C'mon Phil......Ball spin really?

[MacDutch]

12 minutes ago, Spitfisher said:

7 Ps  Proper planning prevents piss poor perfromance probability

Perfromance? What kind of romance is that? 

[newtogolf]

I'm not defending Phil here, but he was citing the problem he had because the Ryder Cup coach that year waited until the last minute to announce pairings and didn't take into consideration things like players that use very different balls.  He was touting the current leadership while exaggerating poor practices from previous years.  

[Golfingdad]

27 minutes ago, mchepp said:

Well...I am getting older. guess my memory isn't as good as I thought. I remember it as all of the clubs, but driver and ball are pretty big to change one week before the tournament. Then 12 years later blame Hal for partnering him with someone who used a different ball and not even mention the change he made.

Agreed.

[TourSpoon]

Well the last thing you want to do when giving an interview about someone else is to become the story. He could have just said he appreciates a collaborative environment and how it is a change he believes will produce a buy-in and consensus. No one wants to hear you tell a story from 2004 where you blame the coach and then bring up how you and your partner have incompatible balls. Now that would make a great headline on Golf Digest!

"Tiger and Phil's Incompatible Balls Blamed for Poor Performance!" 

Edited September 29, 2016 by TourSpoon
spacing

[Golfingdad]

Phil apologizes to Hal Sutton

Quote

However, 24 hours after making those comments, Mickelson moved to clarify his remarks and apologized to Sutton. Mickelson said he called Sutton on Wednesday night to apologize and told Golf Channel that his comments were "in bad taste" and "came across like it was a personal attack, and I didn't mean it that way."

"I've communicated with him. I feel awful. It was never meant to be like that," Mickelson said. "I was trying to use an example of how a captain can have a strong effect. Unfortunately, it came across the way it did.

"I was totally in the wrong. I never should have brought that up. I used an extreme example the way decisions can affect play, and I never should have done that, because it affected Hal."

 

[TourSpoon]

I have to give Phil credit for apologizing within 24 hours. That was the right thing to do. 

[DaveP043]

1 minute ago, TourSpoon said:

I have to give Phil credit for apologizing within 24 hours. That was the right thing to do. 

And he did a proper apology, not one of these "if anyone was offended" things that puts the burden on the other people.    

[natureboy]

5 hours ago, mchepp said:

Phil is being a politician here, by that I mean a selective memory. The ball may have been something he struggled with, but the fact that he COMPLETELY changed all of the clubs in his bag wasn't? Come on!

Those of us with good memories will remember that in 2004 almost RIGHT before the Ryder Cup Phil switched from Titleist to Callaway clubs. 

So the ball was an issue? How about ALL of his clubs being new was an issue. 

Sorry Phil, 2004 was on you, not Tiger's ball.

Here is the article, check out the date:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/17/sports/golf/a-puzzling-change-for-mickelson.html?_r=0

 

5 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

Not really a defense of Phil here but ...

He wasn't really being asked to make excuses for his past poor play, but rather he was talking about how he felt about his current captain.  He then felt the need to compare him to a few past captains that he wasn't as fond of (preparation-wise, at least) and that is when that example came up.

So, I believe that his point could still stand - it's probably not a wise thing to set pairings two days before the event between two guys that weren't expected to play together - because the two things aren't mutually exclusive.  Hal Sutton made a tactical error and, more importantly, Phil and Tiger didn't play well.

Of course, I agree with most above that it certainly was unnecessary of him to bring it up.  You can praise DLIII easy enough without having to be nasty towards previous captains.  Just say he's doing things really well and then shut up and go practice. 

 

7 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

So Phil and Tiger lost the fourball Friday morning (playing his own ball) and lost in singles on Sunday (playing his own ball) because he missed out on 4 hours of normal practice? Seems a bit lame to me.

 

I agree with a lot of the above. The right thing to say is, "We're all excited about the new direction with the team and hope it translates into better play and success in this and future Ryder Cups." Monday morning quarterbacking to protect your reputation looks childish.

