Jaime Diaz and John Feinstein on Charlie Rose talking about Jordan Speith

[mvmac]

Haven't watched it yet but heard it was an interesting conversation with Jaime Diaz, editor-in-chief of Golf World, and John Feinstein of The Washington Post discussing the 2015 U.S. Open..

http://www.hulu.com/watch/809649

[mchepp]

Thanks for posting Mike, it was an interesting discussion.

[nevets88]

I reread my post in the USO thread about this segment and I will rephrase what I meant as I was typing faster than I was thinking.

I was wrong to say they didn't say anything I didn't know. I had a visceral reaction to the segment because I felt like I saw a totally different version of events than their synopsis. And I dunno, maybe I've been watching Rose for too long, but his questions felt... worn out, banal. Or maybe golf isn't in his roundhouse. He's so used asking you're the best at this type of questions, it gets tiresome. Or maybe I'll regret what I just wrote later.

In Geoff Shackelford's blog, one commenter wrote out part of what I felt  in words much better than I could express.

Quote:

I enjoyed Feinstein's and Diaz's comments, and certainly they are sensible and probably largely true. But I have to say that I think to a degree they are falling into the "meme" / "narrative" trap about Spieth's game.

Spieth is THIRD on tour in strokes gained tee to green. I think this disproves the assertion that he is "not a great ballstriker." I know they all qualify their comments by saying "I'm not saying he's bad...." but the implication is that he is not, by tour standards, a great technical golfer, but someone who grinds it out and wins with superlative putting and "intangibles." But they are wrong...the emphasis and message are all wrong.

You don't get to the top 10 on tour in strokes gained by being an average or even slightly above average striker. You have to be one of the _best_ ball strikers on the tour to gain strokes on 95+% of the PGA Tour field. But because he doesn't hit it super long, and maybe because his grip looks odd or his swing a little different than others, maybe his ball flight not as high, etc., and because his putting is so conspicuously good, it just fits the narrative to say that the rest of his "ball striking" is not up to the lofty standards of the best strikers on tour. It's a nice story, but it doesn't really reflect the facts.

If it did, you would have to think he's in the top 5 or 10 on tour in putting, or at least that he ranks higher as a putter than a ball striker. But he doesn't. You don't do what Spieth has done in the majors by putting alone. Spieth's putting is great - I can't disprove those who say he's the best in the world - but by the best metrics we have, his putting is not as good as his tee to green game right now! He's 19th on tour in strokes gained putting, behind such notables as Matt Every, Zac Blair, John Huh, and Greg Chalmers. Clearly, you need a great tee to green game to capitalize on your putting; you can't do it all on the greens.

I don't doubt that Spieth's course management and thinking is extremely good, and I think good course management can have an effect on strokes gained. I believe Spieth has learned the lesson that Jack Nicklaus learned as a young man, which is: while power is a great asset, the best overarching strategy, particularly in majors, is to play conservatively. Jack was perfectly satisfied with a 20 or 25 foot putt. Trying to stuff it too often left too many chances for bogey....similarly, Jack was relatively conservative with tee shots in majors, often hitting 3 wood and saying "I never cared what club I was playing." Spieth's soft cut drive on the 72nd hole is a great example of this.

But you cannot capitalize on the conservative approach unless you strike the ball precisely and can do it consistently. Speith strikes the ball beautifully with all of his clubs and is better at this than people give him credit for.

I don't doubt, also, that his family situation, his relationship with his sister, etc., are positive factors in his performance, but there are many stories like this in sport. He's not great because he has a great family. He's great because he is one of the finest technical golfers on the planet right now.

Similarly, I'd like to say that while it appears Dustin Johnson "choked," I don't look at it that way. It all depends on how one defines choking I guess, and certainly there is no doubt he hit two very ineffective putts when under the greatest pressure.

But some guys are great putters, and others aren't. Just by being on the PGA Tour he has to be a good putter....he just isn't very good by tour standards. He had a very difficult putt as far as 12 footers go....how many times have we seen good players hit the ball inside 10 feet and end up three putting? It happens even to great golfers...we just forget when they do it. He tried hard and probably made good contact and stayed calm, but simply got a bad result. Golf is hard, even the 4 footers, and sometimes we fail. He shouldn't hang is head, although I know he will hurt for a long time.

