Masters Running Thread

[shotglass]

Well, he didn't play one bad hole out of 72. There were a couple of instances in the front nine yesterday where it looked like the wheels might be coming off.

 

[micropolitan guy]

It's not "tainted" to acknowledge the fact that nobody else can win when Tiger is on.

Sometimes true, but not always, as evidenced by the 2002 PGA:


Rich Beem, $990,000 72-66-72-68--278
Tiger Woods, $594,000 71-69-72-67--279


Woods shoots 9 under, 5-under on the final round, finished with three or four consecutive birdies. Sounds like his "A" game to me. Still didn't win. Sometimes stuff like Rich Beem happens.

Not going to get into a Pishing match here. Woods is the best golfer in the world right now. But he can be defeated, as Immelman proved this past weekend, despite playing a very, very pedestrian final round.

Immelman was clearly, convincingly better THIS WEEKEND. It would be nice for Feherty and Bayless (who I concur is a blowhard) to recognize that, instead of basically saying he won only because Woods didn't play lights out.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

I'm with Micropolitan Guy. It would be a major break for humanity if the Tiger-worshippers in the golf commentary crowd would note the following simple fact-the idea of holding a tournament is to determine who has or has not got their "A" game for 72 holes in 4 days. To say someone "lost because they didn't bring their A game" is just a long-winded way of saying "he lost."

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

The guy is such a good ball striker...if he can continue to improve his putting, we're going to hear a lot more from him.

That ain't gonna happen at 28.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

As it is, Tiger plays average in the final round and Immelman wins by three, which is more than most (even Tiger) win majors, and he gets tainted because Tiger didn't have his "A" game?

If Tiger had his "A game," Gary Player is still the last South African major champion.

It's not "tainted" to acknowledge the fact that nobody else can win when Tiger is on.

And no one could win when Nicklaus was on... or Norman. Happens with Tiger more than most, but he has to win at least once from behind, or he is tainted.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

Man, Tiger hasn't just never won a major when behind after 54.... but he goes so forking meekly... always.

Yeah ... let's forget the fact that he's 13-of-13 when leading. If he wins 25 majors, blows Jack's record out the window, and never wins one from behind on Sunday, does that mean he sucks?

No.

Means he was great.

But never had a Nicklaus, Palmer, Trevino, Player, Watson or Faldo to contend with. And, how, as I said before, "meekly" he goes away when he is trailing.... Yes, there are questions.

What a bunch of pube hairs have played against this guy the past dozen years.

 

[Claws for Concern]

Bring on the U.S. Open. Tiger and Phil will be the ONLY ones talked about at Torrey Pines.

 

[Small Town Guy]

So how many times does Tiger have to come from behind at a major for it to be something that people don't talk about anymore? It seems that just doing it once probably won't suffice. If he does it four times, people will be saying he's not that great because Nicklaus did it six times.

Speaking of going meekly, Nicklaus was only 12-10 in playoffs. Tiger's 13-1. Guess that's a blemish on Jack's mark.

And might Trevino, Watson, and the rest not have been as good if they were playing now and had to compete against Tiger? Considering how much better Tiger's scores are in majors compared to Jack's, if those greats were playing against Tiger, they might be spoken about like Ernie, Phil, and Sergio are, as guys who shrank against Tiger.

And if that had happened, we never would have been treated to Lee Trevino's Fighting Golf on Nintendo.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

If Nicklaus competed against Woods at the same age for each, they'd be 50-50 or close enough that the margin of leading for either guy was on rubs of the green. Same goes for Woods vs. Bobby Jones, or Nicklaus vs. Hogan, or any other imaginary matchup you care to name.
I think Woods will eventually pash Nicklaus' 18 majors. That means he will have accomplished a little more in his era of dominance than did Jack. It doesn't make Nicklaus need to get two a side from Tiger.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

So how many times does Tiger have to come from behind at a major for it to be something that people don't talk about anymore? It seems that just doing it once probably won't suffice. If he does it four times, people will be saying he's not that great because Nicklaus did it six times.

Speaking of going meekly, Nicklaus was only 12-10 in playoffs. Tiger's 13-1. Guess that's a blemish on Jack's mark.

And might Trevino, Watson, and the rest not have been as good if they were playing now and had to compete against Tiger? Considering how much better Tiger's scores are in majors compared to Jack's, if those greats were playing against Tiger, they might be spoken about like Ernie, Phil, and Sergio are, as guys who shrank against Tiger.

And if that had happened, we never would have been treated to Lee Trevino's Fighting Golf on Nintendo.

They all have weakness. None of the greats were Superman.
While I think Jack might have been better in his prime (the equipment and courses of today are light years better than even 20 years ago, muchless 40) than Tiger, guys like Watson, Trevino and Player didn't bow to Jack like today's players do to Tiger.
These dudes fold like cheap suits when the T.W. brings his "A" game.

 

[armageddon]

I think most here agree Woods will tie/pash Nicklaus' mark for majors and that Tiger is going to be THE story every week he tees it up until the day he dies.

But what bugs me is that no matter the course or the event, if Woods fails to win it's because he didn't bring his "A" game.

I don't recall anyone ever writing/suggesting/asking whether he failed to handle the pressure that particular week.

He came into the Masters having talked about winning the Grand Slam. That's going out on a limb (foolishly in my view) for anyone, even someone as competitive and talented as Woods.

Yep, he held it together well enough to shoot even par on the final day, under tough conditions on a difficult course.

But I saw a guy who missed too many easy putts not to wonder.

I wonder whether the pressure he faced -- having to make birdies to catch Immelman, knowing people question (right or wrong) his ability to rally after 54 holes and knowing he had talked about the slam -- got to him.

He's ridiculously talented and driven but he's human, too.

We speculate all the time about athletes buckling a bit under pressure.

Why not Tiger?

And I know he has delivered many times under pressure. But does that preclude the possibility that he is at times vulnerable to pressure?

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

Tiger long since conquered any idea of pressure as it pertains to a major.

With each missed major opportunity right now, though, ESPECIALLY at Augusta, the Nicklaus pressure will start ticking upward.

Right now, I don't think "pressure" is a factor at all for Tiger.