Favorite Tour Picture

[emncaity]

 

In the water on 12, in the water on 16, lol, with other issues very evident especially on the back 9 - I take issue with the other poster's almost apologetic approach to his round. How hard is it to say someone choked - and what's the harm?

 

Norman was one of the best players ever, and no matter how he wants to slice it, the issue came down to his mental toughness and he let the situation get trumped by his nerves. He didn't just need a course management lesson.

 

Found this a few minutes ago, aside from some of the psycho babble, some revealing insights from Greg as well. http://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/15091501/how-sports-science-explains-greg-norman-1996-masters-meltdown

 

I'll be happy to look at the ESPN thing, although some of their stuff is dubious at times. It's one source, no more and no less.

 

I'm not saying he needed only a "course management lesson." I'm saying the collapse was due way more to ego and refusal to adapt and adjust than it was to "nerves." Refusal to accept human error. Nicklaus factored it in at all times. Norman thought every day was going to be like his best day, and he didn't adjust well when it wasn't. As I said in a separate response, like a sports car that's deadly fast and great to drive when everything is perfect, but when something's wrong with it, it can't match a grey Toyota in normal traffic.

 

I'm not apologetic at all re that round. He blew it. The question is why he blew it. And no, it's not just semantic. To a competitive player, the distinction matters.

 

But I would agree with other posters that this has now reached a point where it ought to be a separate thread, if it goes on at all. I'll answer everything that's in the inbox now, but aside from that I'm not introducing anything else new.

[dciccoritti]

 

 

Been off WRX for about a week researching the Fuji X-T3 and what lenses to purchase. Decided I only need the 10-24 f4 zoom and a 23 f2 prime but then I started thinking about taking photos at the courses I play so I think I'm gonna add the 50 f2 for shots exactly like this one :-)

[emncaity]

What's an example of gagging then?

 

Do players ever choke?

 

Hell, I've choked so many times it's like a hobby for me. LOL

 

Of course players choke (and "gag"). I'm not talking about degree, but about kind. Norman's collapse was a big one, no question. It's just that "choking" for most players below his level has to do with nerves, fear, feeling too small for the occasion and too out of one's element, etc. In Norman's case, it appears to me to have been more a case of not being able to adjust to a lower level of precision by expanding targets and margins of error in the way somebody like Nicklaus would have. It's a legitimate criticism that he should've had this worked out by that point in his career. You've got to learn to win tournaments all different ways if you're going to reach your potential as a great player, and guys like Nicklaus, Snead, Watson, Jones, Faldo, even Hogan occasionally had to figure out how to scratch out a win when they weren't at absolute top form.

 

If you look at his final round at the British in '93, there was actually more pressure on him then, mostly because there were more people who could catch him. And he ended up shooting as great a final round in terms of ballstriking as you'll ever see. If he'd been prone to "gag" by that point in his career -- three years earlier -- why wouldn't he have done it then? Fact is, he just had the "it" that day, and because he did, it was just a matter of playing near-perfect golf. He didn't have to adjust to anything. He also played great golf in final rounds after that during the span when he was #1. In '96, it was just a matter of having no answer when the "it" wasn't there.

 

If you look at the young Watson, you'll see an example of a pro who let nerves get the best of him repeatedly until he figured out how to handle them. There are plenty of others, of course.

 

Also, if you had to say, was he consistently missing his approaches short and often a bit to the right? And then occasionally long and left? Where were his misses with his irons?

 

Yeah, and I take your point. It's an important observation. I just don't agree with the specific motive or cause you ascribe to that pattern. Answered elsewhere, but to reiterate here, I think it was more a refusal to dial it down and adjust distances, find the middle of the face again, etc., than it was about nerves or fear. If we were talking about '85 or '86, it'd be different. But from the fall of '92 to the spring of '96, he had won eight times and had won the Open with one of the best final rounds in history. (You may remember the '94 Players as being also notable during that run.) I just don't see "nerves" or "gagging" as the most likely explanation for the collapse at the '96 Masters.

