July 23, 2006

Drive for Show; Putt for Dough: Brilliant performance!

posted by panteeze to golf at 12:35 PM - 56 comments

It is good to see Tiger playing brilliantly again. The last few years he has been playing good but relying on too much power I think. If he where to hit the ball 310 instead of 330 and focus that much more on accuracy he will win the Grand Slam with ease.

posted by kidrayter2005 at 12:53 PM on July 23, 2006

If he where to hit the ball 310 instead of 330 and focus that much more on accuracy he will win the Grand Slam with ease. Well, he was the reigning champion of all 4 majors at one time. Just because it wasn't in the same calendar year doesn't mean it's not as impressive. As for his performance today, it was as solid as it gets. The tearful finish almost had me bawling.

posted by grum@work at 01:11 PM on July 23, 2006

And when he did have all of the majors at once he was hitting solid balls down the middle of the fairway. He played smart but powerful. Lately he has just been playing straight power and hoping it was a good position for a good shot. He was putting himself in unneccesary tough shot positions.

posted by kidrayter2005 at 01:18 PM on July 23, 2006

Tiger has all the skills and it was fun watching his precision...but equally great was seeing his human side. To see that he's just a regular guy with great emotion for his family was heartwarming.

posted by billythekid at 02:18 PM on July 23, 2006

Tiger's strategy this entire tournament was excellent. It's kind of disappointing not to see him with a driver in his hands, but his approach shots, especially from 180-200 or so yards, was incredible. His focus on the course is something I wish could be bottled and sold. Not a player out there can match his game mentally.

posted by dyams at 07:34 PM on July 23, 2006

the whole tournament disappointed me!. i cannot believe how easy the course played for a major event. the major. last year at st. andrews was the same. these courses are playing way too easy for these players. more than half the field was under par. i think the whole tournament like last years was a bore! tiger lame tears included. give me a break! major tournaments should be more like the u.s. open. when it come to difficultly, etc.....

posted by jakeamo15 at 09:58 PM on July 23, 2006

What do you mean lame tears. His dad died! If you watch the tournements who was the first guy he hugged? His dad. His dad was his first coach and his best friend. Of course he is going to break down after the first tournement he wins and he can't embrace his father. And with the course being easy the best score was a 65. These guys have shot a lot lower than that over on the American Courses.

posted by kidrayter2005 at 10:38 PM on July 23, 2006

Tiger wins with easy major set-ups. When a true championship test exists he is not a dominant player.(i.e.Carnoustie,Royal St. George,Oak Hill, and especially , Winged Foot.)If links course winds would have blown,he wouldnt have won at Hoylake either and there would always be people making excuses for him.

posted by judgedread at 11:26 PM on July 23, 2006

When a true championship test exists he is not a dominant player. In 2000, the U.S. Open at Pebble Beach was won by Tiger Woods with a score of -12. None of the other competitors finished below par (and Tiger won by a record 15 strokes). I'm pretty sure the course would have been considered a "true test" for the PGA. It's just that Tiger was almost perfect that weekend.

posted by grum@work at 11:49 PM on July 23, 2006

Are you that guy at golf tournaments who shouts "GET IN THE HOLE!!!" when people hit 2 iron off the tee at a par 5? I think the course provided a very good test, but then I already had my rant/argument about that (which I just looked for a link to and finally remembered I'd had it on the Guardian shot-by-shot coverage, not here).

posted by JJ at 05:17 AM on July 24, 2006

Are you that guy at golf tournaments who shouts "GET IN THE HOLE!!!" when people hit 2 iron off the tee at a par 5? I think the course provided a very good test, but then I already had my rant/argument about that (which I just looked for a link to and finally remembered I'd had it on the Guardian shot-by-shot coverage, not here).

posted by JJ at 05:17 AM on July 24, 2006

nice double post, nice double post.

posted by ptluigi at 05:24 AM on July 24, 2006

Are you that guy at golf tournaments who shouts "GET IN THE HOLE!!!" I cannot believe this hapens at the British Open. Worst sporting "innovation" in my lifetime.

posted by yerfatma at 06:14 AM on July 24, 2006

jakeamo, if you're so bitter about the guy, get off the thread. Hitting a small ball very well IS golf. Sorry he grabbed so much attention away from you during your SoCal youth. Deal with your jealousy and get over it. And what's the deal, your posts? You either use zero caps or all caps? Quit your yelling.

