Tiger wont beat Jacks 18

[dcstroker]

This whole invincibility argument I just don't buy. Either folks don't remember how Tiger won most of his majors or we just have different definitions of invincibility. The YE Yang theory of staring Tiger down and players no longer being scared is really not consistent with history in my mind. Fact is Tiger often got outplayed on the final day of a major and still won. Bob May didn't fear Tiger when he took him to a playoff at the PGA years ago. DiMarco didn't fear him when he made up a three shot deficit to force a playoff with Tiger at the Masters in 2005. Ole Rocco M. wasn't exactly fearful when caught and passed Tiger on the final day of the US Open. Fact is Tiger usually outplayed his competitors over the course of four rounds with superior play. Was there an intimidation factor, sure because he was and still is that good. But folks seem to be saying that in the past players folded up when facing Tiger and now the young guys don't fear him and won't fold up like the past. Well that is a really inaccurate spin on history.

[sk373]

[quote]A better Tom Watson? I don't think the word better really means much when you look at the number of wins... There needs to be a bigger word.[/quote]

a bigger word than "better"? don't know about that.

yes, Woods' 12 years of brilliance surpasses Watson's 7 years of brilliance, but Watson's 7 years of brilliance was accomplished when Nicklaus was still pretty damn good.

[SmileyDan]

[quote name='Bob57' timestamp='1302297577' post='3133678']
You are dead wrong---each time he overhauled his game he did not change his chipping or putter stroke... This time he has changed his chipping and lost his putting stroke. Nobody was able to correct what Tiger was doing with his putter other than his father. Not his first two teachers, not Butch, not Hank, and certainly not Terry the Toad....
[/quote]

The last interview he had with Kelly Tilghman on 3/18/2011 he 'defended his choice to change his short game' by explaining that in the past he has done the same thing. He said that when he changes his swing mechanics he applies those changes to his short game. I will try to find a transcript or audio of the interview, for some reason golf channel has removed it from their site.

[bamoore]

[quote name='dcstroker' timestamp='1302302576' post='3133921']
This whole invincibility argument I just don't buy. Either folks don't remember how Tiger won most of his majors or we just have different definitions of invincibility. The YE Yang theory of staring Tiger down and players no longer being scared is really not consistent with history in my mind. Fact is Tiger often got outplayed on the final day of a major and still won. Bob May didn't fear Tiger when he took him to a playoff at the PGA years ago. DiMarco didn't fear him when he made up a three shot deficit to force a playoff with Tiger at the Masters in 2005. Ole Rocco M. wasn't exactly fearful when caught and passed Tiger on the final day of the US Open. Fact is Tiger usually outplayed his competitors over the course of four rounds with superior play. Was there an intimidation factor, sure because he was and still is that good. But folks seem to be saying that in the past players folded up when facing Tiger and now the young guys don't fear him and won't fold up like the past. Well that is a really inaccurate spin on history.
[/quote]

Tiger shot better Sunday rounds than his playing partner in the final group nearly every time except the few you cited, and that's just in majors. Announcers use to cite that his playing partner's failed to break 70 or something a remarkable amount of times when paired with him. Fact is, whether it was the galleries or the final round nerves they all buckled when paired with TWoods. That's intimidation in my book.

[sk373]

[quote]This whole invincibility argument I just don't buy. Either folks don't remember how Tiger won most of his majors or we just have different definitions of invincibility. The YE Yang theory of staring Tiger down and players no longer being scared is really not consistent with history in my mind. Fact is Tiger often got outplayed on the final day of a major and still won. Bob May didn't fear Tiger when he took him to a playoff at the PGA years ago. DiMarco didn't fear him when he made up a three shot deficit to force a playoff with Tiger at the Masters in 2005. Ole Rocco M. wasn't exactly fearful when caught and passed Tiger on the final day of the US Open. Fact is Tiger usually outplayed his competitors over the course of four rounds with superior play. Was there an intimidation factor, sure because he was and still is that good. But folks seem to be saying that in the past players folded up when facing Tiger and now the young guys don't fear him and won't fold up like the past. Well that is a really inaccurate spin on history. [/quote]

inaccurate, i think not. the Bob May, DiMarco, and Rocco examples aren't good ones. those guys had nothing to fear because they weren't expected to be able to compete. they were playing with house money--kinda like Roy McIlroy from Tin Cup. the intimidation factor applies to guys who were expected to be able to compete--guys like Ernie Els, for example. besides, none of those three guys actually *beat* Tiger.

i remember how Tiger won his majors--he won all of them with the lead on Sunday. if Tiger had that 54 hole lead, it was a foregone conclusion. then Y.E. Yang beat TW on Sunday when he had that lead in the 09 PGA. then 2010 happened. game over--aura of invincibility gone.

[SmileyDan]

I never realized how many Tiger haters there were until I joined these boards today....

