The Open
- Thread starter Tilted
- Start date
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Tilted
..
I didn't get to watch much of the final round because I was playing golf myself. But it seems the ending was quite dramatic. Congrats to Ernie, it's nice to see him on top of the golf world once again - it's been a long time. And good on him for taking the opportunity to express his and his nation's appreciation for Nelson Mandela.
That had to have stung for Adam Scott though, a terrible way to lose the grandest golf tournament in the world. Hopefully he'll bounce back quickly and find himself in contention in a major again soon. People aren't defined by such failures, they're defined by how they respond to them.
Do you think Tiger had anger management or discipline problems (with regard to his golf game) before? I didn't see that. He's long seemed able to manage his emotions better than most anyone else out there. He doesn't get rattled and fall apart, he just keeps grinding. That's a big part of what's made him the champion that he's been. Or are you just talking about the reflexive expressions of disappointment or frustration that sometimes follow poor shots (e.g. cussing, dropping clubs, slamming clubs)? The best I can tell he still does some of that, as many people do. That's not to excuse it of course, but in a sense it's been part of his anger management - he doesn't let the frustration fester over the course of a round, turn into anger, and affect his game.
That had to have stung for Adam Scott though, a terrible way to lose the grandest golf tournament in the world. Hopefully he'll bounce back quickly and find himself in contention in a major again soon. People aren't defined by such failures, they're defined by how they respond to them.
I'm very impressed with Tiger's discipline. He's playing some rollercoaster golf and is still keeping his composure. Even after the triple bogey… The anger management classes must be working.
I find myself actually pulling for him.
Do you think Tiger had anger management or discipline problems (with regard to his golf game) before? I didn't see that. He's long seemed able to manage his emotions better than most anyone else out there. He doesn't get rattled and fall apart, he just keeps grinding. That's a big part of what's made him the champion that he's been. Or are you just talking about the reflexive expressions of disappointment or frustration that sometimes follow poor shots (e.g. cussing, dropping clubs, slamming clubs)? The best I can tell he still does some of that, as many people do. That's not to excuse it of course, but in a sense it's been part of his anger management - he doesn't let the frustration fester over the course of a round, turn into anger, and affect his game.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Only when he's out front.
This is why Jack will always be #1. Tiger might get the most total major wins and that is a big maybe. However, Jack was pretty much always in the hunt with more 2nd's and 3rd's than wins. Tiger either is winning or not even close. By Jack standards, he collapsed at the Us Open and I applaud him gutting out a 3rd at the British. But, he's got a LONG way to go to total up to all those 2's and 3's and THAT is the measure of consistent excellence, not just when you were playing really well and won.
Tiger fans are getting a whole new appreciation for just how hard this game is seeing him obviously playing well but not being able to finish of late.
thurley42
HY;FR
Only when he's out front.
This is why Jack will always be #1. Tiger might get the most total major wins and that is a big maybe. However, Jack was pretty much always in the hunt with more 2nd's and 3rd's than wins. Tiger either is winning or not even close. By Jack standards, he collapsed at the Us Open and I applaud him gutting out a 3rd at the British. But, he's got a LONG way to go to total up to all those 2's and 3's and THAT is the measure of consistent excellence, not just when you were playing really well and won.
Tiger fans are getting a whole new appreciation for just how hard this game is seeing him obviously playing well but not being able to finish of late.
But Tigers has more wins in 8 less years?????
Tilted
..
I don't agree with that. Tiger has always been a grinder, always kept his head in the game - always seemed able to summon incredible focus and direct it at scoring the best that he could. The most amazing performance of Tiger's that I can remember watching didn't come in a victory or while he was out front. I'll try to figure out what year it was when I get a chance, but it was in the final round of a Player's Championship (IIRC). He was far enough back at one point that he shouldn't have had a chance to win, but he put together an amazing run on the back nine to give himself a chance to win. He fell just short because the ultimate winner made a couple of great shots on the last few holes to pull it out (I think he chipped in on number 17), but Tiger's run to even get close was remarkable. I think he birdied 8 of the last 6 holes (hyperbole alert). He had no chance, but he stayed focused and had one of his best performances ever.
At any rate, I wasn't commenting on whether Tiger won from behind, I was commenting on whether he was able to control his anger and remain disciplined even when he was having a rough time or hit bad shots. No one has ever recovered from trouble tee shots to grind out pars as consistently as he did. He kept his head down and pushing forward and, whatever the situation he had put himself in, focused on what he needed to do to make the par on that hole. So often he was successful. And he won not because he was a birdie making machine, but because he was a grinder that saved pars better than anyone.