posted by dyams at 06:51 AM on July 24, 2006

I cannot believe this hapens at the British Open. The only bloke I heard shouting it on what I saw of the tv coverage had an American accent. I seem to recall the BBC commentators suggested he should be deported forthwith.

posted by squealy at 08:37 AM on July 24, 2006

While I agree these nitwits who yell out after every tee shot should be shown to the gate, the people running these tournaments on foreign soil still leave a bit to be desired. Whether it's in Britain, Scotland, Ireland, etc., their fixation on a "quick," three hour or so round becomes a joke. They always have to make a spectacle of themselves and put the final few pairings "On the clock" when in all truthfullness they don't spend enough of their energy controling some of the crowd that cause some of the delays. Steve Williams having to constantly address all these idiots with cell phone cameras needs to be dealt with before they start warning players trying to win a major to move along.

posted by dyams at 09:03 AM on July 24, 2006

hey dyams i'm not jealous of the guy or bitter. i was simply trying to explain that everything isn't always as "ideal" as it or appears. we humans just like to make events so idealistic and dramatic. and golf is just a game/sport. get over yourself! and who uses the word nitwit anyway.

posted by jakeamo15 at 10:40 AM on July 24, 2006

I cannot believe this hapens at the British Open. Worst sporting "innovation" in my lifetime. How about the "John 3:16" guy with the rainbow wig?

posted by hawkguy at 11:02 AM on July 24, 2006

who uses the word nitwit anyway. I use that word rather than going on obscenity-laced attacks many others seem to resort to. As for the drama, that's part of the entertainment value sports provides. Tiger Woods goes into a major tournament, anything but a win sure to elicit ridicule, laughs, taunts, criticism, etc., dominates the field (for all intents and purposes), and gets a bit emotional because the first person he has always hugged after a big win is his Dad, and he's dead. The guy keeps his emotions in check the entire week in an effort not to lose focus, cries for a few moments, and he's a jerk for that, too. Tough crowd.

posted by dyams at 11:06 AM on July 24, 2006

golf is just a game Burn the witch!

posted by JJ at 11:26 AM on July 24, 2006

How about those idiots who threw the purple paint bombs on the 18th green?

posted by Cubfan276 at 11:30 AM on July 24, 2006

Burn the witch! She turned me into a newt! A Newt? I got better.

posted by hawkguy at 11:30 AM on July 24, 2006

I can't believe what I'm reading here. How many more majors is Tiger going to have to win before you guys consider him a dominant player? Except for the year he was retooling his swing, Tiger Woods has been far and away the best player on the planet for the last decade. 11 majors already, and he's only 30 years old. Other golfers have had good years, but he's dominated this sport in ways that only Nicklaus has even approached in the past. So seriously, how many more majors? One more? Seven more? Ten? You want him to retire for two years and go play minor league baseball, then come back and win three more? You want him to beat Ken Jennings' recond on Jeopardy!? Beat Takeru Kobayashi at Nathan's next July 4? Win the National Spelling Bee while shooting four straight rounds of 62 at Carnoustie and spinning a dozen plates and farting God Bless America? Would that do it?

posted by chicobangs at 11:35 AM on July 24, 2006

you know dyams you are a nitwit. i do not engage in obcenity either by the way. but what is your love-affair with tiger anyway he did not dominate the field if you look at the score board. and i agree with judgedread, if the open had been a true championship test he would not have faired as well! i do agree with the pebble beach win, however, but that was when he's was playing his best golf. every great golfer gets a win in that matter as well.

posted by jakeamo15 at 11:38 AM on July 24, 2006

I have no "love affair" with Tiger, but I just believe in giving credit to a player who has established himself as dominant in his sport. As for the course being to easy, I guess you'd have to ask Monty and Vijay, among others, about that. The majors are played where they're scheduled, and it's up to the players to adjust to the easy or tough setup. Maybe they need to "Tiger-proof" the British Open courses like they've tried to do at Augusta.

posted by dyams at 12:11 PM on July 24, 2006

if the open had been a true championship test he would not have faired as well! i do agree with the pebble beach win, however, but that was when he's was playing his best golf. every great golfer gets a win in that matter as well. He wins a major (but doesn't dominate) and it's no big deal. He dominates a "true championship test" (2000 US Open) and it's expected. As chicobangs points out, there is absolutely nothing Tiger can do to change your mind. He's won 11 majors, on easy courses, hard courses, in dominating and regular fashion, but it's still not enough. You know what you have to do. Just come out and say what you really mean: "I don't like Tiger Woods because he might surpass Nicklaus as the greatest golfer of all time." You'll feel better and we'll finally have an end to your tortured logic about Tiger's lack of greatness.

