or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Who's Meltdown was worse, Stanley or Levin?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Who's Meltdown was worse, Stanley or Levin? - Page 3

Poll Results: Who Had the Bigger Meltdown?

Poll expired: Feb 21, 2012  
  • 55% (19)
    Spencer Levin
  • 35% (12)
    Kyle Stanley
  • 8% (3)
    They were equally bad
34 Total Votes  
post #37 of 83

Don't forget that Stanley had a seven shot lead entering the backnine, it wasn't just the last hole he played bad. 

His hole back nine was just bad, there was no bad luck or anything. It would have been luck if the ball stayed in the fringe, it wasn't bad luck that the ball dropped.

 

Stanley was on cruise control, looked like the clear winner until deep in his backninen. Levin on the other hand just had a bad day, he never looked good on sunday.

Therefore: My vote goes to Stanley.

post #38 of 83

Not sure why a shot has to be one of two options:  bad luck or meltdown.  I think there is a 3rd option: a regular poor shot, which might be a miss hit or an error in shot selection. 

 

IMO Stanley's 3rd shot was a poor shot, not bad luck and not a meltdown.

 

His play from shot 5 onwards was worse, and is closer to a meltdown, but I still thnk that is too harsh in the situation immediately following the shock of shot 3. 

 

 

post #39 of 83

You see a ball that trickled into the water. I see a ball that finished 10+ yards from where it should have ended up. Thats a bad golf shot not luck. If he would have  hit the ball directly in the water would you also consider that a bad luck? Spin is just like distance and direction. It is something the golfer has a decent amount of control over.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by zipazoid View Post

If unusual is defined as a ball rolling slowly down a slope, almost stopping twice before trickling into the pond on its final roll, then yes, I have an unusual definition of luck. Or you do. Whatever.

 

And you keep referring to the ensuing three putt. But again, if that ball stops on the slope it's not even part of the discussion.

 

So let's try to merge our opinions -

 

Due to an unfortunate circumstance (like that wording?), Stanley had to replay his shot, which, due to that circumstance made him play overly-cautious with the ball going over the green. He then putted it to 4 feet & gakked the putt.

 

Framed like that, he hit one bad shot. The four-footer. So, in my mind, Levin's meltdown was worse.



 

post #40 of 83

After reading through this thread, needing a break from a heavy requirements engineering meeting, I regret ever posting in it.  The question belies a false premise i.e. that there isn't a category mistake committed in asking it.  Then folks fail to realize that, start trying to work their way through what passes for reasoning, pick a side and defend it in spite of the fact that neither actually represents a position that corresponds to reality all because the question was ill-formed.  We may as well be arguing over which is bluer, a circle or a triangle.  Back to the meetings for me...

post #41 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by x129 View Post

You see a ball that trickled into the water. I see a ball that finished 10+ yards from where it should have ended up. Thats a bad golf shot not luck. If he would have  hit the ball directly in the water would you also consider that a bad luck? Spin is just like distance and direction. It is something the golfer has a decent amount of control over.

 

Quote:



 



Asked and answered. I stated had he chunked it into the pond directly, that would be a bad shot. What he hit was not the proper short for the situation that he got overly penalized for.

 

So, is that a meltdown?

 

That's I voted that Levin was the bigger meltdown, as it was over the course of his round.

 

Stanley hit one shot that essentially cost him the tournament due to an unfortunate bad break, luck, goofy roll down a hill or whatever the hell you want to call it. He hit it 15 feet past the pin with too much spin. That's a meltdown?

 

post #42 of 83

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer View Post

You (and several others on here) are assuming that he meant to hit the ball to that tiny part of the green with a big shelf/tier on it.  I don't think so!  Who knows, he could've been aiming 15 yards farther right and 10 yards deep, but he pulled it and didn't catch it flush?  We don't know, that's the point.

 

No, to a high degree of certainty, we do know.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by zipazoid View Post

Actually he hit the ball past the pin.

 

Yeah, with spin and into a tier with the green sloping towards a shaved bank and water. Nobody here is saying he hit it on the shaved bank, but he did hit it in a place where it was very likely to hit that shaved bank with enough speed to fall into the water.

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by zipazoid View Post

But anyway. Lemme ask you this - had the ball stopped on the slope, would that have been 'good luck' or an 'unlikely result'...?

 

Good luck if it hung up on the fringe or on the shaved bank, yes. But absence of good luck is not bad luck. If his ball had stopped, it would have been good luck precisely for the same reason that it not stopping was not BAD luck: because given the way he hit the ball (location, spin, etc.) the ball was likely to end up wet, and so anything which prevented that would be good luck.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zwick View Post

It would have been luck if the ball stayed in the fringe, it wasn't bad luck that the ball dropped.