 

What I'm mostly objecting to is imputing fear where nobody knows that was actually his state of mind. "Gagging" and "choking," IMHO, clearly carry a connotation of fear. Somebody else called this a matter of "semantics," but to a competitive player the distinction matters. If you know you're not fearful and don't perceive "nerves" as being a problem, and yet you're having trouble closing out a tournament, it's going to matter that you know what is the problem. In some cases, maybe even Norman's, it's important to realize there really is no big problem at the outset, only the fact that he wasn't razor-sharp as he had been. In that situation, somebody like Nicklaus is going to shrug and say "okay, I've seen this before, no big deal," and just pick big targets, dial it back, try to find the middle of the face again, and ride it out. But once you see it as "something wrong" and start getting into that emergency mindset, bad things start happening. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if you don't adjust.

 

Also, just as a semi-parting shot here (with the intent of winding all this down, since it's become intrusive on this thread), what a lot of people don't remember is that Norman had started working with Leadbetter not too long before this, for reasons I still can't figure out. I'm not one of those to slag off on Lead, not by any means. The guy at one time was the primary coach for four of the top seven players in the world. It was unprecedented, and it's ridiculous for people to talk about him like he's a know-nothing. But I don't see how you do what you did at the '93 Open and then during that long run at #1, and then decide you're going to get away from whoever was coaching you during that period. That, to me, might indicate a certain mentality where winning tournaments and playing the best you've ever played isn't good enough. Not necessarily true -- it could be that he had something specific he thought Leadbetter could help with -- but if you look at the quality of his play following that move, it seems to me something else was going on, and it seems more than likely to me that part of that disaster at the Masters might've been a matter of getting caught between old and new. Even if what he was working on with Lead was totally what he needed at the time, there's always a danger of that. You're not even going to think about it when everything's going perfectly and you're shooting 63 to open the tournament. But when you start to sputter even a little, it can get difficult when you're caught between.

[Hawkeye77]

Oh brother, nothing boring about needing to shoot 1 under to win The Masters on Sunday.

 

 

It's "boring" to somebody who's trying to shot 66 and be totally dominant and impressive, and perfect on every individual shot. Jack got accused of it all the time.

 

So much of it is your subjective opinion of what was in their heads at those moments and I can't really argue with what you think was going on in their heads, it's your opinion.

 

Won't go into 18 majors and so many variables including weather and course conditions, etc. for every tournament that comparisons really aren't appropriate.

 

But anecdotally, closest to that situation was Nicklaus having a 5 shot lead in the 1965 Masters going into the final round. Really nothing boring about the 69 he shot in the final round.

 

Three up in the 1980 PGA he went out and put on a clinic with a 69 which was one of the best rounds shot that Sunday. Up three in the 1963 PGA fired a 68. 1967 U.S. Open just one back shoots blistering 65.

 

The guy was incredible, and you don't think he was trying to be perfect on every shot? May have given himself margin for error because he was intelligent but he was darn precise with his golf shots.

 

Anyway, back to the pics - and you said you were about 5 posts ago, lol! Fun to discuss.

[Hawkeye77]

 

 

Been off WRX for about a week researching the Fuji X-T3 and what lenses to purchase. Decided I only need the 10-24 f4 zoom and a 23 f2 prime but then I started thinking about taking photos at the courses I play so I think I'm gonna add the 50 f2 for shots exactly like this one :-)

 

Awesome camera. Found a 10-20mm and a 55-200 mm were just the ticket for most of our golf course related pics but just a regular 35mm would have been nice for "regular" family pics, so to speak, "on the street".

[lowheel]

Here's a few I took while at the Old Course:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I love your last pic!! you look like a boss that owns the place ! well done

[ChillyDipper]

I love when people get passionate about a subject, but I agree with you. Start a whole new thread, bud. I'll join you in it.

 

If he was, indeed, missing short (it's been years since I watched the tape), well, that's what you do when you choke. You "hold on" to the club and stop releasing because ... well ... because you're scared. You don't let it go and therefore you miss short -- and usually a bit right (for right-handers).

 

Then, sometimes, you will over-correct and send one long, left. But usually, when you're chokin', you're leavin' 'em short. Same things with chips and pitches and putts. Just listen to Johnny Miller, he knows it all too well: "short weak and right" he will talk about. Everything from putting to full shots, and everything in between.

 

Maybe should start a new thread at this point. It's not a bad suggestion. For the first couple of rounds it was justifiable as reactions to photos, on the principle that since photos depict actual things, one might expect a thread full of photos to prompt comments about those things. But at some point it does get beyond that, yeah.

