Reilly on Tiger

Even on the slim chance that Woods passes Nicklaus in majors won, consider this:

Nicklaus finished 2nd in 19 majors and was third in nine other majors. That's 46 top three finishes in majors. I realize it's all about winning, but no golfer has ever competed at that high a level for as long as Nicklaus did. During Tiger's recent slump in the majors, he has rarely been close to winning going into the back nine.

 

The part in bold is the key part of all of this. Tiger used to win majors before they even started because the rest of the players were convinced they couldn't beat him -- the only way they could win is if Tiger allowed it.

Now he's just another guy -- a really, really good player, but no scarier than anyone else.

I'm convinced that mental edge was a huge part of Tiger's domination over the years. Everyone else went into the tournament playing for second place. That's gone forever. And that's why Tiger won't break Jack's record.

 

Thanks. You ... Da Man.

 

Sure... Who's Vegas going to lay odds on; a healthy Tiger as opposed to someone else? But Tiger vs. the Field?
Three years ago most would take Tiger. Now? The field. The field. And the field.
Keagan Bradley, Hunter Mahan, McDowell, Rory, Phil any number of those guys used used to be unlikely to beat Tiger on a given day. Now, any of them seem more than capable. But pick one? Tiger remain the favorite. In Vegas. I think it's almost by default; not because they think he'll win, but because they aren't sure who he'd lose too.


People came waiting for Tiger to roar again. Vegas included, I guess.

 

For all the talk of swing changes, it's actually been about the putter. It's not magic anymore. He's always been wild, prone to misses off the tee. But no one has ever been better at turning 5s into 4s. That's not coming back. He used to own 10-footers for par. Now he's not fearless anymore. Whether that's age or part of his invincibility shield coming down, I can't say. But it's not the same as putting at Firestone or Bay Hill. He'll have a hot week or two with the putter and every golf writer who so desperately wants it to be true will insist he's "BACK!" but the reality is, he's likely going to fall a few short. It would be fitting, I think, if he won four majors but not five. He deserves to be considered Nicklaus' equal in history, I think. But he's not his superior.

As an aside, it was fascinating to watch the Trevino documentary on the Golf Channel last week and see how graceful Nicklaus was in defeat. Trevino is holding up the trophy in 1971, and Nicklaus is in the background smiling his ass off. Same thing with Watson at the Duel in the Sun. Yes, Tiger wowed more when he was in his prime, but it's a shame he's treated his career like such a miserable, joyless march at times, and that if he doesn't get to 19, he'll be empty and miserable.

 

Great point about the putting, Mr. Mencken. That's something else to consider; putting is the one thing that older players really struggle with.
Hell, look at Lefty: He's 43 and he burned edges at least a dozen times Saturday and Sunday at the Open. All he needed was to make 2 more putts and he wins; instead, he's just barely lipping out.

 

I've heard that a few times, but I don't really get how it plays out in reality.

In tennis, if you're convinced you're playing for second place, and the top guy is across the net from you, then I can see how the "beaten before you start" theory could play into it. You hit a great shot, and it comes back for a winner. I can see how a player could feel, "I just can't beat this guy."

But in golf, you could go the entire tournament without ever seeing Tiger. Nothing he does affects your shots. I just don't get how having Tiger "in" the tournament would prevent you from just putting up the best four-round score you can and seeing where the chips fall. If anything, the thought of "playing for second place" should take the pressure off and allow golfers to play without tightening up.

 

I think most of it is due to that unquantifiable "mystique" trope. But there is also probably something to be said for guys trying to force the action too much because they were assuming Tiger was going to go low, and they were going to have to post lower than they normally could just to stay with him. So maybe they would have taken (and missed on) bigger risks.

 

You don't have to watch golf shows. I don't watch golf shows, yet every major the first year he came back (Augusta, Pebble Beach, St. Andrews, and wherever the PGA was held) was played on a course that Tiger LOVES!!! He was sure to win at least one, if not two, of them. He won zero of them. If you read sports stories on the internet or in a newspaper (or visited this site at all), you surely read about that.

But your point is a good one. Murifield is a course suited for what he can do NOW.

 

Putt poorly?

 

Weren't people screaming about how great a putter he was up until a month or so ago?

The Tiger thing is a lot like the LeBron thing. The narrative changes every five minutes.

He's back!!!! And he'll definitely beat Jack's record!!!
Wait a minute. He sucks now!!! And he probably won't win another major!!!!

Rinse. Repeat.

 

To change topics: I'll see your Reilly on Tiger and raise with Dwyre on Mickelson.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-dwyre-phil-mickelson-20130618,0,4594535.column