Should Tiger Return to Butch?

[Beretta_Shooter]

I am biased here... Tiger was naturally a unique player unlike any to come along in golf's history. When he was with Butch, they worked on minor things and let his confidence and zest to conquer dominate. Butch liked the spotlight of being his coach a lot, probably too much for Tiger. Today he seems more mechanical, and who knows which is better. I think of it as a natural evolution of a very young man becoming his own man, and not, as Butch would say it, "one of my players." Tiger needed to become the centerpiece to complete his ascension to the top of golf's history. That would have been hard under Butch.

Best analysis yet!

[enduro]

Um, 33 is the exact age Tom Watson was when he won his last major, Arnold Palmer 34.

Have you watched him putt the last 3 weeks? He was putting awesome for a lot of the last major but just had a ho-hum day Sunday. And what you're referencing is guys routinely missing short putts of 5 feet. Like Vijay Singh did on Sunday. That's what Watson did. He still sank a ton of 10', 20' putts. He had trouble with the short ones. Tiger didn't have this problem.

A known historical fact? All players become poor putters at 33? Tiger isn't a poor putter. He has had some amazing putting days this last week. I think he lead putting or was in the top 3 on Saturday through the first 3 days. His putting has been impeccable and he is above the PGA average. And he doesn't miss the short ones hardly ever. I think your point is invalid and you're confused about what the yips are.

[Elvisliveson]

One article I read actually points out that his flatter Haney swing increased the stress on his left leg.

That theory doesn't wash. No one's left leg was more fragile than Ben Hogan's and he had a very flat swing.

[mirv]

Um, 33 is the exact age Tom Watson was when he won his last major, Arnold Palmer 34.

true. hogan and snead both won majors into their early 40s, but they both suffered from some tremendous putting problems inside of 10 feet. the rest of their game was just so superb that they were able to keep up despite the putting woes. did nicklaus ever have putting problems? he got that last major at 46, but i've never really heard anything about his putting one way or the other...

anyway, back to the original question... no, i think tiger's fine where he is with hank. as someone previously said, he should change coaches because he came in second? no way.

[trumps4]

Tom Brady has a QB coach. Manny Ramirez has a hitting coach. Roger Federer has a tennis coach.

I think those type coaches are only slightly less overrated. I guess what I mean by that is this. Tom Brady for example, is more than capable of scouting a defensive secondary and preparing for it. But, I can see how it might help to have a committee of "coaches" help with that or do that part better for him. Same thing for Manny and Federer. I'd compare these folks (QB coach, hitting coach, etc.) to a caddie for the golf pros (although a caddie is much more important IMO). The caddie helps prepare for the opponent... the golf course. I don't believe anyone is better qualified than Brady to work on Brady's throwing motion. Same with Tiger. He knows how to analyze his swing better than anyone else.

Of course the best of the best have coaches... for strategy & motivation, not technique.

[jonnythan]

Of course the best of the best have coaches... for strategy & motivation, not technique.

Clearly that's not the case, as the best of the best generally do have coaches for technique.

Anyone who thinks they are the ultimate source of information on sports technique and refuses to get expert outside opinions and critiques is not going to perform to the best of their natural ability. Even if you're the best neurosurgeon on the planet and know more about the brain than absolutely anyone else, it's foolish to think that there is no one else on earth who has anything to contribute to your opinion or diagnosis.

[Elvisliveson]

true. hogan and snead both won majors into their early 40s, but they both suffered from some tremendous putting problems inside of 10 feet. the rest of their game was just so superb that they were able to keep up despite the putting woes. did nicklaus ever have putting problems? he got that last major at 46, but i've never really heard anything about his putting one way or the other...

Great question about Jack.

He was a different type of putter from Tiger, Watson and Palmer. In their primes, all three were very agressive and didn't worry aout having to make a 5-6 foot comebacker if they missed. As Watson and Palmer got older, they lost this nerve. Nicklaus, in his own words, was "a great two putter" or in other words, lag putter. Sure, he made more clutch putts than most, but he did it trickling the ball into the hole as opposed to trapping the ball in the hole like Watson or Plamer. Jack never wanted to leave himself a misseable 2nd putt. So, as a consequence, Nicklaus' method wasn't really effected by the inevitable loss of those youthful nerves, comparatively speaking.