 

Short right is the bane of a right-handed tournament player, for sure. But "nerves" aren't the only reason that happens. One really prominent reason is that the distances you got yesterday because you were crushing it, your timing was dead on, you were hitting it smack on the sweet spot, etc., are just not there today, and you never think "okay, I'm not hitting 5-iron 200 today, I'm hitting it 188 or 190, or whatever." If that's the problem, it's ego, not fear, and the same "give me the damn ball" ego that won Norman a lot of tournaments also killed him in specific situations. I just don't think there were any nerves there by that point. Not after winning the Open the way he did in '93 and the run for so long at #1 at that high a level of play.

 

I'm not speaking completely out of hand here, btw. I was a plus-2 as an amateur and played for a while as a pro (at about +3-+4 level). I've been in that situation where you're trying to adjust to a serious difference in how far you're hitting the ball, when your timing is off and you're catching it a fraction on the toe (so you end up a little right as well as short), etc. It can be pretty dramatic how different it can be from one day to the next. But I absolutely guarantee you there were days when Nicklaus had 165 and hit 5-iron when he was absolutely dogging it, because whatever was behind the green was better than the water in front, and because he just didn't care what people thought about the club he was hitting. That is, as opposed to this disease that's set in over the past 20-30 years where especially younger pros seem obsessed with hitting the absolute shortest club they can possibly get to the target, and then swinging in all-out-max-out-crazytime mode every full shot. It's just nuts.

 

There's a story about Nicklaus at the Byron Nelson (in Dallas) one year, when Nelson himself was still frequently in the broadcast booth. I think Nicklaus was at least in his mid-30s by then, but still plenty young enough to hit it a very long way. Player after player came to a slightly downhill par 3 that I think was around 180-190, and one after another hit 6-iron, with a few 5-irons, but mostly 6 (old lofts, of course), and they were coming out of their shoes to do it. Almost all were short, and those that weren't short were well off-line, usually with a big pull-hook out of trying to force that distance. Jack comes up, one announcer says he bets Jack will hit 6 or even 7, since he's Jack Nicklaus. Byron says something like "bet he doesn't, he'll probably hit a 4 and control it." Which is exactly what he did, fairly close.

 

May not be precisely on point, since I don't recall anything about Jack hitting it bad that day in general, but the point is that he really didn't have any ego about stuff like that. If you watch how Norman lost his lead in '96, what you see is just no attempt at all to adjust to what was happening. It's like it was more about perfection on every shot than about winning the tournament even if you had to scrape it around looking unimpressive. Given that choice, anybody who knows Nicklaus knows he would've gone to any lengths to give himself a chance to win -- bunt it around, three-quarter swing it until he could find the middle of the face again, aim ridiculously away from all trouble, whatever it took. Same for guys like Watson and Trevino, Palmer, even Snead et al. It's possible that Norman's then-recent run at #1 at such a stunningly high level of ballstriking affected what happened that day, and I'm sure once the lead got down to a couple of shots the "oh my God I could actually lose this thing after all" thought set in. I just don't see that fear or nerves had a lot to do with getting to that point, given what he'd done in the three or four years preceding. What I saw was more bewilderment. More like a guy who didn't understand why he would be subject to human error, and who had no idea what to do about it.

 

I think in the first post that started this side discussion, I mentioned that Norman used to talk about being able to feel a one- or two-yard difference off the face and in the air. If you think about what kinds of decisions that would tend to lead to in a competitive situation, and if you consider how near-perfectly he'd been hitting it up to the final round that week, to me that's a dead giveaway. He believed something that wasn't factually true but that in many situations might lead a person to act decisively and with confidence, and if the swing was good enough, the result would be close enough to that ideal. But on days when you have to aim for big targets and stop trying to look impressive because it's just not there that day, no matter how badly you want it to be there, no matter how big the stage is and how much you feel like you deserve it, no matter how much you want to show how superior you are on each individual shot, you need to acknowledge where your game is that day and try to make a score anyway. What I see in that final round is a guy who just insisted on trying to make a Ferrari out of a Ford, when a Ford would've been good enough if driven within its capabilities that day.

 

 

Composition Skills: 5/5

Golf Analysis: 5/5

Historical Knowledge: 5/5

Ability to Post Picture: Remedial Classes Suggested

[Darth Putter]

 

 

It's a mad mad mad mad mad World!

 

 

For those of you wondering, it is not the same "Big W" that appears in the movie.

 

 

That Big W was in someone's private yard in Rancho Palos Verdes, CA. When the DVD documentary was made in the 2000s, only one of the four trees was still standing.