posted by grum@work at 12:37 PM on July 24, 2006

How about the "John 3:16" guy with the rainbow wig? Hey, that guy wound up killing someone, so he's cooler than the dudes in pleated shorts yelling "GET IN THE HOLE!" in a voice reminscient of Jennifer Aniston's special friend in The Good Girl. "Get in the CORNER! GET IN THE CORNER!"

posted by yerfatma at 01:53 PM on July 24, 2006

arnold palmer was the greatest. if it wasn't for him their would be no jack of tiger. he made golf a real spectator sport and drew in the crowds and the money. and i don't care about records. tiger can break every record there is. and unfortunately that is his only motivation. he has spoke about that fact on many different occasions in many differnt media genre. why don't you guys go out and play some golf instead about talking about it.

posted by jakeamo15 at 02:15 PM on July 24, 2006

I took several stitches in my right hand a few days ago, or I would be out golfing right now.

posted by dyams at 02:20 PM on July 24, 2006

arnold palmer was the greatest. if it wasn't for him their would be no jack of tiger. Good thing Earl Woods kicked it before you revealed his wife's affair.

posted by yerfatma at 03:16 PM on July 24, 2006

why don't you guys go out and play some golf instead about talking about it. It's dark here and I don't play golf. Your excuses?

posted by squealy at 03:28 PM on July 24, 2006

i'm going out right now! and i'm taking my nike clubs, balls, bag, glove, shoes, shirt, shorts, hat, socks, watch, wrist band, and towel with me. oh did i mention my 5 handicap too. (just bragging on myself a little; gotta get the props from somewhere). you guys are so serious. but hey i do have that handicap though but it is too hot where i live to golf right now. lighten up!

posted by jakeamo15 at 03:38 PM on July 24, 2006

arnold palmer was the greatest. if it wasn't for him their would be no jack of tiger. Palmer never won the PGA Championship. It's hard to put him in the "greatest" discussion if he doesn't even have a career grand slam.

posted by grum@work at 04:02 PM on July 24, 2006

jakeamo15 - get back in your box - you're just being contrary and you don't know as much about golf as you seem to think you do. As grum points out, there are at least five players with a claim to "greatest" ahead of Palmer. He might be your favourite, he might have had a lot of influence on the game, but he's not the greatest. Did you watch the golf yesterday, or did you just look at the scores? Honestly? I counted five pins that were even close to accessible yesterday - and yet the winner still shot five under par and won the tournament. For what it's worth, I don't rate Tiger as highly as Nicklaus (there's a column brewing about why not) yet - he is good at doing what he did yesterday (holding off the field), but he suffers the same weakness as all the other top pros these days (no one is charging from three shots back anymore). The bottom line is that how I rate him doesn't matter a damn. He's won 11 majors (and is now tied with Hagen as the second most prolific major winner of all time), and he's done it two years earlier than Nicklaus did. As for golf being only a game; you're right, it is, but it's the fact that it reflects life so strongly that draws people to play and to watch it. For the sake of your own enjoyment of the game, I hope you haven't gotten to playing off five without realising that yet.

posted by JJ at 04:27 PM on July 24, 2006

the whole tournament disappointed me!. i cannot believe how easy the course played for a major event. There will always be criticism that a major course was either too easy or too hard (Bethpage). To me, wheather the course is set up easy or difficult, the best golfer for the week will have outplayed the others. Tiger clearly outplayed everyone else. His course management dominated all the competition. He is not "Phil the Thrill", he does was he has to do to win. How do you think Tiger would have played the 18th at Wingfoot if he were in Phil's position? My guess would be, 2 iron, 2 iron, three putt for bogey and win. In my humble opinion, he is the best golfer in the world today for the last 10 years counting.

posted by panteeze at 05:03 PM on July 24, 2006

you guys are so funny you take every word and pick it apart. i don't personally think arnold is the greatest golfer to ever play the game either. i'm sorry if i left out that it was the influnece that palmer had on the present game(pro tour) was my major point. did you guys major in philosophy or what. like i said lighten up. and who cares who is or was the greatest. i think and know personally that babe ruth was the greatest.

posted by jakeamo15 at 05:46 PM on July 24, 2006

you guys are so funny you take every word and pick it apart. arnold palmer was the greatest. I was really picking apart the word "the".