Last edited:
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I think, clearly, he held it together but, Jack was still a better grinder and I think the record speaks to that. Tiger is a tremendous golfer, probably #2 all time but, part of why he looks so good is in comparison. He dominated in the age of the 'soft' golfer, guys who were making very good livings on and off the course without being great players. Jack had people coming after him tooth and nail every week and still was dominant. Tiger also has had no signature battles. Bob May? Rocco? That's not Tiger's fault but, we have lacked for some compelling battles. Jack, major after major, was trading shots with Trevino, Watson, all sorts of guys, at their best, legendary stuff.
Tiger isn't winning at will now because, in tribute to him, there are a lot of young guys who learned how to win from him.
I guess I'm not really dealing with your question very well because I've never thought Tiger DIDN'T deal well with his game plan and anger. Iron will, for sure. Don't all those 2nds and 3rds, Jacks, and Tigers lack of them, speak to who was better at hanging in there?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
But Tigers has more wins in 8 less years?????
Good point.
Tilted
..
I think, clearly, he held it together but, Jack was still a better grinder and I think the record speaks to that. Tiger is a tremendous golfer, probably #2 all time but, part of why he looks so good is in comparison. He dominated in the age of the 'soft' golfer, guys who were making very good livings on and off the course without being great players. Jack had people coming after him tooth and nail every week and still was dominant. Tiger also has had no signature battles. Bob May? Rocco? That's not Tiger's fault but, we have lacked for some compelling battles. Jack, major after major, was trading shots with Trevino, Watson, all sorts of guys, at their best, legendary stuff.
Tiger isn't winning at will now because, in tribute to him, there are a lot of young guys who learned how to win from him.
I guess I'm not really dealing with your question very well because I've never thought Tiger DIDN'T deal well with his game plan and anger. Iron will, for sure. Don't all those 2nds and 3rds, Jacks, and Tigers lack of them, speak to who was better at hanging in there?
I think we've talked about this before and we're in general agreement. When Tiger was winning most of his majors, he wasn't competing against the caliber of champions that Jack was when he was winning majors (and finishing 2nd or 3rd). I think the fields were deeper for Tiger, but not as good at the top - or, at least, the other great players of his generation weren't the kind of champions that Jack had to beat. Jack had Tom, Arnold, Gary, Lee - as you say, a bunch of them.
When Tiger played his A+ game, he won. When he played his A- game, he won. When he played his B game, he usually won. When Jack played his A+ game, he won. But when he played his A- game, he didn't necessarily win; and when he played his B game, he generally didn't win. There were other people there that could beat him when he wasn't at his very best, and they stepped up and did just that. That's why Jack finished 2nd and 3rd so often - it was when he played well but not his best. Tiger got firsts most of the times he played well but not his best. And when he didn't play well at all, he wasn't going to finish in the top 3 - the same with Jack, the same with everyone.
People sometimes make a big deal about Tiger not winning from behind. Well, if he was playing well, he was very likely to be in the lead. He was that much better than the field. And when he wasn't playing well, of course he wasn't going to win - nobody wins if they're playing bad that week. Others win from behind because they can be behind even when they've got their game together - even when they're playing well enough to win. In his prime, Tiger wasn't behind when he had his game together - so, anytime he was playing well enough to win, he didn't have a chance to do it from behind.
I guess my point is that, it's not so much that Jack placed 2nd or 3rd so often because he was able to hang in there even when he didn't have his game. It's more that Jack placed 2nd or 3rd so often because he could be beat even when he did have his game, because he was playing with guys that were great champions in their own right. I think Jack played good or great in majors more often than Tiger has. But for Tiger, most all of those times are counted as wins - for Jack, most of them aren't.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I guess my point is that, it's not so much that Jack placed 2nd or 3rd so often because he was able to hang in there even when he didn't have his game. It's more that Jack placed 2nd or 3rd so often because he could be beat even when he did have his game, because he was playing with guys that were great champions in their own right. I think Jack played good or great in majors more often than Tiger has. But for Tiger, most all of those times are counted as wins - for Jack, most of them aren't.
Which, if I read you correctly, supports my assertion that Jack is the better grinder. You're saying when Tiger is on, he wins, period and I agree. You are also saying that part of that is the level of competition, the hard edged guys who lived to get Jack, have not been there to challenge Tiger. We agree again. And that Jack could be beat when he was on because of those competitors.
By that measure, Tiger has been 'on' 14 times. Jack has been on, what, 60 times. So, in 4 majors a year for, what, call it 20 years of prime time or, in, roughly, 80 career major appearance in the prime of his career, Jack Nicklaus 'podium-ed' 75% of the time. And Tiger? 14 times, what, 10 2nds and 3rds so, in 65 majors he 'podium-ed' about 40%.
Now, as big a "Jack is the King" guy as I am, I am not prepared to claim Jack is THAT much better than Tiger which you actually are making a case for, yes? I mean, you are saying that Jack was 'on' more, far more, yes? I'd argue he couldn't possibly be! Thus, in my view, he was just that much better at controlling himself, his emotions and sticking to his plans and grinding out good performances on the brightest stages.