Who's Meltdown was worse, Stanley or Levin?

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by iacas

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.

A little off topic, but I'm as big a Watson fan as anyone (an autographed photo of him from ~ 1994 hangs in our den)  and when he speaks I listen. That's relevant because I watched with great emotion when he melted down in the Open, just not on the 72nd hole. That was a "hammer handed" putt after a bad bounce. C'est la vie - links golf played by a senior citizen. Then the playoff began and Tom Watson did suffer a meltdown of epic proportions.

I still also believe Stanley hit the ball poorly. Too much spin. His meltdown was the few shots that followed though.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Then the playoff began and Tom Watson did suffer a meltdown of epic proportions.

By my definition, he didn't. He said "his legs gave out" or something in the interviews I've seen.

But you're right, and discussing TW (either of them) here is OT.

[TheGeekGolfer]

Originally Posted by iacas

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.

IMO - you sometimes tend to use generalities as facts...

a) I've watched alot of tournaments and have seen quite a few pro shots come up 40 ft short or wide with a wedge in their hands.  Just last week there were several shots where that was the case.  The average on tour last year was about 20 ft on approaches from 50-125 yds and Kyle Stanley averaged 17' 7" in that category, so to say pros always hit it close with a wedge in their hands is false.

b) The camera does strange things to the angles.  And yeah, don't buy the second part of your answer, either.

c) I disagree with this, alot of pro golfers have learned to not react one way or another after their shots.

d) The comments I had read before said he 'had a good shot', not that he 'hit a good shot', which is different.  But, I didn't see what his Dad had said that was posted in another comment, so I'll give you some points on this one.

I still don't think he 'melted down' on that shot or for the tournament.  I think Levin's demise over several holes is more of a 'melt-down'.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer

IMO - you sometimes tend to use generalities as facts...

Call it that if it helps you sleep at night, brother. :) I see it as building a case. Again, no one piece stands alone as a "fact," but together, they're enough to overcome reasonable doubt.

You can doubt my skills at watching golf shots on television and understanding whether the pro hit them poorly all you want. I will not, particularly when my observations align with what the pro actually says.

Originally Posted by TheGeekGolfer

so to say pros always hit it close with a wedge in their hands is false.

Then it's a good thing I didn't say that.

Have a good evening, dude. You disagree with me. I'm okay with that.

[mdl]

I'm surprised that Erik and so many others think Stanley's was worse.  Maybe his single massive mental mistake (or two if you count the three putt as mental) was worse than any single thing Levin did, but Levin had a whole round melt down.  Stanley choked at the very end, but didn't melt down for a whole round.  Maybe it's just that I'd say choke and melt down are two different things to some degree.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by mdl

I'm surprised that Erik and so many others think Stanley's was worse.  Maybe his single massive mental mistake (or two if you count the three putt as mental) was worse than any single thing Levin did, but Levin had a whole round melt down.  Stanley choked at the very end, but didn't melt down for a whole round.  Maybe it's just that I'd say choke and melt down are two different things to some degree.

I'd be curious to know what the frequency of these things are:

1) A guy losing a six-shot (or was it seven-shot?) lead over the course of 18 holes.

2) A guy failing to get down in five or fewer for the win from 100 yards out.

I suspect the former would happen a lot more frequently than the latter. The fact that you could put an average four handicapper in the latter position and he'd close out the win a good portion of the time while a 5-handicapper in the former position would never win says a lot to me, though.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by iacas

I'd be curious to know what the frequency of these things are:

1) A guy losing a six-shot (or was it seven-shot?) lead over the course of 18 holes.

2) A guy failing to get down in five or fewer for the win from 100 yards out.

I suspect the former would happen a lot more frequently than the latter. The fact that you could put an average four handicapper in the latter position and he'd close out the win a good portion of the time while a 5-handicapper in the former position would never win says a lot to me, though.

You're right, but it's not really fair.

Robert Garrigus had an 18th hole meltdown.

Van de Velde had an 18th hole meltdown.

With those guys, you could just see that they weren't thinking straight.

Maybe with Stanley you just couldn't see it.

And Levin was visibly choking on the front 9.

I know that an 8 is an 8, but I didn't see Stanley's in the same way that I saw what Van de Velde and Garrigus did.

[TheGeekGolfer]

Originally Posted by iacas

Have a good evening, dude. You disagree with me. I'm okay with that.

Oh well, we can't all agree on everything...works for me.

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by Shorty

I know that an 8 is an 8, but I didn't see Stanley's in the same way that I saw what Van de Velde and Garrigus did.

Ditto. Snowmen will be snowmen, but Van de Velde and Garrigus had a higher meltdown flamboyance factor.

[mvmac]

Originally Posted by iacas

I'd be curious to know what the frequency of these things are:

1) A guy losing a six-shot (or was it seven-shot?) lead over the course of 18 holes.

2) A guy failing to get down in five or fewer for the win from 100 yards out.

I suspect the former would happen a lot more frequently than the latter. The fact that you could put an average four handicapper in the latter position and he'd close out the win a good portion of the time while a 5-handicapper in the former position would never win says a lot to me, though.

Yes that was basically the questions I posed, which is worse, a guy losing a tournament with a 3 shot lead on the last hole or a guy losing with a 7 shot lead with 18 to go?  And Stanley hit his drive into the fairway!

[x129]

You have to define what you mean by worse.  If your a +5, is  10 minutes of playing like a 20 handicapper worse than playing for 18 holes like a scratch golfer?   Since I have a chance of playing better than Stanley did, I consider it the much worse play. It should be mention in Levin case the guys that beat him shot very well (Stanley a 65, Crane a 66). If they are both shooting 68s, maybe Levin doesn't feel the pressure. You could also count up the number of snowman on 18 and compare it to the number of 75+ in the 4th round if you wanted to figure out what was more unlikely.