posted by grum@work at 08:48 PM on July 24, 2006

Not every word, jake. We do, however, pick apart every idea, especially the more ludicrous and outlandish ones. SpoFi isn't a place where you can drop a turd into a conversation and then waltz off. Come correct with the discussions, and expect to defend your positions on things. This isn't a shouting match, and intimidation isn't really going to work. The more you listen to other people's opinions on things, and keep it above the belt and stay away from personal attacks and cheap shots, the more fun you'll have on this site (and off it too). Don't be afraid to have your mind changed every once in a while. That's a good thing, and not just on the interweb. And one more thing: don't take a serious stand, and then tell everyone to "just lighten up" when they respond in kind. If you think we don't goof off here, then you haven't read any other threads. We go both ways, as the discussion warrants, very well. Now. Tiger Woods, at 30 years old, has already passed the likes of Palmer, Watson, Player and Johnny Miller in terms of career achievement and legacy, and is fast approaching Hagen/Snead/Jones/Nicklaus territory. And the meat of his career is about halfway finished. If he does as little as 75% of what he's done so far for another decade (which should be a piece of cake), Valhalla awaits him. Your inability to give Tiger Woods any credit at all for moving further up the greatest-ever list, especially so near after the death of his father, coach, mentor, best friend and personal hero all rolled into one, is at best myopic. At worst, well, I don't know you, so I won't go there.

posted by chicobangs at 12:38 AM on July 25, 2006

We go both ways AC/DC? Groovy. I reckon Woods has now surpassed everyone bar Nicklaus in terms of his record as a golfer. To compare him to Jones, you have to count amateur majors, which moves Tiger on to 14, surpassing Jones' 13 (Four US Opens, Three Open Championships, Five US Amateurs, One Amateur Championship). But the golf Jones played was in a different era - easier to win (in terms of how strong the fields were), harder to play (in terms of the equipment). Jake, you talked about Palmer's (undoubted) influence, but check this out: Bobby Jones - won his first tournament aged six. - at 14, he got to the thrid round of the US Amateur. - at 21, he won his first of five US Open titles - by 28, he had retired from the game, having won 13 of the 20 majors he had played in. - at the same time he got a BSc in Mechanical Engineering from Georgia IT, a BA in English Literature from Harvard, and passed the bar after just one year at Emory. - once retired, he made a dozen instructional films, helped Spalding design the first set of matched clubs, desingned and built Augusta, and co-founded the Masters. Quite a life.

posted by JJ at 04:40 AM on July 25, 2006

who uses the word nitwit anyway. So far, only people who read your contributions (?) to this thread. Stop now, and that number will stay manageable.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 06:49 AM on July 25, 2006

I confess, the ending made me a little weepy, too. So nice to see Tiger remembering his father at such a pivotal moment. I like him as a person more and more all the time.

posted by Joey Michaels at 09:09 AM on July 25, 2006

Tiger does not beat himself: his 11- 0 record in majors when leading going into the final round says it all, no one has ever denied him by going low, he always seems to play well enough to win, and, that is all that matters. judgedread When a true championship test exists, he is not a dominant player. Let me get this right: Augusta National is not a true championship test? Nor Pebble Beach, nor Bethpage Black, nor St. Andrews, nor Medinah #3? Tiger can win on any course, no matter how severe or forgiving the layout may be, and, he may well be the toughest mentally to ever play the sport. I like this quote, from Gary Van Sickle of Sports Illustrated, shortly after Tiger won his first Tour event in Las Vegas: "Golf, as we know it, is over. He's not just a promising young Tour pro anymore, he's an era." Pretty damn close, I'd say.

posted by mjkredliner at 03:11 PM on July 25, 2006

Yeah, including Bobby Jones in that list is a little unfair. He's the Babe Ruth of golf: his records may fall, but he was the first of the truly great ones, and his legacy is now and forever beyond cavil. On preview: "Golf, as we know it, is over. He's not just a promising young Tour pro anymore, he's an era." Great quote, and I'd go so far as to say it's entirely accurate.