 

 

And PGATour.com had the story today of how the Big W came to Waialae CC.

 

https://www.pgatour.com/beyond-the-ropes/2019/01/09/Sony-open-in-hawaii-waialae-iconic-w-trees-design.html

[emncaity]

Back to the op...

 

Norman had a gorgeous move....

Yes, I'm biased because it was a reverse c worthy of Johnny Miller and Jack...

 

But what a swing he had..

 

-Chris

 

I'm biased for the same reason, but I loved watching Norman play golf!

 

Just to go back to something you did earlier on this thread, that "three reverse-C idols" thing was just gold.

[iBanesto]

The Sands of Nakajima.

 

1978 Open Championship.

 

Tsuneyuki “Tommy” Nakajima was tied for the lead with playing partner Tom Weiskopf in the third round when they came to the 17th. Safely on the green in two, the carnage which followed has at least given the prolific Japanese winner Open immortality. The 23-year-old putted into the Road Hole bunker and then took four strokes to get out. He then missed the 10-foot putt to record a quintuple-bogey nine. As Nakajima walked off the green he turned to his young Scottish caddie, who had never done the job before, and said “sorry”. In the event, he did well to finish in the top 20. Some still call the bunker “The Sands of Nakajima”.

 

[emncaity]

Oh brother, nothing boring about needing to shoot 1 under to win The Masters on Sunday.

 

 

It's "boring" to somebody who's trying to shot 66 and be totally dominant and impressive, and perfect on every individual shot. Jack got accused of it all the time.

 

So much of it is your subjective opinion of what was in their heads at those moments and I can't really argue with what you think was going on in their heads, it's your opinion.

 

Won't go into 18 majors and so many variables including weather and course conditions, etc. for every tournament that comparisons really aren't appropriate.

 

But anecdotally, closest to that situation was Nicklaus having a 5 shot lead in the 1965 Masters going into the final round. Really nothing boring about the 69 he shot in the final round.

 

Three up in the 1980 PGA he went out and put on a clinic with a 69 which was one of the best rounds shot that Sunday. Up three in the 1963 PGA fired a 68. 1967 U.S. Open just one back shoots blistering 65.

 

The guy was incredible, and you don't think he was trying to be perfect on every shot? May have given himself margin for error because he was intelligent but he was darn precise with his golf shots.

 

Anyway, back to the pics - and you said you were about 5 posts ago, lol! Fun to discuss.

 

Will answer you here because the reply is here, but the new thread is up under the title "Was the Norman collapse in the '96 Masters actually 'choking'?".

 

You're right to say it's not possible to be conclusive about what was in a person's head at the time. I'm going based on Norman's history, including his level of achievement up to that point, and what we know about his personality as a player.

 

As for Nicklaus, there are a couple of things going on here. To be clear, I'm not saying all of Nicklaus's final rounds were boring, or that he was always a plodder, always playing safe, always half-assing it, never sharp, etc. I'm saying that on the occasions when he woke up, went out to warm up, and found out he wasn't at his absolute peak that day, he had a way of reassessing and constantly adjusting to whatever imperfections were there on a given day. He could be a Ferrari or a Mack truck, or an absolute mudder. Whatever it took to get it done. As you point out, he was often a Ferrari.

 

And yes, I do think he was trying to be perfect on every shot, or as perfect as he could be. It's just that on some days, he knew he wasn't hitting it dead on the sweet spot, so he picked bigger targets and swung with full intent to hit them. He was "precise" (as you rightly put it) about hitting whatever target he was capable of hitting that day, and honest with himself about what those were. I just don't think he ever indulged himself in the idea that he was literally not subject to human error or that he didn't have to think about where to miss a shot and not create a worse situation for himself.

 

Having gone back to look at the final round of the '96 Masters again, I'm even more convinced now than I was that Norman absolutely wins that tournament if he has Nicklaus's mentality. He hit a lot of very good shots that day, but almost nobody remembers that. He just made several devastating mistakes in critical situations when making that exact mistake was going to get maximum punishment. The second shot at #9, for instance, wasn't hit badly at all. In fact it was hit well. It was just planned badly. If he hits the same shot to seven yards further, he's making 4 and still has a three-shot lead going into the back 9. Second shot at #10, it's pretty clear he was aiming no more than a very few feet right of the hole, or possibly at the hole (cut on the left side), which is just nuts when a guy is making a run at you and you have 40 feet of green to the right. And so forth. It was just one "der" after another. I'm convinced there was no particular fear, just an insistence on stomping harder on the accelerator instead of finding the right gear.