[Elvisliveson]

Have you watched him putt the last 3 weeks? He was putting awesome for a lot of the last major but just had a ho-hum day Sunday. And what you're referencing is guys routinely missing short putts of 5 feet. Like Vijay Singh did on Sunday. That's what Watson did. He still sank a ton of 10', 20' putts. He had trouble with the short ones. Tiger didn't have this problem.

Stop acting cute, will ya?

First, I never brought up yips, you did. Palmer never had the yips, he just couldn't make the big putts in MAJORS when he had to like he had done in the past. That's what happened to Tiger Sunday and during the last round of this year's U.S. Open. Tiger rarely missed those type of putts in the past with a MAJOR on the line. And look up most any article discussing Watson's decline, it says he lost his once magnificant putting touch, not that he suffered from the yips. And, I never said "all players become poor putters at age 33". I simply cited two all-time great players who lost their "deft, agressive putting touch" around that age.

[enduro]

Stop acting cute, will ya?

I think you're using a sample size of 1 VS a sample size of quite a few other recent rounds where he putted great. You have a coincidental identity for your argument instead of using something statistically more relevant. I'd look at the bigger picture.

He putted kinda crappy on Sunday. But lately he has had many rounds where he has putted very well. No one ever putts very well all the time. Therefore Tiger Woods has lost his deft touch on the greens? I don't make the connection. I chalk it up to a bad day on the greens on the wrong day. And although Watson and Palmer are very good players, I think Tiger matches a profile of a Nicklaus quite a bit more. He didn't have problems winning majors into his 40's. All I was saying is that your premise is logically flawed.

[ChappyEight]

All I was saying is that your premise is logically flawed.

Hey now hold your horses. This is an internet forum, check your logic at the door.

[Elvisliveson]

I think you're using a sample size of 1 VS a sample size of quite a few other recent rounds where he putted great. You have a coincidental identity for your argument instead of using something statistically more relevant. I'd look at the bigger picture.

What premise? In my original post, my only premise was that Tiger's not winning the PGA had more to do with poor putting than it did with his swing and Hank Haney. That's how I answered the OP question. Something you should try sometime. You picked one line out of my entire post and ignored the rest which basically described how Tiger's swing changes under Haney are not the reason for him not winning the PGA. I never said that Tiger permanently lost his putting touch, just that it has happened to great players before and gave examples, all of which anyone with a computer can verify simply by typing in Arnold Palmer or Tom Watson. This is not a court of law, I wasn't trying to prove anything, just giving my opinion with examples. You, on the other hand , seem to have a lot to "prove".

[enduro]

What premise? In my original post, my only premise was that Tiger's not winning the PGA had more to do with poor putting than it did with his swing and Hank Haney. That's how I answered the OP question. Something you should try sometime.

So this is a 1 way discussion wit the OP? I thought it was a discussion. You brought up an interesting point and I thought I'd share my thoughts on it. This is related to the topic, which is why the OP's ideas are off in that perhaps it was his putting that caused the problems.

You picked one line out of my entire post and ignored the rest which basically described how Tiger's swing changes under Haney are not the reason for him not winning the PGA.

I picked the interesting line. You said:

It's not his swing.

That's a premise. I debated your premise.

I understand your opinion. My opinion is you're wrong. Your premise is faulty and I used logic to prove why. We could have an interesting discussion, or we could get ultra defensive because our ego was dinged up a bit as someone finally called us on something. I wasn't insulting you. I was respecting you by actually replying to your post because it was one of the few in here that had a new idea and was interesting. Anyways, to the topic again.

[Elvisliveson]

So this is a 1 way discussion wit the OP? I thought it was a discussion. You brought up an interesting point and I thought I'd share my thoughts on it. This is related to the topic, which is why the OP's ideas are off in that perhaps it was his putting that caused the problems.

