Brandel Chamblee (Again) Calls for Tiger to Ditch Sean Foley

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

The problem with Tiger is people compare him with the pre-2010 Tiger to his present game.

His new swing is better, but he needs more than a cut to be "Tiger." With his talent, people won't rest until he hits a draw and cut - high, medium and low. The criticism last week is that he is too steep on the downswing and needs to take a wood out once in a while.

He also needs work on his wedges and putting.

People want old Tiger with a new swing, but old short game.

Take a wood out?  His strategy worked just fine.  In fact you can make a pretty good case that it was because Scott "took a wood out" on 18 that he lost the tournament.  There was no need for him to hit 3-wood.  It unnecessarily brought the bunker onto play, and on a 413 yard hole 3-wood distance was not necessary.  Hard to imagine how such a great caddy could let him hit 3-wood.  It was a Mickelsonian move.

I do not believe Tiger didn't hit driver because he "couldn't".  He didn't do it because it was unnecessary and too risky given the course layout.  Just like, albeit for different reasons, as he did at Hoylake.  A guy dies not become top 10 in overall driving by being afraid to hit driver.  You have to have both distance and accuracy to be that high in total driving.  Look at all the talk about Westwood being one of the best drivers of the ball.  His distance avg, is almost exactly the same as Tiger's but he is 35 places lower in driving accuracy.  So that makes hi one of the best drivers of the ball while even better stats makes Tiger afraid to hit driver?  Does that make sense?

Originally Posted by TourSpoon

But no one cares what his swing looks like, it's whether he is winning or not. Tiger has dominated fields with three different swings.

And is likely about to begin doing it with a fourth.

[TourSpoon]

Originally Posted by turtleback

And is likely about to begin doing it with a fourth.

He is already doing it...

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Take a wood out?  His strategy worked just fine.  In fact you can make a pretty good case that it was because Scott "took a wood out" on 18 that he lost the tournament.  There was no need for him to hit 3-wood.  It unnecessarily brought the bunker onto play, and on a 413 yard hole 3-wood distance was not necessary.  Hard to imagine how such a great caddy could let him hit 3-wood.  It was a Mickelsonian move.

I do not believe Tiger didn't hit driver because he "couldn't".  He didn't do it because it was unnecessary and too risky given the course layout.  Just like, albeit for different reasons, as he did at Hoylake.  A guy dies not become top 10 in overall driving by being afraid to hit driver.  You have to have both distance and accuracy to be that high in total driving.  Look at all the talk about Westwood being one of the best drivers of the ball.  His distance avg, is almost exactly the same as Tiger's but he is 35 places lower in driving accuracy.  So that makes hi one of the best drivers of the ball while even better stats makes Tiger afraid to hit driver?  Does that make sense?

And is likely about to begin doing it with a fourth.

Yeah, I said "take a wood out once in a while."

Don't be a Tiger homer. Be smart.

There are times when you can take a wood out and avoid bunkers. Did I say "That freakin, yellow Tiger, just pound the freakin driver!"

No.

Tiger could have judiciously used a wood more often than he did. He is a marvelous long to mid iron player, But he left himself too long at times to make putts.

Having said that, he was a bunker and a few putts away from winning. But when it takes perfect conservative golf to win, and you've got, what 260 bunkers?, you're bound to have trouble with one of them. Golf is not a game of perfect, and Tiger would have had to play almost perfect to win, and have some luck, with that strategy. Bottom line, putter wasn't hot enough to win or deal with adversity. The putter might have been hotter with shorter iron shots onto greens. It would not have taken many. But this is Monday Morning Quarterbacking. I admire the strategy, but he might have loosened it up a little.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Yeah, I said "take a wood out once in a while."

Don't be a Tiger homer. Be smart.

There are times when you can take a wood out and avoid bunkers. Did I say "That freakin, yellow Tiger, just pound the freakin driver!"

No.

Tiger could have judiciously used a wood more often than he did. He is a marvelous long to mid iron player, But he left himself too long at times to make putts.

Having said that, he was a bunker and a few putts away from winning. But when it takes perfect conservative golf to win, and you've got, what 260 bunkers?, you're bound to have trouble with one of them. Golf is not a game of perfect, and Tiger would have had to play almost perfect to win, and have some luck, with that strategy. Bottom line, putter wasn't hot enough to win or deal with adversity. The putter might have been hotter with shorter iron shots onto greens. It would not have taken many. But this is Monday Morning Quarterbacking. I admire the strategy, but he might have loosened it up a little.

No his strategy worked perfectly.  Using irons was designed to take the FAIRWAY bunkers out of play.  His problem was with a greenside bunker and a bit of an unlucky roll.  It is hilarious to me that the guy finished T3, ahead of 152 other guys and yet is criticized.  Is he THAT good that any time he does not win a major it means he blundered in some way?