Phil and Sutton are both right and wrong in their comments. Sutton's response about Phil changing his bag prior to the event is spot on as a 'come on, really' dose of reality. IMO, the ball spin adjustment was a possible small factor, but really a 'historical cover' by Phil for the fact that Phil & Tiger hated each other and couldn't bury those feelings enough for the sake of the team.

I like Hal Sutton's intentions to get them to be more like compadres for the team by playing together, but he miscalculated on how mature they could be (at least at their ages then). That was an error by him as captain as IMO was sending out Toms and Furyk for a fourball match based on having 'similar games'. While I think Sutton erred with those two decisions, which were emblematic of the 'old school' approach by the U.S. team captains, I think Sutton's taken enough public critiques for it already. New system is in place, let the results quietly speak for themselves.

Edited September 29, 2016 by natureboy

[Golfingdad]

12 minutes ago, natureboy said:

I like Hal Sutton's intentions to get them to be more like compadres for the team by playing together, but he miscalculated on how mature they could be (at least at their ages then). That was an error by him as captain as IMO was sending out Toms and Furyk for a fourball match based on having 'similar games'. While I think Sutton erred with those two decisions, which were emblematic of the 'old school' approach by the U.S. team captains, I think Sutton's taken enough public critiques for it already. New system is in place, let the results quietly speak for themselves.

It's easy to put some blame on Sutton, but it would also be easy to just say perhaps if Phil and/or Tiger made 3 more putts or hit 3 better shots over the course of those two matches then they win and everyone is praising Sutton.  Such is the nature of Monday morning quarterbacking.

Actually, scratch that.  They'd still lose because even that 4 point swing only moves it to 16.5-11.5.  Sutton would still get criticized but for different reasons.  "Why did he put the best two players together and leave all the other weaker players exposed?  He should have spread the wealth."

The more I think about it, the more I think this job would really suck. 

[David in FL]

10 hours ago, Spitfisher said:

Phil had diarhia  of the mouth yesterday, giving a reason for the poor play of he and tiger in 2004 RC as not being prepared to play and test Tigers golf ball that is "higher spin" versus his low spin ball. 

Plausible only with Phil.  4-5 hours??? Puh-lease.

I have been involved in 3rd party testing of golf balls and i can actually say that Phil is full of Sh*t here. The overall difference in spin from tour caliber golf balls, rememebr we are going back to to 2004, the diference is insignificant off the driver, from eight iron on down to wedges the spin characteriscs averge out  from one one spinny tour ball to and the next low spin tour ball is less than 5%. in other words a 5000 RPM wedge shot with the higher spin ball would be 4750 RPM at the worst case scenario.  Remember these are 20o3-04 golf balls, the TA and PV1 are just a couple of years old at this point.

Phil likes to talk, I get that, I like the guy, but please just shut up about ball spin and admit you ( and tiger) played badly, too much limelight for both is much more plausible. Two thumbs up for Hal  Suttons response too.

 

In alternate shot, you play with one ball, and that was the issue, Mickelson said.

"[Woods] found out the year before when we played at the Presidents Cup in 2003 that the golf ball I was playing was not going to work for him," Mickelson said. "He plays a very high-spin ball and I play a very low-spin ball, and we had to come up in two days with a solution.

"So I grabbed a couple dozen of his balls, I went off to the side, and tried to learn his golf ball in a four- or five-hour session on kind of an isolated -- one of the other holes out there trying to find out how far the ball goes. And it forced me to stop my preparation for the tournament, to stop chipping and stop putting and stop sharpening my game and stop learning the golf course, in an effort to crash-course and learn a whole different golf ball that we were going to be playing.

"In the history of my career, I have never ball-tested two days prior to a major. I've never done it. It doesn't allow me to play my best. What allows me to play my best is to learn the course, sharpen my touch on the greens, sharpen my chipping out of the rough and ball striking and so forth.