 

Yep.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by x129 View Post

You see a ball that trickled into the water. I see a ball that finished 10+ yards from where it should have ended up. Thats a bad golf shot not luck. ... Spin is just like distance and direction. It is something the golfer has a decent amount of control over.

 

Yep. He hit the shot.

 

Levin had a bad day. Stanley had a massive brain fart.

post #43 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer View Post

You (and several others on here) are assuming that he meant to hit the ball to that tiny part of the green with a big shelf/tier on it.  I don't think so!  Who knows, he could've been aiming 15 yards farther right and 10 yards deep, but he pulled it and didn't catch it flush?  We don't know, that's the point.

 

      Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 

 

No, to a high degree of certainty, we do know.

 

 

Oh please enlighten us as to how you 'know' this to a 'high degree of certainty'?  I guess I must have missed it in an interview or something?

post #44 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvmac View Post



I agree if he hit it in a different spot it wouldn't have gone in the water, but that's not bad luck that he hit a bad shot, ended up in the wrong spot on the green and went into the water. 

 

Actually, that is the EXACT definition of 'bad luck'.  The bad shot was not 'bad luck', but having it land on the green in the one area that would result in it rolling back into the water was.

 

Definition: bad luck - an unfortunate state resulting from unfavorable outcomes

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mvmac View Post

So everyone that hits it to the front of the 15th green at Augusta and goes into the water was just unlucky?  If Stanley was aiming 15 yards right or 10 yards deep, then he hit a bad shot and has to deal with the consequences of that.

 

Nope, never said it was.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvmac View Post

 

Watson's shot was different, he hit the shot he wanted and was within a few feet of being perfect and didn't bring more than bogey into play.  The penalty wasn't the same he just made a bogey, didn't hit it in a hazard.

 

The 'penalty' being the same is that they both messed up by the amount that led to them getting into a playoff.

 

post #45 of 83

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer View Post

Oh please enlighten us as to how you 'know' this to a 'high degree of certainty'?  I guess I must have missed it in an interview or something?


a) He's a professional golfer with a wedge in his hands.

b) The shot was cleanly struck and hit towards where he was aimed.

c) He did not immediately react and say "pulled it" or gesture in any way to indicate as much.

d) At no point in his post-round press conferences did he say he pulled the shot. In fact, he indicated the opposite on several occasions.

 

Conclusion: he (stupidly) hit the shot he was trying to hit.

 

Again, the only "luck" on the 18th hole or either of the playoff holes was Snedeker's good luck at hitting the TV tower.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer View Post

Actually, that is the EXACT definition of 'bad luck'.  The bad shot was not 'bad luck', but having it land on the green in the one area that would result in it rolling back into the water was.

 

No it isn't. That definition would only apply if his odds of going in the water were random.

 

He hit a shot in such a way that it was highly likely to suck back into the water. Luck (good and bad) speaks to the outliers in situations, not the likely outcomes.

post #46 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 


a) He's a professional golfer with a wedge in his hands.

b) The shot was cleanly struck and hit towards where he was aimed.

c) He did not immediately react and say "pulled it" or gesture in any way to indicate as much.

d) At no point in his post-round press conferences did he say he pulled the shot. In fact, he indicated the opposite on several occasions.

 

Conclusion: he (stupidly) hit the shot he was trying to hit.

 

Again, the only "luck" on the 18th hole or either of the playoff holes was Snedeker's good luck at hitting the TV tower.

 

 

No it isn't. That definition would only apply if his odds of going in the water were random.

 

He hit a shot in such a way that it was highly likely to suck back into the water. Luck (good and bad) speaks to the outliers in situations, not the likely outcomes.

a) oh, I guess pros with wedges always hit within a couple of yards where they are trying to hit it?  FALSE

b) you can't tell where he is 'aimed' or his intentions from a TV shot, plus, you can't tell if it was 'struck cleanly'.  - really, I'm sure you've hit a shot cleanly only for it to come up short and you wonder to yourself, "huh, what happened there?"

c) there are alot of golfers that don't react one way or another

d) please point me to where he 'indicated the opposite'

 

Conclusion - you are making an argument with nothing to back it up - again
 

 

post #47 of 83

Iacas, do you believe in luck at all? Not enough data behind it? That seems to be the real debate here. Apparently 60% of sandtrappers are willing to chalk things up to luck and move on, and 40% need concrete details to create a series of technical conclusions.

 

If you believe in luck you voted for Levin, if you don't you voted for Stanley.

post #48 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer View Post

a) oh, I guess pros with wedges always hit within a couple of yards where they are trying to hit it?  FALSE

b) you can't tell where he is 'aimed' or his intentions from a TV shot, plus, you can't tell if it was 'struck cleanly'.  - really, I'm sure you've hit a shot cleanly only for it to come up short and you wonder to yourself, "huh, what happened there?"

c) there are alot of golfers that don't react one way or another

d) please point me to where he 'indicated the opposite'

 

Conclusion - you are making an argument with nothing to back it up - again
 

 



Amen!