Originally Posted by mdl

I'm surprised that Erik and so many others think Stanley's was worse.  Maybe his single massive mental mistake (or two if you count the three putt as mental) was worse than any single thing Levin did, but Levin had a whole round melt down.  Stanley choked at the very end, but didn't melt down for a whole round.  Maybe it's just that I'd say choke and melt down are two different things to some degree.

[newtogolf]

It's hard to compare because Levin's meltdown was a slow painful one that took place over 18 holes while Stanley had one major blowup hole that cost him the victory.  IMO Levin couldn't handle the pressure on the final day and slowly self destructed the entire round where as Stanley played good enough to win until that final hole where he choked under the pressure.

I'd guess Levin will have a tougher time coming back from his meltdown than Stanley, and given Stanley won last week, the meltdown obviously didn't have a long lasting effect, I guess we'll see if the same is true for Levin.

[mdl]

Originally Posted by iacas

I'd be curious to know what the frequency of these things are:

1) A guy losing a six-shot (or was it seven-shot?) lead over the course of 18 holes.

2) A guy failing to get down in five or fewer for the win from 100 yards out.

I suspect the former would happen a lot more frequently than the latter. The fact that you could put an average four handicapper in the latter position and he'd close out the win a good portion of the time while a 5-handicapper in the former position would never win says a lot to me, though.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

It's hard to compare because Levin's meltdown was a slow painful one that took place over 18 holes while Stanley had one major blowup hole that cost him the victory.  IMO Levin couldn't handle the pressure on the final day and slowly self destructed the entire round where as Stanley played good enough to win until that final hole where he choked under the pressure.

I'd guess Levin will have a tougher time coming back from his meltdown than Stanley, and given Stanley won last week, the meltdown obviously didn't have a long lasting effect, I guess we'll see if the same is true for Levin.

The frequency argument is pretty compelling.  I guess I feel like Levin's was worse just cause it looked and felt so much more pathetic.  He was just obviously choking all round long.  Stanley's bomb of a snowman was also obviously a serious choke, especially when sitting 2 from 100 yards on a par 5, and you're right that most everyone with a single digit handicap could get the win from there a very high percentage of the time, so maybe that makes Stanley's worse.  Still, Levin's just felt more pathetic.

[zipazoid]

I think Stanley got shocked when his 3rd rolled into the water & he reacted as most would - over-cautious on the re-hit, a timid approach putt with that water staring him in the face then a badly missed putt. In other words, he got yanked out of his 'In control' mode into panic mode. That's why I still don't think it was as egregious as Levin's. Levin just flat choked...Stanley got shocked by a bad result.

Yes iacas I know - in your mind I'm missing the point, that Stanley's choke happened with how he played the third shot. Understood. I just see it differently - Stanley hit the shot he wanted to, the result blindsided him & it got him out of his zone, resulting in a chain reaction that is pretty standard - play over-cautious to try to get in with the win. You think he should have been over-cautious with the 3rd shot. Understood.

[colin007]

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

Van de Velde and Garrigus had a higher meltdown flamboyance factor.

ha!  great term, you should make it into an acronym.  "That dude had a really high MFF in the final round..."  LOL!

[iacas]

Originally Posted by mdl

The frequency argument is pretty compelling.  I guess I feel like Levin's was worse just cause it looked and felt so much more pathetic.  He was just obviously choking all round long.  Stanley's bomb of a snowman was also obviously a serious choke, especially when sitting 2 from 100 yards on a par 5, and you're right that most everyone with a single digit handicap could get the win from there a very high percentage of the time, so maybe that makes Stanley's worse.  Still, Levin's just felt more pathetic.

Truthfully, I can see it both ways, depending on your definition of melt-down . I attribute Levin's round to more of a "guy just had a bad day." Tiger's shot some bad numbers when changing his swing. Doesn't mean he "melted down" using my sense of the definition.

If others define or sense the definition of "meltdown" differently, I have no problem with them choosing Levin. I think it's a rational choice. :)

Aside from disagreeing on the sense of the definition, the only thing I will continue to disagree with until convinced otherwise (small chance of that) is that Stanley's shot was unlucky . I still say it was likely and thus luck played no role.

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Yes iacas I know - in your mind I'm missing the point, that Stanley's choke happened with how he played the third shot. Understood. I just see it differently - Stanley hit the shot he wanted to, the result blindsided him & it got him out of his zone, resulting in a chain reaction that is pretty standard - play over-cautious to try to get in with the win. You think he should have been over-cautious with the 3rd shot. Understood.

Yep. I think he made a mental mistake when he decided to play his third shot anywhere near the flag instead of to the fat, safe part of the green to the right, a location from which he could have four-putted and still won outright.

Oh, and MFF means different things to different people. Just sayin'.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by iacas

Yep. I think he made a mental mistake when he decided to play his third shot anywhere near the flag instead of to the fat, safe part of the green to the right, a location from which he could have four-putted and still won outright.

Heh, I was thinking, what would Jack do in that situation? Would he have fired at the flag or gone for the fat part of the green?

Answer: Jack always knew how he stood. If he knew he could make 7 and win, there was no way he would make an 8.

[Elvisliveson]

Originally Posted by zipazoid

Heh, I was thinking, what would Jack do in that situation? Would he have fired at the flag or gone for the fat part of the green?

Answer: Jack always knew how he stood. If he knew he could make 7 and win, there was no way he would make an 8.

Jack would have played 1 iron from the tee, 8 iron to lay up and a wedge to the fat, right side of the green. And then would have made his lag putt from 45 feet for a closing birdie and the tournament record, lol.