Favorite Tour Picture

[emncaity]

So, so much history meeting at Oakmont in '62.

[emncaity]

 

Two things define choking for me:

 

1) Your "worst flaw coming out in 'try harder' mode"

 

2) Bad decision making under pressure

 

Those two things are literally the essence of choking. IMHO, of course.

 

Still seems to me there ought to be some distinction between the negative connotation associated with "choking" -- which to me implies fear or timidity, or an aversion to the big moment -- and the kind of malfunctioning that I'm fairly sure was Norman's problem, which was some combination of unrealistic belief about near-perfection and aggressiveness to a fault, especially when he was younger, along with a persistent inability or refusal to fix the one or two things that kept undercutting him (most notably that tendency toward instability in the right foot and leg at exactly the wrong times).

 

But then, if you ask me what the useful distinction between those two types of malfunctioning -- fear-based versus non-fear-based -- is in the larger context of who belongs on a greatest-ever list, I'm not sure I would even try to make that distinction. In the end, you either find a way to get it done a good percentage of the time or you don't. Every great player is going to have a certain number of mediocre rounds in him, but it does matter whether you're above or below a baseline level, and as much as I really like Norman and his boldness, I think it's fair to say that guys at the level of Nicklaus and Hogan, Woods, Jones, Snead, Nelson, the mature Watson, etc., were just at a higher level on that count.

 

Still, there were occasions like that final round of the '93 Open, one of the greatest rounds of major-tournament golf I've ever seen. And when he was rolling at #1 for all that time, it was some of the best golf in history. So there was an awful lot of good along with the occasional "what the hell was that?".

[tiderider]

Not trying to get off the OP's topic but no matter how you slice it, Greg Norman choked. And he didn't choke a little bit, he choked big time.

 

Actually it does "matter how you slice it." Otherwise you're reduced to saying that every player who loses a big lead is "choking," which is like saying nothing at all.

 

There's an argument to be made for the proposition that the definition of "choking" should include anything that makes a player get away from his normal swing, preparation, management, etc., as opposed to being limited to anything that happens because a player is nervous or feels too small for the occasion. You might be able to make a case for Norman fitting into that expanded definition, but IMHO it's more a matter of situations like this exposing the fundamental flaws that were there in the first place.

 

If you look at the U.S. Open in '84(?) and the Masters in '86, it was a technical flaw that came out at the worst times. Almost every pro has something he (or she) does when in try-harder or "this is really important" mode, which gets into that "variance under pressure not necessarily related to fear" thing. But in '96, it really was mismanagement. He just didn't have that gear that Nicklaus had that allows a person to recognize and adjust to the B game. That's more pride and bullheadedness than anything people commonly think of as "choking." The boldness that kept him rolling when it was really rolling was the same boldness that could be his undoing at times. So if you define "choking" as anything, whether prompted by fear or not, that results in altered performance under pressure at times, then I guess it's "choking." It just seems like not a very useful definition at that point.

 

Aside from that, six shots was never the insurmountable thing it was made out to be. You can play pretty well at Augusta as a pro and still shoot 72 if you don't make some putts. It was never impossible that Faldo would shoot 66 and catch him. Unlikely only in the sense that Norman didn't have five guys who could catch him with a good round if he shot around even par, but nowhere near impossible.

 

he choked ... losing a 6 shot lead at augusta on saturday with the way he played prior to that is a choke ... could say he choked in '86 since he db the 10th and bogeyed the final hole ... probably can say he choked at '86 us open since the final day scoring was so low and he came in with a 75, then choked again at the pga with a final round of 76 ... he won a fair share, but he absolutely choked on those occassions ... it happens ...

 

How do you tell the difference between "choking" and simply having a mediocre version of your game on any given day, though?

 

Not sure about all these occasions, but I think there's more than a grain of truth here. I do, however, think he showed a lot of fortitude in putting himself back into those situations over and over, after getting stung by stuff like the Mize pitch, the Gamez second shot at the 72nd, the Tway hole-out from the bunker, etc. In fact, I've wondered whether expecting something bad to happen in the last round might have affected him not so much in producing fear, but in producing the attitude that he had to do something extra, and that "try too hard" thing is notable for how destructive it can be.