[dcstroker]

Heck, Tiger often didn't break 70 on Sunday in winning. There is a difference between intimidation and invincibility. That was my point. Folks have been intimidated with good reason. He's been better than everybody else. But this widely spoken theory of him previously being invincible until YE Yang is inaccurate and not consistent with the facts. A lot of people, including the post I replied to, argue basically that in the past people would fold up in light of Tiger's invincibility.
[quote name='bamoore' timestamp='1302303960' post='3134008']
[quote name='dcstroker' timestamp='1302302576' post='3133921']
This whole invincibility argument I just don't buy. Either folks don't remember how Tiger won most of his majors or we just have different definitions of invincibility. The YE Yang theory of staring Tiger down and players no longer being scared is really not consistent with history in my mind. Fact is Tiger often got outplayed on the final day of a major and still won. Bob May didn't fear Tiger when he took him to a playoff at the PGA years ago. DiMarco didn't fear him when he made up a three shot deficit to force a playoff with Tiger at the Masters in 2005. Ole Rocco M. wasn't exactly fearful when caught and passed Tiger on the final day of the US Open. Fact is Tiger usually outplayed his competitors over the course of four rounds with superior play. Was there an intimidation factor, sure because he was and still is that good. But folks seem to be saying that in the past players folded up when facing Tiger and now the young guys don't fear him and won't fold up like the past. Well that is a really inaccurate spin on history.
[/quote]

Tiger shot better Sunday rounds than his playing partner in the final group nearly every time except the few you cited, and that's just in majors. Announcers use to cite that his playing partner's failed to break 70 or something a remarkable amount of times when paired with him. Fact is, whether it was the galleries or the final round nerves they all buckled when paired with TWoods. That's intimidation in my book.
[/quote]

[sk373]

[quote]Heck, Tiger often didn't break 70 on Sunday in winning. There is a difference between intimidation and invincibility. That was my point. Folks have been intimidated with good reason. He's been better than everybody else. But this widely spoken theory of him previously being invincible until YE Yang is inaccurate and not consistent with the facts. A lot of people, including the post I replied to, argue basically that in the past people would fold up in light of Tiger's invincibility.[/quote]

Tiger's intimidation factor existed *because* of his former aura of invincibility. TW had the aura that no matter what anyone else did, if he had that 54 hole lead, he was going to win the tournament. you cite May, DiMarco, and Rocco as examples of players not being intimidated. i stated that those were poor examples because those guys had no real expectations of winning--true David vs. Goliath matches. and guess what? they *didn't* win, which only added to TW's mystique.

in majors, TW *was* invincible when he had the 54 hole lead--he was 14-0 until Y.E. Yang beat him. TW's actual Sunday score wasn't the point--it was that TW would always shoot whatever it took to win on Sunday with the 54 hole lead, and that it didn't matter what anyone else did.

[markysparky]

In my estimation, Tiger had that thing that Larry Bird had: he new he was going to beat you, you knew that he was going to beat you, and he knew that you knew that he was going to beat you. That is a psychological maelstrom that very much changes the way you play. The subconscious mind controls so many of our actions; the pressure of 'knowing' that your competitor is better than you combined with loss aversion/public shaming puts hiccups in your psyche in a hurry. The instances of 'nobodies' challenging Tiger is an indicator of this; no one expects you to win, so you don't feel shame or fear of losing because you're not supposed to. And to add fuel to it... Buster Douglas anyone?

Now, Tiger has been publicly shamed. In his mind, pre-thanksgiving 2009, he was the Alpha male of Alpha males. Then he gets whipped publicly and shamed, and loses the self-certainty of kingship. Putting, which used to be a fait accompli, is now tentative. The strut is gone. Confidence in his own public speaking is gone. The king is dead.

[ITBVolks]

[quote name='ITBVolks' timestamp='1302289471' post='3133331']
I'm a Phil guy personally but......

This talk about how Tiger doesn't intimidate people like he use to. It's pretty simple, if your not winning, you don't intimidate. I'd bet if Tiger got his shiot together and went out there and threw down some 8 and 10 stroke beatings, he'd all of a sudden he'd intimidate people again.


Do I think he'll beat Jack's record..... Not sure. He's showing signs of getting his game together again but it'll really come down to regaining his short game (150yds and in) for him to really start scoring. It's not like he's been a FIR guy ever anyway. His putting and short game have left him which is what's hurting his scoring currently.
[/quote]


Figured I'd bring this back up amongst all the Tiger hate today....



Bottom line, Rory feel apart due to the pressure. Tiger (along with others) started making runs and Rory completely collapsed. For those that think Tiger still doesn't "intimidate" people, take a good hard look at this weekend.

Did he win, nope. Did he contend, yep. Will everyone on tour make mention behind closed doors regarding his play, yep



I'll agree with much that's been stated today here - for Tiger to contend, he needs to get his putting sorted. Should be an interesting season!

[vjswing]

[quote name='ITBVolks' timestamp='1302544470' post='3142531']
Bottom line, Rory feel apart due to the pressure. Tiger (along with others) started making runs and Rory completely collapsed. For those that think Tiger still doesn't "intimidate" people, take a good hard look at this weekend.

I'll agree with much that's been stated today here - for Tiger to contend, he needs to get his putting sorted. Should be an interesting season!
[/quote]

Re: the intimidation factor, from someone who's never planted himself in either the "fanboy" or "hater" camp!

For sure, Rory collapsed like a cheap lawn chair, but it was interesting to note that once TW charged to the top of the leader board, several guys (Scott, Day, Schwartzel, Ogilvy) seemed to find another gear and began to make multiple birdies...no wilting from them.