"Instead, I'm taking four or five hours and I'm out trying to learn another ball to allow us to play our best. Had we known a month in advance, we might have been able to make it work. I think we probably would have made it work. But we didn't know until two days prior."

The ball I play makes a difference to me, and I'm not all that good.  Is it so hard to believe that it matters to one of the best players in the world?

just sayin'.....

[mchepp]

9 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

It's easy to put some blame on Sutton, but it would also be easy to just say perhaps if Phil and/or Tiger made 3 more putts or hit 3 better shots over the course of those two matches then they win and everyone is praising Sutton.  Such is the nature of Monday morning quarterbacking.

Actually, scratch that.  They'd still lose because even that 4 point swing only moves it to 16.5-11.5.  Sutton would still get criticized but for different reasons.  "Why did he put the best two players together and leave all the other weaker players exposed?  He should have spread the wealth."

The more I think about it, the more I think this job would really suck. 

To me, the Tiger/Phil partnership was a too big to fail type situation. If they won, they should have, but if somehow the European beat them the momentum they would get from beating the #1 and #2 player in the world would be enormous. I think it could have only worked in the European's team favor. 

This combined with your spread the wealth comment made it a very poor choice.

[natureboy]

7 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

It's easy to put some blame on Sutton, but it would also be easy to just say perhaps if Phil and/or Tiger made 3 more putts or hit 3 better shots over the course of those two matches then they win and everyone is praising Sutton.  Such is the nature of Monday morning quarterbacking.

Actually, scratch that.  They'd still lose because even that 4 point swing only moves it to 16.5-11.5.  Sutton would still get criticized but for different reasons.  "Why did he put the best two players together and leave all the other weaker players exposed?  He should have spread the wealth."

The more I think about it, the more I think this job would really suck. 

I totally agree about Tiger and Phil's long-term records not being commensurate with their skill levels. I think part of the blame lies with them not rising to the moment, and partly with the 'traditional' approach the U.S. captains (not just Sutton) had in the past. I think more of it had to do with the Euros just being hungrier and more familiar / comfortable in the format and having a smoother team management approach.

My example of Toms and Furyk (both excellent at making pars / avoiding bogies) in fourball speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of what's important in that format. As the Euros got more competitive and deeper with talent, it was no longer enough to just be a top-ranked stroke play golfer and waltz over there and play a few rounds together before the event. Match play is not stroke play and fourball / foursomes is even different. When the U.S. had a huge edge in relative talent depth no extra thinking or planning was needed to win. As the Euro team got stronger, the U.S. side failed to adjust / adapt its thinking.

[DaveP043]

16 minutes ago, David in FL said:

The ball I play makes a difference to me, and I'm not all that good.  Is it so hard to believe that it matters to one of the best players in the world?

just sayin'.....

It seems realistic that affected Phil in that one foursome match.  But he played his own (new to him) ball for the rest of them.

[Spitfisher]

Keep in mind those of you thinking that Phil had a point with Spin, this was 2004 the proV1, Nike TA , Calloway ball (rule 35??)  were all remarkably  simular. There was no Prov1 X, there was no ultra thin covers like there is today....they were remarkably simular except in the patent office. Todays golf ball differences can be found in 130 yards on into the green. .....and then to spend 4 or 5 hours.

 

I happy to hear PHil realized his fault and not only did he appologise, but he personalaized by calling directly, then made it known public. I hope the lesson learned his technical babble gets him no where in the public eye except those who succumb to believing in it. 

[ghalfaire]

On 9/29/2016 at 10:23 AM, newtogolf said:

I'm not defending Phil here, but he was citing the problem he had because the Ryder Cup coach that year waited until the last minute to announce pairings and didn't take into consideration things like players that use very different balls.  He was touting the current leadership while exaggerating poor practices from previous years.  

I too sort of defend Phil here although I think he had a lousy day whether or not he had used his own ball.  But the point he was TRYING to make was that the Captain has a role in  the team performance.  I believe that is true, the Captain does have a role and it does affect the team's performance. But Phil might have picked a better example to express that view.  His comments seemed self serving.