Who's Meltdown was worse, Stanley or Levin?

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by x129

Levin smokes constantly so I wouldn't take that as much of sign unless you counted him smoking 2x as much.

You would probably have to define what you mean by meltdown. I wouldn't say Stanley crumbled under pressure before the water shot. I am not sure if pressure really affect his shot selection. I have a feeling he just didn't think about the situation enough. After that the pressure may have gotten to him. Levin in the interviews pretty much say the pressure got to him.

I said to my son that the next time the camera pans over to Levin, he is going to be smoking 2 at a time. I needed a cigarette after that and I don't even smoke!

[lipout]

I agree, it does depend on how you use the term meltdown.

I think Stanley hit the shot he wanted to, but he had not worked out in advance that the shot he had chosen might spin back into the water.  To me, that is a mistake, not a meltdown.

I would use the term meltdown for players who lose their game under pressure.  Levin lost more shots over more holes, so he gets my vote.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by iacas

Why people persist in seeing that as luck is beyond me.

He played a shot - with spin - to a small part of a MASSIVE green when he could have just as easily played a shot with less spin or, heaven forbid, hit the other 90% of the green way to the right. Oh, and the small part of the green had a big shelf/tier on it. Oh, and a shaved bank leading to water right in front. Then he three-putted. TWICE.

Where exactly is the shitty luck?

That was one brain fart after another. And his win the next week is irrelevant.

Remember Freddie Couples' spectacular meltdown at the 1992 Masters when he hit his shot in the water at #12?

Oh wait - the ball somehow stopped short of the creek on a shaved bank and he chipped up for his par & cruised to victory.

Freddie got lucky. Kyle didn't. That's not a meltdown.

[Elvisliveson]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Remember Freddie Couples' spectacular meltdown at the 1992 Masters when he hit his shot in the water at #12?

Oh wait - the ball somehow stopped short of the creek on a shaved bank and he chipped up for his par & cruised to victory.

Freddie got lucky. Kyle didn't. That's not a meltdown.

Quote:

I agree, it does depend on how you use the term meltdown.

I think Stanley hit the shot he wanted to, but he had not worked out in advance that the shot he had chosen might spin back into the water.  To me, that is a mistake, not a meltdown.

I would use the term meltdown for players who lose their game under pressure.  Levin lost more shots over more holes, so he gets my vote.

I agree with these definitions of a meltdown. Levin fell apart for the vast majority of his round. Stanley simply made a stupid mistake.

[k-troop]

They were both pretty bad.  Levin's final round stroke average this year is well over par, and I remember a couple of events last year where he held or was within 1 of the lead and got completely lapped on Sunday.  (Just checked and he shot 76 on Sunday at Bay Hill last year, when 73 would have gotten him in a playoff.)  I guess it's not a meltdown if that's just how you play.

Based on that fact, I give the nod to Stanley.  At this point, I expect Spencer Levin to blow up.  Stanley is solid.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Remember Freddie Couples' spectacular meltdown at the 1992 Masters when he hit his shot in the water at #12?

Oh wait - the ball somehow stopped short of the creek on a shaved bank and he chipped up for his par & cruised to victory.

The two don't compare. Fred didn't have five shots to spare, he had twice as far to hit it, it wasn't the 72nd hole, the wind wasn't swirling, and that green doesn't offer 4000 square feet to the right to hit to and completely take water out of play. And Fred still says in interviews today that he tried hit the ball left but his body just shoved the ball at the flag.

Stanley's screw-up was mental, manifesting in physical mistakes (the three putts more so than the wedge that spun back). That's always been my definition of a choke, which is synonymous with "meltdown" to me. Stanley choked worse than Levin, IMO.

And again, pretending that Stanley succumbed to "bad luck" is just poor form. Luck didn't make him three-putt twice or hit to a portion of the green he would know introduced the water. The worst luck Stanley had was actually Snedeker's shot on the par three clanging off the TV tower. Luck played no real part in Stanley's shots.

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by iacas

Stanley's screw-up was mental, manifesting in physical mistakes (the three putts more so than the wedge that spun back). That's always been my definition of a choke, which is synonymous with "meltdown" to me. Stanley choked worse than Levin, IMO.

And again, pretending that Stanley succumbed to "bad luck" is just poor form. Luck didn't make him three-putt twice or hit to a portion of the green he would know introduced the water. The worst luck Stanley had was actually Snedeker's shot on the par three clanging off the TV tower. Luck played no real part in Stanley's shots.

Agree, total metal mistake, like we've said, doesn't make any sense to lay up.  Charles Howell a few years ago hitting the pin and going into the water was bad luck, not Stanley's shot.  Snedeker hit the correct shot.  Stanley should have been nowhere near that pin for his 3rd shots

[sean_miller]

I voted they're equally bad.  A slow burn for 4 hours is just as lame as one poorly played hole. I didn't see Levin's round, but I did see Stanley's approach on the 72d and thought, "Wow that's a deep divot - looks like Bubba's approaches on #17 at TPC." When Stanley's ball zipped off the green it was not a surprise.

The guys who "melt down" on hole 72 often find a way to redeem themselves soon after, but they always have that finish as a possibility (e.g. Greg Norman). The slow burn guys can redeem themselves too, but they still always have a blowup round in their repertoire (e.g. Mike Weir or Dustin "King of the 54 Hole Tournaments" Johnson).

When a player has a big lead on the 72 hole, he should ask himself, "How would Arjun Atwal play this?".

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by iacas

The two don't compare. Fred didn't have five shots to spare, he had twice as far to hit it, it wasn't the 72nd hole, the wind wasn't swirling, and that green doesn't offer 4000 square feet to the right to hit to and completely take water out of play. And Fred still says in interviews today that he tried hit the ball left but his body just shoved the ball at the flag.

