Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer
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.
Originally Posted by xxsoultonesxx
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.
Originally Posted by NCGolfer
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. :)
Originally Posted by zipazoid
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.