posted by chicobangs at 03:14 PM on July 25, 2006

I'm loving the quote. I'm agreeing with the quote. I'm also loving the use of the word "cavil". Now that the kids have gone to bed, can we talk about the golf? There were some guys on the golf channel the other night talking about Woods vs Nicklaus. Their main contention was that Nicklaus had to beat better people to win his first eleven (although, they kept mentioning Watson, who didn't show up as a major winning force until Jack had already won 13). I had a look at the past winners and found the following: In the time it has taken Tiger to win 11: Vijay has won 3 Mickelson has won 3 Goose has won 2 Els has won 2 (of a career three) O'Meara has won 2 (swansong, doesn't count) There have been flashes in pans (Toh Hamyton (as Seve called him in BBC comentary), Ken Burtis, Shaun Micheel), but also some class acts - Payne Stewart won one (of a career three) Olly won one (of a career two), Janzen won one (of a career two), Duval won one (when he was brilliant). In the time it took Nicklaus to win 11: Player won (his middle) 3 (of a career 9) Trevino won (his first) 3 (of a career 6) Palmer won (his last) 2 (of a career 7) Casper (the friendly golfer) won (his last) 2 (of a career 3) Julian Boros won (his last) 2 (of a career 3) Jacklin won 2 There were flashes in pans (Bobby Nichols, Orville Moody, George Archer, Al Geiberger, Charles Coody, Ken Venturi, Dave Marr, Bob Charles) but also some class acts - Peter Thompson won (his last of a career five), Floyd won (his first of a career four), Dave Stockton won one (of a career two). Plus ca change really. History will look very differently on Tiger's achievments when he a) surpasses Nicklaus' record, which he will do easily barring injury or accident, and b) if the likes of Phil, Vijay, Els and Goosen can grab at least one more each (and I don't think any of them are finished by any means), and the up-and-comings like Ogilvy, Scott & Garcia can start winning more, as they should. I don't think Nicklaus had it any harder - in fact, I'd say it was easier. There wasn't as much money involved, so there weren't as many players - and of the players there were, very few of them were as focused on their golf as most of the modern players are (they had things like wives and kids and... lives outside golf *gasp*) Nicklaus was beating a twilight Palmer, and emerging Trevino, a hateful wee South African, a friendly ghost and a future Slazenger Slasher. Tiger has been beating some incredible players (Els, Singh, Goosen, Duval, Mickelson) at the peak of their powers. As for the "true test" argument - I stand by my contention that the best players win when the course is fair and a good score is possible - and that tricked up "difficult" golf courses produce unheralded winners. Last seven winners at St Andrews (which is an easy golf course if you have a brain in your head and can find several routes round it in various winds) - Woods, Woods, Daly, Faldo, Seve, Nicklaus, Nicklaus. On the other hand, the two "toughest tests" in recent times were Carnoustie in '99 and Sandwich in '03 - both of which were won by unheralded players who have done nothing since to convince me they are anything but journeymen who caught the title when the top players were tripped by the course.

posted by JJ at 04:32 AM on July 26, 2006

I think the course was great (as apparently did the players) and I think Tiger was better, he had a winning strategy and the ability to execute it. As alifelong fan of Jack I hate to say this but I think Tiger may be the best ever.

posted by swobe at 10:37 AM on July 26, 2006

/reads JJ's comment /stands and applauds

posted by grum@work at 11:23 AM on July 26, 2006

Tiger's biggest problem is consistency, but even when he's slipping a little, he's usually better than 90% of the field. There are guys who can hang with him at any given tournament, but nobody's shown that they can do it regularly, and I'll be surprised if anybody comes along soon. Best ever? Maybe not yet, but certainly headed there. Barring major physical problems that cut his career short, or a mental meltdown (which seems like a one in a million possibility to me), he's pretty much a lock for besy ever.

posted by ctal1999 at 11:24 AM on July 26, 2006


posted by yerfatma at 11:53 AM on July 26, 2006

Excellent research and I agree with your arguments, JJ. I will always wonder, however, what the likes of Vardon, Jones, Hagen, Sarazen, Snead, Nelson, Hogan, Player, Palmer, Watson, and Nicklaus could have done with todays equipment, any improvement may have been negated by their opponents use of same equipment, or it may have made their own game stand out even more, who's to say? The group of players who have won 7 to 9 majors were all extraordinary, and those who have won more should be annointed Gods of Golf. Gary Player hateful? Surely that is tongue in cheek, I will let it ride ;)

posted by mjkredliner at 12:00 PM on July 26, 2006

To, finally, support my earlier comment,I would add that I have a profound respect for Tiger's ability and accomplishments.However,I stand by my position that Tiger historically does not win on the toughest course set-ups. (Bethpage over-emphasized long carries and Pebble was virtually his home course.)As great as he is, his Achilles heel is a course with penal rough,fast greens,and significant wind.Royal Liverpool had none of these, and a major played like the Bob Hope Desert Classic. If the R&A has the guts to set Carnoustie up like they did last time,my point will be proven next year.