 

post #49 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer View Post

a) oh, I guess pros with wedges always hit within a couple of yards where they are trying to hit it?  FALSE

b) you can't tell where he is 'aimed' or his intentions from a TV shot, plus, you can't tell if it was 'struck cleanly'.  - really, I'm sure you've hit a shot cleanly only for it to come up short and you wonder to yourself, "huh, what happened there?"

c) there are alot of golfers that don't react one way or another

d) please point me to where he 'indicated the opposite'

 

Conclusion - you are making an argument with nothing to back it up - again
 

 


Here is Stanley's quote from the press conference:

 

 

Quote:
"We tried to lay it up close enough so that we wouldn't put that much spin on it," Stanley said. "Thought I had a pretty good shot, but just had too much spin."

 

Him saying "Thought I had a pretty good shot" would indicate (to me at least) that he hit it where he wanted to...which was the wrong place given the shelf and increasing the chance of water on the shot. All Erik is arguing here is that he should have hit the ball to the fat part of the green and just, at worst, three-jacked it in from there.

 

I don't see any luck in this at all.  It was simply a poor decision to aim at the part of the green that brought the most trouble into play.

 

 

post #50 of 83
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer View Post

a) oh, I guess pros with wedges always hit within a couple of yards where they are trying to hit it?  FALSE

b) you can't tell where he is 'aimed' or his intentions from a TV shot, plus, you can't tell if it was 'struck cleanly'.  - really, I'm sure you've hit a shot cleanly only for it to come up short and you wonder to yourself, "huh, what happened there?"

c) there are alot of golfers that don't react one way or another

d) please point me to where he 'indicated the opposite'

 

Conclusion - you are making an argument with nothing to back it up - again
 

 

 

a- They better be able to hit wedges within a few feet of where they want if they want to stay on tour.  Do they do it all the time? No, but they are amazing accurate within 100 yards.

 

b- Check out this Article
 

Matt Stanley, his Dad:

 

Quote:

“(The reaction) then tailed off to groans – it was really strange,” Matt Stanley said. “Kyle said he hit it exactly where he wanted to.”

more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/01/30/2004719/stanley-lets-big-lead-get-away.html#storylink=cpy

 

And Kyle

 

Quote:

 

“Looking back, I don’t really know what I was thinking,” Kyle Stanley said. “It’s not a hard golf hole. … I could probably play it a thousand times and never make an 8."

here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/01/30/2004719/stanley-lets-big-lead-get-away.html#storylink=cpy

 

Again to me it wasn't bad luck that he mentally choked on the 2nd shot and then decided to bring the water into play with his 3rd shot.  Two mental errors in a row.

post #51 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post

 


a) He's a professional golfer with a wedge in his hands.

b) The shot was cleanly struck and hit towards where he was aimed.

c) He did not immediately react and say "pulled it" or gesture in any way to indicate as much.

d) At no point in his post-round press conferences did he say he pulled the shot. In fact, he indicated the opposite on several occasions.

 

Conclusion: he (stupidly) hit the shot he was trying to hit.

 



 

 

So how is that a meltdown? As you said, he had a wedge in his hands & hit the shot he wanted to hit. So he went thru his calculations, came to a conclusion on the shot he wanted to hit, then hit it exactly that way, I'm not seeing how that equates to him throwing the tournament away or a meltdown - he didn't fail to execute, he didn't hit some butt-ugly chunk into the water or airmail the green. He landed it, roughly, within feet of where he intended. Now, based on the results, you can say, bad decision. But a meltdown? No.

 

And further, up until that shot he was in total control of the tournament, so there was no oil leaking, no trying to stagger in with the win. He had a huge lead, hit the shot he wanted and it just didn't work out as planned. Unsettled by the outcome he then got over-cautious with his re-hit, hit an indifferent approach putt & gakked the four-footer...there's where the meltdown was if you want to identify one - the four-footer for the win. Cuz 15 minutes earlier he had a 4-shot lead. Reality slapped him in the face & he badly missed the putt. It was similar to what happened to Tom Watson in the 2009 British Open - middle of the fairway on 18, one shot lead, hit the approach he wanted to hit, but the ball bounced over the green, he hit an indifferent putt then badly missed the 6-footer for the outright win.  

 

So I guess that means Tom Watson had a meltdown too, right?