[emncaity]

The Sands of Nakajima.

 

1978 Open Championship.

 

Tsuneyuki “Tommy” Nakajima was tied for the lead with playing partner Tom Weiskopf in the third round when they came to the 17th. Safely on the green in two, the carnage which followed has at least given the prolific Japanese winner Open immortality. The 23-year-old putted into the Road Hole bunker and then took four strokes to get out. He then missed the 10-foot putt to record a quintuple-bogey nine. As Nakajima walked off the green he turned to his young Scottish caddie, who had never done the job before, and said “sorry”. In the event, he did well to finish in the top 20. Some still call the bunker “The Sands of Nakajima”.

 

 

I was a kid, and I still remember it. Just tragic. Cruel game sometimes.

[emncaity]

LOL, he shot 78. (And so did 57 year old Jack. Plenty of good rounds out there that day by others).

 

 

No, he absolutely coughed it up and no point bringing "vintage" Nicklaus into it. And Nicklaus didn't just "plod" around in final rounds to win tournaments, and his smart play on that day, similar to Faldo, probably would have yielded a smooth 68.

 

Faldo says Norman choked it up, Norman all but says so, but I recall lately it was a "stiff back" and not enough support from his wife, lol. One on one, his coveted Masters on the line, 6 shot lead that yes, for the level of golfer Greg was should have been insurmountable. Choked. Watched every televised second of it and your memory is not accurate at all.

 

Item by item:

 

1. Yes, he shot 78. It was bad. Nobody's saying otherwise. The question was why he did.

 

2. Didn't say Jack habitually "plodded his way around" in final rounds. I am saying that, as others have observed, Jack was as good as anybody in history at minimizing damage on days when he wasn't hitting it in top form. (Obviously, Jack was sometimes well in top form in the final rounds of majors.) I think it's observably true that Norman totally drew a blank on that count in the last round of the '96 Masters. Again, this is apparent to anybody who goes back and watches shot by shot. He just never figured out a way to expand his margin of error and pick targets where disaster wasn't nearly guaranteed for any shot that wasn't nearly perfect. The most justified criticism is that at that point in his career, Norman should've had it well worked out how not to find himself in this situation -- how to have that other gear, in other words.

 

3. Few people like Faldo as much as I do, but I'm not really obligated to buy his notion of whether Norman "choked it up," especially if he's not addressing the question of fear versus the inability to put together a B game that allows you to win anyway.

 

4. Had not heard these other excuses from Norman. Not sure what he's referring to, but I'd agree it sounds dubious.

 

5. I'm not counting on "memory" at all. Watched it live and have seen it several times since then, including just last week.

 

Again: The only argument here is the distinction between fear and cluelessness, or rather, whether "choking" and "gagging" apply as much to a player who "gags" from fear and smallness as they do to somebody who simply hasn't worked out what to do when the game that was totally A-plus the previous day suddenly sinks to B-minus. Those variations happen when you're a pro sometimes. The best players find a way to shoot 71 or 72 anyway rather than 78. Sometimes those rounds happen in the final rounds of majors. Sometimes they're in a different round, sometimes not in a major. If A-plus were that predictable, guys like Hogan and Nicklaus (and, I guess, Woods) never would've lost.

 

If I thought it would make a difference, I'd go back to specific shots from that final round and line them out as examples. The one that sticks out most in my mind, again, is that second shot to #9 when Norman was still well in the lead. By then he's got to know he doesn't have the kind of precision he had on the first three days. That's when, no matter what you feel like, you've got to expand your target and make it easier on yourself. Instead he tried to hit it right next to the flag. He's like an Indy driver who thinks if aggression is good, hyperaggression at all times must be the answer to everything. "Gagging" is not the right word for it, and it's not just semantics. It's a different problem. It's a failure to acknowledge your own potential for error and to act intelligently. The game will teach you that even when you don't want it to.

 

Didn't Norman chunk/flub a chip or two?

 

On which holes, specifically? He nearly holed a chip for birdie at #8. Overaggressive at #10 after missing left to a left pin (!). Trying to remember any really bad chip shots from him, at least at any point where he was still in the tournament (before #16, that is).