 

he had a 6 shot lead in '96 going into the 4th round ... take out his 78 and the avg score of the top 10 was 71 ... in '86, the avg score of the top 8 or so was about 68.5 (par 70) ... he came in with 75 ... a bit smaller discrepancy, and maybe he hadn't quite learned how to finish, but when there's a pattern, there's a pattern ... look, i like norman ... like his attitude, and wanted him to win all those majors he lost ... and i'm preaching from the choir ... but he played horribly when it most counted ...

[bscinstnct]

Francis Ouimet and his daughters.

 

 

 

 

Not "tour," but this is what golf was always supposed to be.

 

Thats excellent.

[bscinstnct]

I realize this post is Tour photos....

 

So, in that vein....

 

Jan Stephenson had a badass reverse c....

 

-Chris

 

I mean, if you're gonna start pulling out the Jan on us...

 

 

 

Haha! Reminds me of "gym" class back in the day.

 

We had this blonde gym teacher....

[emncaity]

 

He didn't shoot a 72. He gagged.

 

Didn't say he shot 72. The question addressed in that graf was whether the media got it wrong that a six-shot lead was essentially insurmountable unless Norman shot some kind of terrible score. You're actually making my argument for me on this second point. Even with Faldo shooting 67 rather than something super-low like 64 or 65 -- which has been done several times in the final round of the Masters to win, as you know -- Norman still wouldn't have won outright even if he'd shot 73. If you've been competitive, which I was both as a plus-2 amateur and a little better than that as a pro, you know the difference between par or one over versus 69-70 is often just a putt that does or doesn't drop every four or five holes. It's not the difference between garbage and great. So again: It was never the sure thing that the media made it out to be.

 

As for "gagging," I'll try this one more time: If you go back and look at the round shot by shot, mostly he wasn't that far off. Nicklaus won hitting the ball like that at times. It was a matter of mismanagement. He didn't adjust to the fact that whatever he had on Thursday through Saturday wasn't there on Sunday, but he kept making decisions like it was still there. "Gagging" is one thing. Forcing the issue unwisely is different. With that same swing on a Masters Sunday, Nicklaus thinks his way around to a 72 and wins. Same for a guy like Watson and a few other #1 players. Which, as much as I appreciate Norman (especially at his best), is really the difference between him and the very short list of 1As.

 

In short: Your "gagging" oversimplification is based on the false belief that great players can always play great, and if they don't, they're "choking." Sometimes it's just not all there. What the player does when it's not all there is what separates the top rung from the rest.

[Obee]

 

He didn't shoot a 72. He gagged.

 

Didn't say he shot 72. The question addressed in that graf was whether the media got it wrong that a six-shot lead was essentially insurmountable unless Norman shot some kind of terrible score. You're actually making my argument for me on this second point. Even with Faldo shooting 67 rather than something super-low like 64 or 65 -- which has been done several times in the final round of the Masters to win, as you know -- Norman still wouldn't have won outright even if he'd shot 73. If you've been competitive, which I was both as a plus-2 amateur and a little better than that as a pro, you know the difference between par or one over versus 69-70 is often just a putt that does or doesn't drop every four or five holes. It's not the difference between garbage and great. So again: It was never the sure thing that the media made it out to be.

 

As for "gagging," I'll try this one more time: If you go back and look at the round shot by shot, mostly he wasn't that far off. Nicklaus won hitting the ball like that at times. It was a matter of mismanagement. He didn't adjust to the fact that whatever he had on Thursday through Saturday wasn't there on Sunday, but he kept making decisions like it was still there. "Gagging" is one thing. Forcing the issue unwisely is different. With that same swing on a Masters Sunday, Nicklaus thinks his way around to a 72 and wins. Same for a guy like Watson and a few other #1 players. Which, as much as I appreciate Norman (especially at his best), is really the difference between him and the very short list of 1As.

 

In short: Your "gagging" oversimplification is based on the false belief that great players can always play great, and if they don't, they're "choking." Sometimes it's just not all there. What the player does when it's not all there is what separates the top rung from the rest.

 

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

[norge5]

Oversimplification? How about overanalyzing? Sometimes the simplest answer is the right answer.