Whose course management decisions do you think are likely to be better?  Did you criticize him when he won at Hoylake hitting even FEWER drivers?

It is not that I am a Tiger homer (though I am) it is that I look at Tiger in comparison to the other players, not to the ideal he established in 1999-2000.  No one ever has or, likely, ever will play at that level again.  I do think he can reach, although it obviously has not yet happened, his 2005-2008 level.  We'll see.

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Yeah, I said "take a wood out once in a while."

Don't be a Tiger homer. Be smart.

There are times when you can take a wood out and avoid bunkers. Did I say "That freakin, yellow Tiger, just pound the freakin driver!"

No.

Tiger could have judiciously used a wood more often than he did. He is a marvelous long to mid iron player, But he left himself too long at times to make putts.

Having said that, he was a bunker and a few putts away from winning. But when it takes perfect conservative golf to win, and you've got, what 260 bunkers?, you're bound to have trouble with one of them. Golf is not a game of perfect, and Tiger would have had to play almost perfect to win, and have some luck, with that strategy. Bottom line, putter wasn't hot enough to win or deal with adversity. The putter might have been hotter with shorter iron shots onto greens. It would not have taken many. But this is Monday Morning Quarterbacking. I admire the strategy, but he might have loosened it up a little.

No his strategy worked perfectly.  Using irons was designed to take the FAIRWAY bunkers out of play.  His problem was with a greenside bunker and a bit of an unlucky roll.

But when you take an iron off the tee, you're more likely to bring greenside bunkers into play on your next shot (since that shot will be longer and therefore less accurate). Just saying, it's all related.

[Zwick]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

But when you take an iron off the tee, you're more likely to bring greenside bunkers into play on your next shot (since that shot will be longer and therefore less accurate). Just saying, it's all related.

But an average greenside bunker is nowhere near as penal as a fairway bunker at Lytham. You will probably lose 0.8 strokes if you hit a fairay bunker but only 0.4 in a greenside bunker (pure estimation after watching most of the Open).

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Zwick

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

But when you take an iron off the tee, you're more likely to bring greenside bunkers into play on your next shot (since that shot will be longer and therefore less accurate). Just saying, it's all related.

But an average greenside bunker is nowhere near as penal as a fairway bunker at Lytham. You will probably lose 0.8 strokes if you hit a fairay bunker but only 0.4 in a greenside bunker (pure estimation after watching most of the Open).

Maybe. But if you gamble with driver and *don't* end up in a fairway bunker, my estimation is you would gain 0.9 strokes by being able to hit your approach shot closer to the pin.

Nah, actually I agree that the strategy of taking iron off the tee probably was correct. Just saying, it's all related.

[newtogolf]

As others have said, Tiger set the bar so high that until he's dominating every tournament people will fair to realize how good he's actually playing.

I do find it interesting that the focus remains on Tiger despite his improving play and not on Rory who was supposed to make us all forget about Tiger.  Why aren't the Miceli's and Chamblee's talking about Rory's disappearance from the top in most tournaments?  IMO Rory tried to lead a normal life too quick, took his eye off his game so he could have a TMZ romance with a pro tennis player.

[brocks]

But when you take an iron off the tee, you're more likely to bring greenside bunkers into play on your next shot (since that shot will be longer and therefore less accurate).

That would be true for most of the field, but not Tiger. His short irons were no more accurate than his long irons, or at least not enough to compensate for the advantage gained by taking the fairway bunkers out of play. He freely acknowledged his distance control problems in his press conference, so it probably played a part in his strategy.

[ClayHbg]

Originally Posted by turtleback

It is hilarious to me that the guy finished T3, ahead of 152 other guys and yet is criticized.  Is he THAT good that any time he does not win a major it means he blundered in some way?

It is not that I am a Tiger homer (though I am) it is that I look at Tiger in comparison to the other players, not to the ideal he established in 1999-2000.  No one ever has or, likely, ever will play at that level again.

+1

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by ClayHbg

+1

and he's #2 in the world rankings right now.

[ThominOH]

I'm no Tiger fan..  but keep in mind..  The course conditions at the Open were benign.. Wet and little to no wind.. Tiger's strategy worked for him the first 2 days, and for that I applaud it.. I think more players should of done that.. However, come the weekend, especially Sunday,  when the winds picked up, Tiger struggled more with long irons into greens from a further distance.. Tiger had 1 bogey on each round Thurs and Friday in easy conditions.. 3 Bogies on Saturday and 5 more on Sunday.. People might want to consider that maybe -3 was a perfect as he was going to every get with his strategy..

I do agree tho that Adam should of NEVER taken out a 3 wood on that 18th.. That second row of bunkers should of never been in play.. oh well..

[bigoak]

Woods has won in spite of these mechanical swings.  Take your stupid lines and sticks and supposed swing science away form a most talented athlete.  How did Sam Snead win all those tournaments with out the lines and sticks?  Woods had better results before these supposed swing mechanics put their touch on him.  The effect on Michele Wie is prime exemplification of swing mechanics over natural athletic ability.