 

But if you'd rather answer on the new thread ("Was the Norman collapse at the '96 Masters really 'choking'?"), that's an option.

[emncaity]

LOL, he shot 78. (And so did 57 year old Jack. Plenty of good rounds out there that day by others).

 

 

No, he absolutely coughed it up and no point bringing "vintage" Nicklaus into it. And Nicklaus didn't just "plod" around in final rounds to win tournaments, and his smart play on that day, similar to Faldo, probably would have yielded a smooth 68.

 

Faldo says Norman choked it up, Norman all but says so, but I recall lately it was a "stiff back" and not enough support from his wife, lol. One on one, his coveted Masters on the line, 6 shot lead that yes, for the level of golfer Greg was should have been insurmountable. Choked. Watched every televised second of it and your memory is not accurate at all.

 

Item by item:

 

1. Yes, he shot 78. It was bad. Nobody's saying otherwise. The question was why he did.

 

2. Didn't say Jack habitually "plodded his way around" in final rounds. I am saying that, as others have observed, Jack was as good as anybody in history at minimizing damage on days when he wasn't hitting it in top form. (Obviously, Jack was sometimes well in top form in the final rounds of majors.) I think it's observably true that Norman totally drew a blank on that count in the last round of the '96 Masters. Again, this is apparent to anybody who goes back and watches shot by shot. He just never figured out a way to expand his margin of error and pick targets where disaster wasn't nearly guaranteed for any shot that wasn't nearly perfect. The most justified criticism is that at that point in his career, Norman should've had it well worked out how not to find himself in this situation -- how to have that other gear, in other words.

 

3. Few people like Faldo as much as I do, but I'm not really obligated to buy his notion of whether Norman "choked it up," especially if he's not addressing the question of fear versus the inability to put together a B game that allows you to win anyway.

 

4. Had not heard these other excuses from Norman. Not sure what he's referring to, but I'd agree it sounds dubious.

 

5. I'm not counting on "memory" at all. Watched it live and have seen it several times since then, including just last week.

 

Again: The only argument here is the distinction between fear and cluelessness, or rather, whether "choking" and "gagging" apply as much to a player who "gags" from fear and smallness as they do to somebody who simply hasn't worked out what to do when the game that was totally A-plus the previous day suddenly sinks to B-minus. Those variations happen when you're a pro sometimes. The best players find a way to shoot 71 or 72 anyway rather than 78. Sometimes those rounds happen in the final rounds of majors. Sometimes they're in a different round, sometimes not in a major. If A-plus were that predictable, guys like Hogan and Nicklaus (and, I guess, Woods) never would've lost.

 

If I thought it would make a difference, I'd go back to specific shots from that final round and line them out as examples. The one that sticks out most in my mind, again, is that second shot to #9 when Norman was still well in the lead. By then he's got to know he doesn't have the kind of precision he had on the first three days. That's when, no matter what you feel like, you've got to expand your target and make it easier on yourself. Instead he tried to hit it right next to the flag. He's like an Indy driver who thinks if aggression is good, hyperaggression at all times must be the answer to everything. "Gagging" is not the right word for it, and it's not just semantics. It's a different problem. It's a failure to acknowledge your own potential for error and to act intelligently. The game will teach you that even when you don't want it to.

 

There is a lot to be learned from your assessment of that day. Nobody in golf has ever managed their B game moments nearly as efficiently as Jack. I also feel Tiger deserves mention in that regard.

 

I don't think a lot of people really pick up on it or care to be analytical enough to appreciate the distinctions you're making, but - in my opinion- they are evident.

 

New thread titled "Was the Norman collapse at the '96 Masters really 'choking'?". FYI, in case there's any extensive further stuff going on. I think it's a really important episode re the psychology of a competitive golfer. Very instructive.

[emncaity]

 

I love when people get passionate about a subject, but I agree with you. Start a whole new thread, bud. I'll join you in it.

 

If he was, indeed, missing short (it's been years since I watched the tape), well, that's what you do when you choke. You "hold on" to the club and stop releasing because ... well ... because you're scared. You don't let it go and therefore you miss short -- and usually a bit right (for right-handers).

 

Then, sometimes, you will over-correct and send one long, left. But usually, when you're chokin', you're leavin' 'em short. Same things with chips and pitches and putts. Just listen to Johnny Miller, he knows it all too well: "short weak and right" he will talk about. Everything from putting to full shots, and everything in between.

