Norman was as great as Tiger, but these extreme "can't wash his socks" statements are just trash.
emncaity 1 year ago
@earthshine2k
If Norman at his best had played Woods in 10 matches, I'd bet on Woods, probably, to win about six, or maybe seven. The difference between players of that caliber just isn't extreme enough to warrant such trash talk.
emncaity 1 year ago
@emncaity well, i'm sorry you disagree w/ my opinion of Norman. perhaps 'can't wash his socks' is extreme, but name a time when Greg Norman stepped on somebody's throat and won a Major championship. I'm thinking that if Tiger Woods had held the lead going into the final round of all four majors in a year, he'd win at least three; not lose three as Norman did in '86. Never mind Augusta in '96. That WAS trash....
earthshine2k 1 year ago
@earthshine2k
You won't get an argument from me about the fact that TW is more likely to close out a tournament, esp. if you compare whole career with whole career. I think it's a bit unfair to Norman to act as if it's some kind of character flaw (as others have); it's more like guys like Nicklaus, Hogan, and Woods have some kind of uberintelligence in terms of how they prepare for those moments, what they do with technique to mitigate against their bad habits, etc...
emncaity 1 year ago
@earthshine2k
...which Norman, as much as I like him and as underappreciated as I believe his talent to be, really needed. In
As for Tiger holding onto the lead in majors, well...you're right, but one of the reasons you're right is that he doesn't have guys like Snead or Palmer or Watson coming after him. He has guys who can't remember what the rules are re bunkers, who are passive and noncombative, who insist on compounding their errors, and so forth.
emncaity 1 year ago
@earthshine2k
Not that any of that is TW's fault. He can beat only who's put in front of him, and so far (until his sluttiness became a public matter, anyhow) he's been doing it like a man among boys.
emncaity 1 year ago
@earthshine2k
As for '96...perfect example. Go back and look at the tape. Norman started believing he was so perfect he could actually control the difference between, say, 102 and 104 in the air. Nicklaus would've had the intelligence and perspective to realize that no matter how much he believed that, it wasn't true--and therefore he'd better allow some margin for error. Not Norman, boy...
emncaity 1 year ago
@earthshine2k
...Norman actually believed his own "feeling" about what he could do. (And I don't care what anybody says, it's a complete myth that--as Norman once insisted in an interview--a good pro can tell the difference between 166 and 168 when he hits it. All prospective testing shows otherwise; it's only logical fallacy and retrospective "evidence" that gives that illusion.)
I see a lot of that in Mickelson, who I also like but who also just HAS to play "his way," without adjusting
emncaity 1 year ago
@emncaity i'd say that's a pretty good comparison (major results not withstanding). It seems Mickelson, as with Norman before him, just goes out and plays, and if it's good enough to win, great, but if not, then, aw shucks, that's golf and I relish the opportunity to give it another try next year. I just don't see a passion to be great. I think Norman wanted to be great, and maybe that pressure manifested itself in majors. his place in history sure could've been a lot different.
earthshine2k 1 year ago
@earthshine2k
Re Mickelson--yup, that's it. I love the guy, he has crazy talent, love to go hang out and have dinner and all that, but he really is infuriating because--and I think Norman had a bit of this--it's self-sabotage, knowing you can always say "but I did the bold thing, etc.," hoping people will get behind you. ...
emncaity 1 year ago
@earthshine2k
(re Mickelson, ct'd:) Players like Nicklaus and Hogan have a different sensibility--intelligence and discipline, brutal self-realism in the middle of a confident streak that makes you feel literally all-powerful, the right balance between boldness and control. I mean, when you think about a guy with the natural talent of Mickelson coupled with that kind of mentality, it's staggering. Maybe that's why God prevented it, or something.
emncaity 1 year ago
@emncaity well, as he stood on the 72nd tee of the '06 Open, I thought Phil had finally exorcised the demons. Funny how that tee shot on 18 destroyed the cocoon of confidence he'd been enveloped in since the '04 Masters. After he putted out for a championship losing double, it was back to the same 'sheepish', apologetic approach to majors until this year at Augusta.
earthshine2k 1 year ago
@earthshine2k
Re Nicklaus: You're probably right about the short game as a whole, but specifically regarding putting, Nicklaus and Woods are the greatest championship putters. Hard to pick one over the other, which is a huge compliment to Woods, as far as I'm concerned. I never thought I'd ever see anybody in Jack's class for making an absurd number of five-footers for an entire championship, until Woods came along.
emncaity 1 year ago
@earthshine2k
As for Jack's record, you're right. What's more, Nicklaus piled up that record against guys who were #1-quality players, most of them in their prime. Palmer, Player, Casper (don't laugh--more majors than almost any of the 1Bs now), Trevino, Watson, you name it. (We'll see what Tiger's doing when he's 46.) None of Tiger's 1Bs are close. I'm not sure any of them could beat guys like Irwin and Floyd consistently or that they had anything close to that kind of mental toughness.
emncaity 1 year ago
The rest is a clinic with anthony kim, 8 parts. just search youtube for it.
cyklon78 2 years ago
the rest is not important...
what is important is what he says at the end of this clip
HoganFan69 2 years ago
I want the rest...please.
itubeutude 3 years ago
Thanks KOC
cmartingolf 3 years ago
The rest is in rest...
KOC 3 years ago
where's the rest?
tongzilla 3 years ago