Tiger Woods had the heart, passion and feel of a champion.  He has been successful even while using Nike equipment, which is another topic for discussion.  He was taught to play by his father, who was not a stick, line, gimmic, compulsive analysist.

I don't care how many tournaments Chamblee has won, he has  major points.  How many tournaments has Foley, Haney, Harmon, Iacacas, etc. won.  You don't have to be  jockey to know how to ride a horse.  If Woods did not have superior athletic talent, his father could have used all the sticks, lines and gimmics and he'd have been a hacker like the rest of us.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by bigoak

I am not a believer in all the sticks and lines if there is no heart.  Tiger has the heart to be a winner.  I am not a fan of his swing and antics but I love watching the vector and lines boys crumble when Tiger comes at em.  All the lines and swings don't hold up underpressure.  Heart of a winner does.

Originally Posted by bigoak

Take your stupid lines and sticks and supposed swing science away form a most talented athlete.  How did Sam Snead win all those tournaments with out the lines and sticks?

Tiger Woods had the heart, passion and feel of a champion.  ...  He was taught to play by his father, who was not a stick, line, gimmic, compulsive analysist.

... If Woods did not have superior athletic talent, his father could have used all the sticks, lines and gimmics and he'd have been a hacker like the rest of us.

I still don't know what all of this means?  Sticks, lines, vectors???

[Elvisliveson]

Originally Posted by bigoak

Woods has won in spite of these mechanical swings.  Take your stupid lines and sticks and supposed swing science away form a most talented athlete.  How did Sam Snead win all those tournaments with out the lines and sticks?  Woods had better results before these supposed swing mechanics put their touch on him.  The effect on Michele Wie is prime exemplification of swing mechanics over natural athletic ability.

You have to believe that Jack Nicklaus is secretly laughing about this. I mean the the guy spent his time between tournaments fishing. He used the range at a tournament to loosen up. No over analysis there. That was what all those hours spent in his childhood with his first and only real instructor, Jack Grout, were for, so that his swing would only require minor adjustments from time to time.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by bigoak

Woods has won in spite of these mechanical swings.  Take your stupid lines and sticks and supposed swing science away form a most talented athlete.  How did Sam Snead win all those tournaments with out the lines and sticks?  Woods had better results before these supposed swing mechanics put their touch on him.  The effect on Michele Wie is prime exemplification of swing mechanics over natural athletic ability.

So the work done by David Leadbetter is indicative of something, but the work done by Sean Foley in repairing what was a game in shambles is not indicative, despite the fact that Foley teaches Mahan, Rose, and Woods?

That's just bad logic there.

Originally Posted by bigoak

I don't care how many tournaments Chamblee has won, he has  major points.  How many tournaments has Foley, Haney, Harmon, Iacacas, etc. won.  You don't have to be  jockey to know how to ride a horse.  If Woods did not have superior athletic talent, his father could have used all the sticks, lines and gimmics and he'd have been a hacker like the rest of us.

I've won several tournaments, thank you very much. :)

Here's a point: Tiger knows more than virtually anyone else about what it takes to win a golf tournament, and he's chosen to go with a "sticks, lines, and physics" guy, so... ? There you go.

And Tiger's quick to point out that he's always had instructors. As did Jack.

[LuciusWooding]

Woods already has 3 wins this year, leading the tour, and we're not even that close to the end of the season? And how many top 5s? 3rd in total driving, 1st in scoring average, leading the money list, and is 18th in GIR and 21st in strokes gained putting... That doesn't sound like a struggling golfer, Brandel. That sounds like a guy who has a very good chance to win every single week.

Yeah he hasn't won a major by double digit strokes this year, but seriously. You want him to fire his instructor? Instruction is not how you get major wins. Look at Ernie, who struggled mightily the last few years. Didn't qualify for the Masters this year and many said he was washed up, yet just won a major. Adam Scott, who had stats indicating he'd do nothing in the Open, only lost because of nerves. Or even Bubba "I've never ever had a lesson" Watson, at whose mention among major winners I cringe. It's luck, nerves, and being in absolute peak form that week. Tiger can't will himself into top form every week but the expectation is there from us. Who else do we honestly expect to win every week?

Tiger is playing smart, has his game mostly very sharp, and is having tremendous success. His mental game isn't Foley's fault, neither is the fact that many players are playing legitimately better than him in majors.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by turtleback

No his strategy worked perfectly.

You lost me at perfectly. Golf is not about perfect. It's a combo of avoiding mistakes while putting yourself in position to score, and overcoming mistakes when you are inevitably faced with them. His strategy was to avoid bunkers while still being close enough to make putts.

He did not win.

The strategy was apparently -- not perfect.

He was 26th in GIR and did not make enough putts (T20 putting avg).