06.25.2015 | JPB

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2015/6/25/video-diaz-and-feinstein-on-charlie-rose-talking-spieth.html#comments

[ChrisP]

I agree a lot with Shackelford in that people look too much at Spieth's putting and think that's why he's so great. There's a lot more to it. He is great tee to green. He constantly gives himself birdie putts from 10-20 feet, and when you give yourself that many chances, you're going to make them, unless you're Rory McIlroy and you can't make anything. But Rory will hit the occasion bad drive and bad approach whereas Jordan is pretty consistent. That was evident during the US Open when he missed very few greens and gave himself look after look after look, and while his putting wasn't great, it was good enough because he constantly gave himself chances, and eventually those are going to go in.

I think it's going to be harder for him at the British because I really think if the weather is good, it's going to be more of a bomber's paradise, and while Spieth is sneaky long, I don't think he's going to be able to drive 9, 12 and 18 like Rory can and I think that's where Rory will have an advantage over Jordan in the British. In the PGA, same thing with the long par-5s. Rory should be able to reach all of them where Jordan may be only able to reach 1 or 2. At Augusta and Chambers Bay, Jordan could reach them all.

What's scary about Jordan Spieth and why he may be the real deal for years to come is his swing. It's very simple, there's not a lot of moving parts to it, and it's not so dependent on power and torque to where he's going to have to change it like Tiger has had to do and Rory will eventually have to do. I think it's very much like Nicklaus' or T.Watson's or Mickelson's in that he can carry this same swing with him into his late 40s. He has the potential to have more longevity than a Rory McIlroy and why I think he poses the biggest threat to Jack's record, not Rory.

[GolfLug]

I agree a lot with Shackelford in that people look too much at Spieth's putting and think that's why he's so great. There's a lot more to it. He is great tee to green. He constantly gives himself birdie putts from 10-20 feet, and when you give yourself that many chances, you're going to make them, unless you're Rory McIlroy and you can't make anything. But Rory will hit the occasion bad drive and bad approach whereas Jordan is pretty consistent. That was evident during the US Open when he missed very few greens and gave himself look after look after look, and while his putting wasn't great, it was good enough because he constantly gave himself chances, and eventually those are going to go in.

I think it's going to be harder for him at the British because I really think if the weather is good, it's going to be more of a bomber's paradise, and while Spieth is sneaky long, I don't think he's going to be able to drive 9, 12 and 18 like Rory can and I think that's where Rory will have an advantage over Jordan in the British. In the PGA, same thing with the long par-5s. Rory should be able to reach all of them where Jordan may be only able to reach 1 or 2. At Augusta and Chambers Bay, Jordan could reach them all.

What's scary about Jordan Spieth and why he may be the real deal for years to come is his swing. It's very simple, there's not a lot of moving parts to it, and it's not so dependent on power and torque to where he's going to have to change it like Tiger has had to do and Rory will eventually have to do. I think it's very much like Nicklaus' or T.Watson's or Mickelson's in that he can carry this same swing with him into his late 40s. He has the potential to have more longevity than a Rory McIlroy and why I think he poses the biggest threat to Jack's record, not Rory.

Well stated. IMHO, except for the part about not being able to reach all par 5s. I think he has hit multiple 2nd shot 3 woods over 275 many a time, not in the least, the 2nd on 72nd at Chambers. The fading 3 wood is a weapon if he needs it. Ball runs out. On the contrary I think Spieth will be better at avoiding the pot bunkers and running up the ball on par 5s - which are all worth at least one extra shot in certainty.

[ChrisP]

Well stated. IMHO, except for the part about not being able to reach all par 5s. I think he has hit multiple 2nd shot 3 woods over 275 many a time, not in the least, the 2nd on 72nd at Chambers. The fading 3 wood is a weapon if he needs it. Ball runs out. On the contrary I think Spieth will be better at avoiding the pot bunkers and running up the ball on par 5s - which are all worth at least one extra shot in certainty.

Depends on the layout. Just looking at it now, there's only one par-5 over 600 yards, so if that's the case, you may be right. I thought it was longer. I do St. Andrews will be his bigger challenge, though, especially since he's playing the John Deere the week before and isn't going over there ahead of time. Would like to see him maybe play the Scottish Open or gets some links practice in, but whatever he feels will best prepare him is his prerogative. Should be great theater going into the British.