[iBanesto]

Graeme McDowell.

 

Hope he regains his form soon.

 

 

 

[Pulledabill]

BAZINGA !

All time "what were they thinking" moment when designing that trophy.

 

Winner, close thread.

 

Is tbis Annika?

[howellhandmade]

BAZINGA !

All time "what were they thinking" moment when designing that trophy.

 

Winner, close thread.

 

Is tbis Annika?

 

Christie Kerr. She spoke about this shot during her Feherty interview.

[gpepegolf]

[gpepegolf]

[Hawkeye77]

He didn't shoot a 72. He gagged.

 

Didn't say he shot 72. The question addressed in that graf was whether the media got it wrong that a six-shot lead was essentially insurmountable unless Norman shot some kind of terrible score. You're actually making my argument for me on this second point. Even with Faldo shooting 67 rather than something super-low like 64 or 65 -- which has been done several times in the final round of the Masters to win, as you know -- Norman still wouldn't have won outright even if he'd shot 73. If you've been competitive, which I was both as a plus-2 amateur and a little better than that as a pro, you know the difference between par or one over versus 69-70 is often just a putt that does or doesn't drop every four or five holes. It's not the difference between garbage and great. So again: It was never the sure thing that the media made it out to be.

 

As for "gagging," I'll try this one more time: If you go back and look at the round shot by shot, mostly he wasn't that far off. Nicklaus won hitting the ball like that at times. It was a matter of mismanagement. He didn't adjust to the fact that whatever he had on Thursday through Saturday wasn't there on Sunday, but he kept making decisions like it was still there. "Gagging" is one thing. Forcing the issue unwisely is different. With that same swing on a Masters Sunday, Nicklaus thinks his way around to a 72 and wins. Same for a guy like Watson and a few other #1 players. Which, as much as I appreciate Norman (especially at his best), is really the difference between him and the very short list of 1As.

 

In short: Your "gagging" oversimplification is based on the false belief that great players can always play great, and if they don't, they're "choking." Sometimes it's just not all there. What the player does when it's not all there is what separates the top rung from the rest.

 

 

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.

[Obee]

He didn't shoot a 72. He gagged.

 

Didn't say he shot 72. The question addressed in that graf was whether the media got it wrong that a six-shot lead was essentially insurmountable unless Norman shot some kind of terrible score. You're actually making my argument for me on this second point. Even with Faldo shooting 67 rather than something super-low like 64 or 65 -- which has been done several times in the final round of the Masters to win, as you know -- Norman still wouldn't have won outright even if he'd shot 73. If you've been competitive, which I was both as a plus-2 amateur and a little better than that as a pro, you know the difference between par or one over versus 69-70 is often just a putt that does or doesn't drop every four or five holes. It's not the difference between garbage and great. So again: It was never the sure thing that the media made it out to be.

 

As for "gagging," I'll try this one more time: If you go back and look at the round shot by shot, mostly he wasn't that far off. Nicklaus won hitting the ball like that at times. It was a matter of mismanagement. He didn't adjust to the fact that whatever he had on Thursday through Saturday wasn't there on Sunday, but he kept making decisions like it was still there. "Gagging" is one thing. Forcing the issue unwisely is different. With that same swing on a Masters Sunday, Nicklaus thinks his way around to a 72 and wins. Same for a guy like Watson and a few other #1 players. Which, as much as I appreciate Norman (especially at his best), is really the difference between him and the very short list of 1As.

 

In short: Your "gagging" oversimplification is based on the false belief that great players can always play great, and if they don't, they're "choking." Sometimes it's just not all there. What the player does when it's not all there is what separates the top rung from the rest.

 

 

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.

 

For some context: The field average that day was 73.68. Only three players of 44 carded a worse score than he did.

[Hawkeye77]

LOL, and I watched that hoping it would finally be Norman's first major! Oh well, the next year - watching the phenom and my 4 1/2 year old daughter embarking on her road to Tiger fandom, lol.

[dlygrisse]

 

He didn't shoot a 72. He gagged.