posted by judgedread at 08:05 PM on July 26, 2006

He also ain't worth a shit on them holes with the windmills.

posted by mjkredliner at 09:52 PM on July 26, 2006

I think one factor that may cloud the issue a bit is the nature of links golf. By definition, these courses are costal, and generally are exposed (especially in Britain) to four seasons in a day. If you set it up hard and fast with rough up to your eyes a foot off the fairway and then the wind blows (properly) you could end up having to abandon the round. I played in an Irish championship one year at County Louth and they had to call a halt to the second round - the greens were running at about 14 when the wind started to get up. It didn't take too long before the ball wouldn't come to rest on the greens. Hoylake's traditional defences are bunkers either side of every fairway off the tee, tricky spots to place the pins in, and the prevailing wind (and rain, and sleet, and snow). Tiger took the bunkers out of play by hitting a lot of irons, he managed the pins by keeping his discipline and ignoring them, and the only part of the weather that might have become a problem (but didn't) was the heat. The problem at Carnoustie (and it was a problem, not a matter of anyone having the balls to set the course up that way - the R&A doesn't share the USGA's ridiculous obsession with defending par), was that the weather was unseasonably warm and wet leading up to the championship, making the rough much heavier and thicker than they had wanted it. They even tried to thin it out without cutting it down, but that didn't really work. Their only hope for a successful championship (i.e. one that identifies "The Champion Golfer of the Year") was that the weather on the days of play was mild and windless - that didn't happen either and they ended up with two relative unknowns and Leonard in a playoff. Courses like that don't identify the best players, they identify the best grinders. Lee Janzen won on really tough courses because, by his own admission, he wasn't good at shooting low scores, but he was good at grinding out par. Everyone's taste differs, but mine is for Opens on courses like Hoylake where the course is the stage and not the drama itself.

posted by JJ at 02:48 AM on July 27, 2006

Quick bit of trivia for you: Six players have won two or more majors before the age of 30 - Jones, Nicklaus, Watson, Miller, Woods and... who else?

posted by JJ at 05:22 AM on July 27, 2006

By some of the comments above, it sounds like Tiger's become a freakin' millionaire several times over by only winning, mainly, on easy courses. It's amazing no other golfers thought of doing that. Oh well. I think Tiger's willingness to only use irons, basically, last week will change his strategy in many tournaments he enters where the dangers are lurking off the fairway. He's so deadly with the long irons off the tee, and can hit a 7-iron farther, higher, and with more accuracy than any tour player, that he's taught himself a great, although boring for us, lesson.

posted by dyams at 07:52 AM on July 27, 2006

dyams, I thought of it once, then realised that even if I was playing at an easy course, all the other golfers would have to play there too. Amazingly, I kept losing. I'm not sure that his tactic was "hit iron", I think his tactic was hit it to the best safe place on the fairway - so some days he hit 2 iron, some days 5 iron, some days 3 wood at the same hole depending on the wind. The problem he faces in regular tour play, and at courses like Augusta and most US Open and US PGA courses, is that the optimum position in the fairway is usually 300+ yards away. Also, it's one thing to leave yourself 250 yards to the green (sometimes even more) when you can land the ball and chase it up to the hole - when he gets back home, 250 yard approach shots just won't put him in with a shout. The only weakness in his game or his thinking is with his driver off the tee. I see two problems - 1) The equipment he is using (he wasn't always so wild - quite the contrary - and that Nike Kumquat or whatever it is he's using is just plain ugly and so light in the head I'm not surprised he loses it left and right all day), and 2) with his irons (and his 3 wood) he has his full swing and that "delicious 3/4 punch cut stinger" as Peter Alliss called it, but with the driver, he doesn't seem to have a choked back shot. I suppose the logic for him is that if he's going to ease back on it, he might as well hit 3 wood. As someone who has exactly the same problem (handing me a driver is like handing a bull a dozen red rags), I have no solution to offer!

posted by JJ at 11:14 AM on July 27, 2006

I agree, JJ. This (irons off the tee) can't be his strategy for every tournament. But if the consensus is a particular course is "Easy," I see him taking advantage of the strategy he used at the British. I'm sure the biggest part of Tiger desires to pull out the big stick every par four or five. But if the layout dictates, his strategy should be the conservative play. I've said it a million times, when he's in the fairway, he's nearly unbeatable.

posted by dyams at 12:10 PM on July 27, 2006

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.