MY PREMISE WAS TIGER LOST ON SUNDAY BECAUSE OF HIS PUTTING, NOT HIS SWING CHANGES UNDER HANK HANEY. That's why he should not consider a return to Butch Harmon, which is the topic in this thread. Are you disputing that?

However, with regards to my aside comment, most peopledo believe many players lose their putting touch as they get older and I cited two examples and someone else gave two more, that was it. My premise was never that "Tiger has lost his putting touch", you just chose to make it the focal point of your chest puffing rantings.

[enduro]

MY PREMISE WAS TIGER LOST ON SUNDAY BECAUSE OF HIS PUTTING, NOT HIS SWING CHANGES UNDER HANK HANEY. That's why he should not consider a return to Butch Harmon, which is the topic in this thread. Are you disputing that?

Yeah I agree. I don't think it's a connection to his age or that he's going that way though, as you implied he might. I agree he doesn't need a new coach and that his loss was because of putting issues on Sunday. But I disagree with your premise that perhaps he is getting older and his putter is failing him.

I don't understand why you're acting so immature and defensive. Did you not say "Tiger lost Sunday because he couldn't make a putt. As you get older that starts to happen under pressure."? I can't dispute that connection?

[iacas]

Look at these two sets of stats and try to convince me that he wasnt an all around better player in 2000 than in 2007 ( I use 2007 because I view '08 as a throw away due to injury.

I've already said that stats don't matter when courses and conditions and even the tournaments you play in matter change. The 2009 Tiger (and the 2007 Tiger) are better versions than the 2000 Tiger. He wins more often, and that's the only statistic that really matters - the only one that takes into consideration the fact that golf is played on a changing golf course against a changing field. The only constant is that you have to beat the given field on the given course, and the Haney Tiger does that at a faster rate than the Harmon Tiger.

I have never understood why anyone (including him) thinks he needs a coach at all.

Because what you feel and what you actually do are often two different things. Hank is, for the most part, a trained eye. Little more.

Tom Brady has a QB coach.

Yeah, but he needs one, because any schmoe can throw the ball in the air and let Randy Moss catch it or throw to a wide open Welker. Real QBs can throw on the run and avoid a sack.

Go Steelers! OK, back to topic...

Tiger lost Sunday because he couldn't make a putt.

I'd agree but I'd also throw in "and his strategy." On Saturday AND Sunday. Remember, too, he missed a short putt on 18 that would have given him a three-shot lead and swung a little momentum his way.

Furthermore, his approach has changed more than his swing. When he was young he played with reckless abandon, so he would just put pedal to the metal and obliterate his opponents.

Right, and if he didn't win, he'd finish T36. He finishes higher in tournaments more regularly and wins more often.

Look at 2001: Wins Augusta, then T12, T25, T29 - non-factors. Or 2002: 1, 1, T28, 2 (Hazeltine). Tiger has finished outside the top ten TWICE in a major since 2005 (I'm giving him a pass on Winged Foot, but not Turnberry nor his T12 at Carnoustie.).

And it's worked. For 3 1/2 seasons from 2005 to midway through 2008, out of 14 Majors, Tiger had 6 wins, 4 2nds, a 3rd and a 4th. That's pretty damn Nicklaus-like.

Right on.

When I posed the question I acutally was undecided and was looking for alternative views.

Yeah, I don't believe that. I think you were leaning pretty hard one way but didn't want to admit it to yourself.

Look

2000 Tiger does not barf up a 4 shot lead.

No, you're probably right. 2000 Tiger might very well finish T39, though.

I agree with RC and think Tiger should play a bit more by feel now that he's kind of "locked in" his Haney swing. 2008 at Torrey Pines the guy couldn't even swing, but because of his imagination and feel he found a way to get it done. But he finished second and some guy wants him to change coaches? Puh-lease. Most ridiculous thing I've heard today... Golf - like every sport - isn't played on paper, and 2009 Tiger consistently finishes higher in the majors and every other tournament.

One article I read actually points out that his flatter Haney swing increased the stress on his left leg.

Oh, and because you read it on the Internet, it must be true! Oh noes!

P.S. enduro, Elvis: enough.