 

 

As for "gagging," I'll try this one more time: If you go back and look at the round shot by shot, mostly he wasn't that far off. Nicklaus won hitting the ball like that at times. It was a matter of mismanagement. He didn't adjust to the fact that whatever he had on Thursday through Saturday wasn't there on Sunday, but he kept making decisions like it was still there. "Gagging" is one thing. Forcing the issue unwisely is different. With that same swing on a Masters Sunday, Nicklaus thinks his way around to a 72 and wins. Same for a guy like Watson and a few other #1 players. Which, as much as I appreciate Norman (especially at his best), is really the difference between him and the very short list of 1As.

 

In short: Your "gagging" oversimplification is based on the false belief that great players can always play great, and if they don't, they're "choking." Sometimes it's just not all there. What the player does when it's not all there is what separates the top rung from the rest.

 

Please stop. You are embarrassing yourself.

[iBanesto]

Sweden's greatest golfer.

 

[Obee]

Met Annika a couple times at a corporate outing for ADP (the payroll company) when I worked there. Absolute class act.

 

First year was a downhill 175 yard par 3. Annika knocked it to 12 - 15 feet and I hit it to about 25 feet.

 

Next year was a 140 shot. I said, "Closest to the pin for $5.00." She laughed and then as she got up to hit, she said, "Now you got me nervous!" She hit it to about 12 feet. I went next and hit it to about 6 feet.

 

I'm 1 for 2 heads up vs. Annika, lifetime. LOL

 

So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.... ;-)

[jmck]

Speaking of Swedes....

 

 

 

[emncaity]

Oversimplification? How about overanalyzing? Sometimes the simplest answer is the right answer.

 

Sure. But sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's only simplistic, not simple.

 

Still, as far as what's useful to a competitive player, it's true that whatever it is that causes you to alter how you think and play in a negative direction when you have a chance to win is something you need to fix, whether it's out of fear or not. I get that.

[emncaity]

Sweden's greatest golfer.

 

You said it. Lot of great women, but actually she's top of the list, and not just for Sweden.

[emncaity]

He didn't shoot a 72. He gagged.

 

 

As for "gagging," I'll try this one more time: If you go back and look at the round shot by shot, mostly he wasn't that far off. Nicklaus won hitting the ball like that at times. It was a matter of mismanagement. He didn't adjust to the fact that whatever he had on Thursday through Saturday wasn't there on Sunday, but he kept making decisions like it was still there. "Gagging" is one thing. Forcing the issue unwisely is different. With that same swing on a Masters Sunday, Nicklaus thinks his way around to a 72 and wins. Same for a guy like Watson and a few other #1 players. Which, as much as I appreciate Norman (especially at his best), is really the difference between him and the very short list of 1As.

 

In short: Your "gagging" oversimplification is based on the false belief that great players can always play great, and if they don't, they're "choking." Sometimes it's just not all there. What the player does when it's not all there is what separates the top rung from the rest.

 

Please stop. You are embarrassing yourself.

 

If you have a substantive response, post it. I'm not interested in your unsupported judgment or declarations of victory, or whatever you're doing.

[emncaity]

 

For some context: The field average that day was 73.68. Only three players of 44 carded a worse score than he did.

 

I don't think anybody's saying it wasn't bad. It was. The question was exactly how it got that way, and whether failing to adjust strategy and expectations is the same thing as "gagging" (which it seems to me implies fear or feeling too small for the occasion).

[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.

[emncaity]

Met Annika a couple times at a corporate outing for ADP (the payroll company) when I worked there. Absolute class act.

 

First year was a downhill 175 yard par 3. Annika knocked it to 12 - 15 feet and I hit it to about 25 feet.

 

Next year was a 140 shot. I said, "Closest to the pin for $5.00." She laughed and then as she got up to hit, she said, "Now you got me nervous!" She hit it to about 12 feet. I went next and hit it to about 6 feet.

 

I'm 1 for 2 heads up vs. Annika, lifetime. LOL

 

So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.... ;-)

 

Pretty good. Must've been great to be there alongside her.

 

Then she would've kept hitting it 12 feet hole after hole, made a few putts, walked off with 67 or 68, and same the next day. She was just amazing, and as great an example of what the game is supposed to be at the professional level as you can find.

[emncaity]

 

Oh good Lord. First time I've seen that.

[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.

[Dr. Block]

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.

[Obee]

 

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?