Stanley's screw-up was mental, manifesting in physical mistakes (the three putts more so than the wedge that spun back). That's always been my definition of a choke, which is synonymous with "meltdown" to me. Stanley choked worse than Levin, IMO.

And again, pretending that Stanley succumbed to "bad luck" is just poor form. Luck didn't make him three-putt twice or hit to a portion of the green he would know introduced the water. The worst luck Stanley had was actually Snedeker's shot on the par three clanging off the TV tower. Luck played no real part in Stanley's shots.

It was totally bad luck. That ball stops on the bank we're not even having this discussion.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

It was totally bad luck. That ball stops on the bank we're not even having this discussion.

You have an unusual definition of "luck." He hit the shot in a way that gave it a lot of spin and landed it into an upslope with a shaved bank in front and the green sloping that way. It was the opposite of luck - it was likely . And really, really stupid.

And even given the water ball he still would have won had he not three-putted that very same green.

[zipazoid]

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.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

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.

Your definition continues to be the unusual one.

He hit the ball there. The ball didn't suddenly transport itself onto that slope, nor did it come to a stop and then suddenly start moving again because of a gust of wind or something.

By your logic every bad shot (which it was) is actually just "bad luck." He hit a bad shot. His ball going into the water was the likely result.

[TheGeekGolfer]

Originally Posted by iacas

Why people persist in seeing that as luck is beyond me.

He played a shot - with spin - to a small part of a MASSIVE green when he could have just as easily played a shot with less spin or, heaven forbid, hit the other 90% of the green way to the right. Oh, and the small part of the green had a big shelf/tier on it. Oh, and a shaved bank leading to water right in front. Then he three-putted. TWICE.

Where exactly is the shitty luck?

That was one brain fart after another. And his win the next week is irrelevant.

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.  It was bad luck because if he had hit it short or long of the spot where it did hit, it probably wouldn't have gone in the water.  Was Tom Watson's shot at the British Open a few years ago a 'melt down'?  No, it was bad luck also.  It was the same type of situation and overall 'penalty'.  If Tom's ball had hit a yard shorter or if the grass had been a touch softer his ball would've stayed on the green.  This is no different.

Kyle Stanley did not 'melt down', he played what he thought was the right shot, but missed.  Levin's play over the last round was a bigger 'melt down', since it was a series of shots that led to his demise.

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer

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.  It was bad luck because if he had hit it short or long of the spot where it did hit, it probably wouldn't have gone in the water.  Was Tom Watson's shot at the British Open a few years ago a 'melt down'?  No, it was bad luck also.  It was the same type of situation and overall 'penalty'.  If Tom's ball had hit a yard shorter or if the grass had been a touch softer his ball would've stayed on the green.  This is no different.

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.  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.

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.

Again the BIG mistake was the second shot Stanley hit.

[NCGolfer]

Stanley.

To follow up on some of the other side-conversations and what the definition of a melt-down is, you can EASILY classify Stanley's 18th hole as a melt-down (not bad luck.)  As was mentioned earlier, all he needed to do was get down in 5 from 100 yards.  Not only did he hit a bad approach shot, he proceeded to three-jack it when he got on the green.  His melt-down was like burning magnesium when compared to Levin's slow candle...that's why I think it was much worse and a harder pill to swallow.

On a related note, I was thrilled to see him win the next week.  He seems like a good guy and was very open in talking about his experience.  Not all guys on tour do that.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by iacas

Your definition continues to be the unusual one.

He hit the ball there. The ball didn't suddenly transport itself onto that slope, nor did it come to a stop and then suddenly start moving again because of a gust of wind or something.

By your logic every bad shot (which it was) is actually just "bad luck." He hit a bad shot. His ball going into the water was the likely result.

Actually he hit the ball past the pin.

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

And no, my logic doesn't dictate that every bad shot is bad luck. A bad shot is a bad shot. BUT...I've hit bad shots that ended up good & good shots that ended up bad. Why? Well, I guess I would say rub of the green or, pardon me, luck or lack thereof. In Stanley's case he hit not the desired shot, but one that was a little too low with a little too much spin - a foot higher or with a little less backspin & he wins for fun. That he didn't do that, to me, doesn't mean it was a 'bad shot' - if he had chunked it into the pond, yeah, bad shot. He just didn't hit the proper shot & got overly penalized for it by it trickling into the pond. Bad luck, or bad rub of the green.

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Actually he hit the ball past the pin.

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

And no, my logic doesn't dictate that every bad shot is bad luck. A bad shot is a bad shot. BUT...I've hit bad shots that ended up good & good shots that ended up bad. Why? Well, I guess I would say rub of the green or, pardon me, luck or lack thereof. In Stanley's case he hit not the desired shot, but one that was a little too low with a little too much spin - a foot higher or with a little less backspin & he wins for fun. That he didn't do that, to me, doesn't mean it was a 'bad shot' - if he had chunked it into the pond, yeah, bad shot. He just didn't hit the proper shot & got overly penalized for it by it trickling into the pond. Bad luck, or bad rub of the green.

If that shot would have got caught up in the grass, ala Fred Couples, it would have been a different story. I totally agree with your point that luck (or rub of the green) played into that result. I also agree that the the totality of that shot combined with those 3 putts that followed lost him the title.

I see both points and do not think that they have to be mutually exclusive.

[NuclearMike]

Levin, because it took place over the entire round.  He had lots of chances to stay in in it but he looked like he wished that he was anywhere but on the golf course.