 

FYI, if you're interested, new thread titled "Was the Norman collapse at the '96 Masters really 'choking'?".

 

I went back again and looked at Norman's shots during the round, and honestly there's not as much short-right as I had thought. The miss at #4 (bunker, short), the long par-3, looks to me like an attempt to hit it right at the flag (completely unnecessarily), in a situation where you have to fit it just over the bunker to keep it from running through. Big miss at #8 on the second shot was a slip on the uphill lie, and a pull. Hit two good shots at #9, just made a terrible decision on the second shot. Pulled the second shot at #10. Excellent second at #11 after piping the drive, then a bad three-putt. At #12, he did miss right, but that's kind of a special situation where lots of players just can't keep themselves from trying to push it over toward the right flag, and where the green tapers over there in a way that punishes a shot that would be front-third to half-deep if it had been hit at the middle of the green. So I'm not so sure the problem there was the weak, uncertain short-right as much as Norman's inability to make himself hit it well left of the flag, at least 25-30 feet. A really short-right miss there doesn't get as high on the bank as his did. He picked a club that was right for hitting it over the middle of the bunker, and then he seemed to get suckered by the flag like so many do. Maybe I'm wrong here, but it just didn't look like a weak or timid kind of shot, or a mishit.

 

Then, later, the shot that put the sword through the bull was that horrible short pull-hook into the water at 16. He was still two back at that point, so that a birdie-bogey exchange on any of the final three holes would've put him into a playoff. But that shot was a mercy killing.

 

Even in previous boo-boos late in majors, it wasn't so much the short-right but the well-hit flame-out push (from that right-foot slide, which got even more prominent the more aggressive he was trying to be). I have a theory I think I can prove, that every player has a go-to when they're under pressure that can cause trouble. One thing you see a lot on both the men's and women's tour is the tendency to try to hit shortish putts firmer, with a more positive and aggressive action, which of course ends up missing high-side all the time. With Woods and McIlroy and a few others, it's that weird down-move they do to "compress the ground," or whatever the latest ridiculous teacher-jargon is now, and when Woods gets really emphatic with it, that's when he hits the 40-yards-right shot. And so forth. Usually it takes the form of something overemphatic or aggressive. Although I'm trying unsuccessfully to think of something similar for Nicklaus or Hogan, or Watson, or even guys like Price or Faldo at their best.

[emncaity]

Yeah, of course. And I can't believe I have to defend this to some sort of Choking Truther, but Norman choked his guts out in '96. Irons flared right, or smother hooked left, stubbed chips, a putting backstoke that grows long while the follow through grows short......His entire game, from tee to green, slowly falling into "holding on" as you say.....

 

On and on. Dude was scared to win, and I can't put it any simpler than that.

 

It's right there on the effing video. A choke as clear as day. Not like Bob Tway chipping in on him or any other Act Of God thing. Just a plain old choke when six ahead of one of the most relentless par-makers of all time.

 

And yet we have to listen to it in this thread, a thread about, last I checked, PICTURES.

 

Since you've decided to get hostile, here you go:

 

-- You don't "have to" listen to anything at all, Buckwheat. You're perfectly capable of scrolling a little farther down, I just know it. Not that it's not killing me that you have to make a couple of extra finger movements to scroll past stuff you don't want to read, down to the part where you can easily see photos being posted again. Because for sure it is just killing me. I can only imagine your pain. So much pain, in fact, that you found it more important to include yet another photoless reply among replies you considered unnecessary because they didn't have photos, rather than simply scrolling past. Do let me know if you survive this hell. Please.

 

Also, the new thread is already up. And most of the posts here on this subject from me are replies to people who've responded to me. I'm not sure why you think I wouldn't respond to people who've replied to me. But then, I don't actually care why you'd think that, either. So.

 

-- Your analysis of how Norman played is simply wrong. On that separate thread I'm doing a summary and providing a link to the video. Anybody will be able to see just how wrong you are. Norman hit far more good-to-excellent shots on Sunday than bad shots. He just missed several where you absolutely could not miss them, at exactly the wrong time, for no particular reason, when picking a better target would've made a difference. Mostly it was a matter of bad decisions with a couple of really bad swings. But you're just dead wrong in characterizing it the way you do. Yeah, it's "right there on the effing video" alright, and everybody will be able to see it.