[trumps4]

Clearly that's not the case, as the best of the best generally do have coaches for technique.

The only sport I know of were this is "clearly not the case" is golf. Obviously, Tiger and many other (but not all) golf pros think they need someone to coach them (presumably in the technique area). I still contend that at the professional level with only rare exceptions, coaches are not telling Julius Peppers how to pass-rush better, Kobe Bryant how to shoot jump-shots better, or Rodger Federer how to serve better. At the very least they are not "clearly" doing so.

Your neurosurgeon comparison is interesting because somewhat I agree. Someone else might have something of value to contribute to the most knowledgeable neurosurgeon in the world. And Hank might have something of value to contribute to Tiger's golf swing. But can you imagine that same surgeon that knows "more about the brain than absolutely anyone else" paying some other guy (who's greatest surgery accomplishment was all-conference at Tulsa University) millions of dollars a year to regularly refresh his/her memory on how to do it correctly? I cannot imagine that. Seems foolish. All I am really saying is something that could never be proven. That Tiger would have very similar results no matter who is coach is/was. Obviously, I am not convincing you of this and you are not convincing me otherwise. Agree to disagree?

[jonnythan]

The only sport I know of were this is "clearly not the case" is golf. Obviously, Tiger and many other (but not all) golf pros think they need someone to coach them (presumably in the technique area). I still contend that at the professional level with only rare exceptions, coaches are not telling Julius Peppers how to pass-rush better, Kobe Bryant how to shoot jump-shots better, or Rodger Federer how to serve better. At the very least they are not "clearly" doing so.

I'll agree that you're mistaken and uneducated ;)

There's no one best golf swing, there's no one best jump shot. The pros work on these things... at least, the ones who are driven to win and succeed do. A neurosurgeon wouldn't pay someone to "refresh his memory," but he would pay people to work on his team, he would take training, he would sit in at lectures at seminars, and he would read trade journals. I'll drop the argument here though.

[denver_nuggs_15]

I think those type coaches are only slightly less overrated. I guess what I mean by that is this. Tom Brady for example, is more than capable of scouting a defensive secondary and preparing for it. But, I can see how it might help to have a committee of "coaches" help with that or do that part better for him. Same thing for Manny and Federer. I'd compare these folks (QB coach, hitting coach, etc.) to a caddie for the golf pros (although a caddie is much more important IMO). The caddie helps prepare for the opponent... the golf course. I don't believe anyone is better qualified than Brady to work on Brady's throwing motion. Same with Tiger. He knows how to analyze his swing better than anyone else.

The technique reference is wrong. Coaches at pro levels work very much with technique. Whenever QBs come into the league, they always work with footwork. Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, etc. all do this. Pro baseball players literally hit thousands of balls off tees with a coach watching for technique. Watch Jeter or Pujols or whoever before a game or during practices. Pro basketball players work a lot with coaches on technique. Andrew Bynum and DHoward are working with their footwork a lot now. LeBron is working on shooting. They hired coaches for this.

So, pro athletes have coaches for a reason: they know how to help. Hank Haney is a better teacher than Tiger. He can see things Tiger can't. He can help Tiger better than Tiger can. Otherwise he wouldn't have a coach.

Oh, and because you read it on the Internet, it must be true! Oh noes!

Does anyone actually know what swing (flat vs. steep) puts more stress on the left knee (in general). Until someone can counter his point, Haney's swing put stress on Tiger's knee. You can't just dismiss a point by stating that "not everything found on the internet is true." Find an article on the internet that counters his point. Maybe Tiger wouldn't have had the knee problems with Butch. In that case, he never should have gone to Haney. Off topic, but maybe if Tiger goes back, he'll have a longer career.

I still contend that at the professional level with only rare exceptions, coaches are not telling Julius Peppers how to pass-rush better, Kobe Bryant how to shoot jump-shots better, or Rodger Federer how to serve better. At the very least they are not "clearly" doing so.

You're wrong. Players need technique coaches to get better, to stay great, etc. They're great players, not coaches. I really do believe that a pro coach can better diagnose a problem better than a player could. It's their job.