Report

Wordle 1,396 4/6* ⬛🟦🟦⬛⬛ ⬛🟦⬛🟧⬛ 🟧⬛⬛🟧⬛ 🟧🟧🟧🟧🟧

Day 16 - Worked on partial wedges and my hybrid. 

But it makes it crystal clear that the major drought had nothing to do with his physique, since he was able to do all of that with that physique.

I posted this earlier - includes some reasonable analysis and stats, yes?  Does this help?   ******************** Appreciate your responses—seriously. Agreed - Rory's overall play from 2015–2024 has been elite. Twenty wins, constant top-10s, and staying in the top tier of strokes gained stats year after year is no joke. That only makes the major drought more puzzling, not less. And yes, he’s come close—Carnoustie, St. Andrews, LACC—but that almost makes the argument more interesting. When you’ve got a guy that good, who keeps putting himself in position, why hasn’t he sealed the deal in the biggest moments? I do think his transformation post-2014—adding noticeable muscle, changing his physical profile—might’ve altered his swing tempo, feel, or ability to stay loose under extreme pressure. Not during Thursday or even Saturday—but on the back nine on Sunday, when the mental and physical margins get razor thin, especially at Augusta. Is this stat meaningful?  From 2016–2024, Rory lost strokes to the field on Sundays in nearly half of his major appearances, despite being dominant Thursday through Saturday. That pattern suggests it’s not just bad luck or getting beat—it’s a recurring issue with closing, under pressure. It’s tough to measure pressure in a spreadsheet. And Augusta especially punishes any uptick in tension or loss of touch. I’m not saying “getting jacked” is the sole reason for the drought—but looking for subtle shifts that could explain why a generational talent keeps coming up just short in majors, I think it’s worth considering. And OF COURSE - he finally got to the mountaintop, in extreme, dramatic fashion.  Maybe, as others have said, this will equate to cracking the code and going on a major run for the next 5-10 yrs?

He started lifting and gained some muscle mass. Whatever you call it is irrelevant. You still haven’t been able to explain why that was preventing him from winning tournaments. You can have theories of course, but don’t confuse that with facts. In the first post you argue that Rory getting bigger hurt his game, but you failed to explain why and how you arrived at that conclusion. Don’t you see why you were “audited” as you said, when you make those assumptions without a sliver of evidence or explanation? The exact same theories were said about Tiger. He also aquired some muscle mass and people claimed it ruined his swing, but there were no facts to support it.