 

-- "Scared to win," says this genius, of a guy who'd won two majors already, one of them with one of the greatest final rounds in major-championship history (the '93 Open), and had spent three years as the #1 player in the world. Yeah, he was terrified of winning. Terrified of the spotlight. Just couldn't stand it.

 

-- "One of the most relentless par-makers," as in no real threat to Norman if Norman could only steer his way home without a disaster: I guess that 67 Faldo shot didn't register with you.

 

Snark like "Choking Truther" will get you a thumbs-up here and there, but it doesn't substitute for actual substance. Which you simply don't have.

 

Go to the new thread or don't. Doesn't make any difference to me. But don't bring this kind of lameness over there.

[iBanesto]

17th hole at St Andrews.

 

 

[Ferguson]

[iBanesto]

Sony Open this week.

 

Isao Aoki holing out from the fairway in the 1983 Hawaiian Open on the 72nd hole to win the tournament by 1 stroke.

 

 

[justasgood]

Please take your selve serving arguments elsewhere. I am a very simple man and I like lots of pictures. The post title even says “Picture”

[jmck]

 

/snip/

 

Norman hit far more good-to-excellent shots on Sunday than bad shots.

 

lol. No. No no no no no no no no no no. Just no.

 

That's the fundamental problem with your analysis. You're judging "good to excellent" and "bad" shots by your standards, not by the standards of a professional golfer trying to win a major. You're treating it like it's qualifying for the B flight of the local club championship with a $5 friendly on the line with your best bud, rather than Sunday at Augusta with a six shot lead while trying to become the first Australian to win the Masters and add a capstone, career defining victory after 20 years marked by a surprising amount of disappointment and underachieving on the biggest stages. Doesn't matter if he hit one (or 10 or 20 or 70) more "good to excellent" than "bad" shots by your reckoning. That is a metric that means absolutely nothing at that level of golf.

 

Norman shot a 63 on Thursday and in nearly identical conditions on Sunday was a full 15 shots worse. Faldo beat him by 11 shots on Sunday. Faldo could've given him five a side and still beat him.

 

Off the top of my head Norman duck hooked his drive on the first tee, chunked a chip on #10, three putted from 10 or 12 feet on #11, and flared a short iron into the creek on #12. His "good to excellent" shots don't count for anything when he's busy hitting that many bad shots at key times. Did Spieth choke a Masters away by rinsing two balls on 12, or was that also not a choke because he hit "more good to excellent" shots than bad shots over the course of the day? What about Van De Velde? Surely he hit more "good to excellent" than "bad" shots over the course of his Sunday at Carnoustie in '99.

 

Since this is a thread about pictures, let me try it that way. Pictured below are two men, one of whom hit enough "good to excellent" shots to shoot 67, one of whom hit enough "bad" shots to shoot 78:

 

 

Pictured below, a massive choke:

 

 

 

[gpepegolf]

Going on and on about choking is ruining a great thread. Please take it elsewhere.

[emncaity]

Going on and on about choking is ruining a great thread. Please take it elsewhere.

 

As I said, I'm going to reply to whatever's in my inbox. Meanwhile, there is a separate thread, and I would encourage further discussion to move there.

 

Hate to break it to the list police, but on this planet, among humans, sometimes discussion on a subject goes in a direction not foreseen. It's even easier than usual to scroll past anything you're not interested on this particular thread, since it's going to be a matter of seeing a photo or not seeing a photo rather having to read a couple of sentences into a post before realizing it's strictly limited to the announced topic. What do you guys do at pubs and bars when a side discussion amongst a few people goes in a different direction for a while? Demand they leave? It's not like anybody's making you read it.

 

Still...yeah, that's fine if people want to wrap it up here and move over there.

[jmck]

Post a link to the other thread. Granted, I'm not the most tech savvy guy in the world, but I went looking for it and couldn't find it?

[justasgood]

Now you’re arguing with people who don’t want to see your arguments. Sheesh

[pwa]

Get a room dudes.

[ChillyDipper]

I'm glad we can get the best thread on GolfWRX back on the rails.

 

Y'all remember this one?

[Christosterone]

We can all agree that the 70s were the coolest...

 

Guys we knew and guys we never heard of had cool swings trying to be like Jack....

 

-Chris

[Christosterone]

Even Dave Stockton dressed like a boss!

 

-Chris

[Darth Putter]