 

post #52 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by zipazoid View Post

 

It was similar to what happened to Tom Watson in the 2009 British Open - middle of the fairway on 18, one shot lead, hit the approach he wanted to hit, but the ball bounced over the green, he hit an indifferent putt then badly missed the 6-footer for the outright win.  

 

So I guess that means Tom Watson had a meltdown too, right?

 


Watson's approach into 18 took a severe, unexpected bounce and went through the green.  That was bad luck.

 

Missing the putt was a choke.  He missed a putt that, under different circumstances, would have been nearly automatic.  He was unable to handle the pressure of the moment.  I don't know if his missing one four-footer was a meltdown, but it was definitely a choke.

 

I think a good definition of a meltdown is this:  a player with a comfortable lead who plays multiple shots that are well below what is expected of a professional golfer and loses the lead.  I don't think it matters whether he he hits an easy shot poorly (Watson's putt on 18 at the '09 Open) or hits an unnecessarily risky shot (Mickelson's driver and approach into 18 at Winged Foot in '06), or both. 

post #53 of 83

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer View Post

a) oh, I guess pros with wedges always hit within a couple of yards where they are trying to hit it?  FALSE

b) you can't tell where he is 'aimed' or his intentions from a TV shot, plus, you can't tell if it was 'struck cleanly'.  - really, I'm sure you've hit a shot cleanly only for it to come up short and you wonder to yourself, "huh, what happened there?"

c) there are alot of golfers that don't react one way or another

d) please point me to where he 'indicated the opposite'

 

Conclusion - you are making an argument with nothing to back it up - again

 

I'm doing no such thing, thanks.

 

a) Kyle said he hit a good shot. Pros aren't so bad with their wedges that they miss by 40 feet, no. Within a couple of yards is a bit too narrow a range but not by a lot.

b) I can, actually. So can a lot of people. And from 100 yards, no, I haven't.

c) I disagree. I see most golfers react to a "poor" shot quickly.

d) Others have done this already, so I won't rehash the topic.

 

The point is that while each piece of evidence (except maybe d) doesn't stand on its own, as a whole, the sum easily overcomes reasonable doubt. Kyle Stanley (stupidly) hit the shot he was trying to hit.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by xxsoultonesxx View Post

Iacas, do you believe in luck at all? Not enough data behind it? That seems to be the real debate here. Apparently 60% of sandtrappers are willing to chalk things up to luck and move on, and 40% need concrete details to create a series of technical conclusions.

 

I think I've been fairly clear in my definition of luck. Luck is when the likely outcome does not occur. Snedeker's ball not bouncing off the cliff because it strikes a TV tower is luck, Stanley's shot rolling back as everyone would expect it to is not luck.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCGolfer View Post

Him saying "Thought I had a pretty good shot" would indicate (to me at least) that he hit it where he wanted to...which was the wrong place given the shelf and increasing the chance of water on the shot. All Erik is arguing here is that he should have hit the ball to the fat part of the green and just, at worst, three-jacked it in from there.

 

I don't see any luck in this at all.  It was simply a poor decision to aim at the part of the green that brought the most trouble into play.


Yep. Except that he even had FOUR shots to get down from the fat part of the green. He'd be lying three there. :)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by zipazoid View Post

So how is that a meltdown? As you said, he had a wedge in his hands & hit the shot he wanted to hit. So he went thru his calculations, came to a conclusion on the shot he wanted to hit, then hit it exactly that way, I'm not seeing how that equates to him throwing the tournament away or a meltdown - he didn't fail to execute, he didn't hit some butt-ugly chunk into the water or airmail the green. He landed it, roughly, within feet of where he intended. Now, based on the results, you can say, bad decision. But a meltdown? No.

 

I feel I've been clear on this. He choked, and as with choking, meltdowns are mental in my book. He mentally vacated the premises and chose a stupid shot. Tin Cup melted down. He chose a stupid shot. He too pulled it off (physically) really well, but it was still a meltdown because the mental side was absent. He didn't think clearly.

 

Disagree all you want, but until we're given a definition and instead asked to rely on our own, I can only answer the question as I see it.

 

 
And no, Tom Watson didn't have a meltdown in my opinion, nor did he have the option of hitting to the fat part of the green, avoiding all trouble, and four putting for the win.
post #54 of 83
I voted for Levin to highlight a point. Everyone makes mistakes. Everyone has stretches where he/she doesn't have their "A" game. How we learn and overcome from the mistakes to improve our skill/performance is important. Thus, Stanley's meltdown wasn't the worse--he learned from his previous errors and achieved a tour victory in PHX the following week.

To add, Levin was really frazzled--he looked nauseous and clammy. Stanley, even though not physically executing good shots the final day at Torrey Pines, appeared to be more even keeled and mentally fit.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tour Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Who's Meltdown was worse, Stanley or Levin?