sonicblue

The crux of this argument appears to be, being "insulted" if someone doesn't give you a gimme, like they don't think you're good enough to make it or something? If you're talking about something you truly expect someone to be conceded, that putt shouldn't take you ANY time to knock in, so I don't think a pace-of-play argument holds up here. If you miss a putt you think should have been conceded...well...then your opponent was right not to give it! You should plan to play your ball tee to hole. As Erik said, if you're really in a rush, pick up and decide your "most likely" score, but I'm not sure most people would be really honest about that, or accurate. If you're keeping a card, put the ball in the hole. If it's match play, plan to put the ball in the hole and be grateful if the putt is conceded.

I noticed this particular move, too. It's very odd, for someone that's been playing this game at such a high level for so long, to still be constantly tweaking and fighting what seem to be obvious, and serious, flaws. Tiger's unusual in that, you tend to eliminate 'tournament conditions' as an issue b/c he's so mentally strong. At times, I think, "Geez, Tiger, just throttle back and hit it 290 straight, can't someone who's been swinging a club since the age of 3 do that pretty easily?"

Yeah, take a small sample window and Phil looks, well, still not better than Tiger, but not as bad as I implied. However, if we're really going to talk "facts"..... Tiger has missed only 15 cuts in his entire career, and 7 of those were his FIRST 7 starts (92-94). So, Tiger has missed 8 cuts in 15 years. Phil has missed 70 cuts in his career, and while he also missed a string in his first starts (3), he also had 9 in EACH of his 5th, 6th and 8th years on tour. In 2007, he missed FIVE cuts. Phil may be doing well lately, but a picture of consistency, he is not. Take off the first three years on tour for each (where both missed every cut); since then, Tiger is 97%, where Phil is 84%. You can't talk about golfers and their 'career' and only look at recent stats. Right now, is Phil in the mix? Sure, but he's also finished out of the top 10 in 75% of his starts this year, and out of the top 25 in more than half. Forget about just being there on Saturday, let's talk about truly being in contention. Based on career starts, and I'll exclude the first three years for both, when the tournament starts on Thursday: * Tiger is better than 4-to-1 (29%) to WIN; Phil only 9%. * Tiger is nearly an even bet (47%) to finish in the top THREE; Phil 20%. * Tiger is an 86% bet to finish in the top 25; Phil is only 55%. Let's take out the weeks where each misses the cut, forgive them for the weeks their game is 'off.' Tiger's stats don't change much, because he rarely misses a cut, but let's let Phil's go up appropriately: * Tiger is now 30% to WIN; Phil still just 11%. * Tiger is up slightly to 48% to finish in the top THREE; Phil 24%. * Tiger now 89% to finish in the top 25; Phil is only 66%. How about with Jack? I can't find the same stats all the way back 1962, but I'll show what I have. Jack jumped right in and won 3 times in 1962, so there's no 'early career' to exclude. In fact, I'll look squarely at his 'prime,' 1962-1981 (the last year he won multiple times): * It looks like Jack was high 94%'s in made cuts in that time. * Jack was a 6-to-1 to win (17%) * Top 10 65% of the time Phil is going to go down as one of the real talents of the game, but when it comes to competing, regularly competing, his records pales in comparison to the game's two great competitors, the guys who found the leaderboard every week. I think the real show with Tiger is yet to come, since we're routinely having players who not only play into their late 30s and 40s, but often find a new, more solid game at that age. I see no reason not to expect that Tiger will continue having years of 5, 6, 7 wins a year, if not even find MORE game in the next few years, especially given the physical shape he stays in. Phil turns 40 this year, and while my logic above says he can definitely compete for a while, his always-questionable physical shape implies that he's not one of those guys you'd expect to really play at a high level for much longer. Of course, Freddie's back defies that logic, so we'll see. Look, I'll be honest, I'm not a Phil fan, and here's the ultimate reason: because after hearing each January how "Phil's in shape," or how his swing looks great, or how he's got a "new outlook," there's too many weeks where he's completely out of the running, dropping a 75 out of nowhere, or missing seemingly every other 3-footer he sees. Being a Tiger fan, I feel like I am always getting his best effort out there, yes, even when he's cursing or one-handing his driver after a tee shot. Just when you think he's slipping down, he grinds back up. I found myself amazed this weekend, with all his antics and disappointment and "WTF" moments, he barely left the first-page leaderboard for any period of time. It makes me root for him. Sometimes, when Phil's not going well, it's like he mails it in and waits for next week. It's just my gut feeling.

So every guy who ever finished a tournamnet higher than Tiger is more talented than Tiger? IMO, the only guy with truly as much 'talent' as Tiger - and I define 'talent' as the reputation to make you EXPECT him to hit a great shot, and for that person to subsequently EXECUTE that great shot - is Phil, so I agree with seniorchipotle. However, Phil seems to rely on great shots a lot of times, when they don't come, he struggles, misses cuts, finishes 73rd. When Tiger doesn't hit great shot, he grinds, he scrambles, he claws, and is seemingly never out of the top 10, regardless of his game. Beyond those two, and even Phil is a distant second, in a sea of professional golfers who are all immensely skilled and capable of playing great golf, no one has a similar true talent level.

All you guys who think "so-and-so was a class act," are babes in the woods, IMO. Phil giving a spectator $200? That's the equivalent of me throwing a homeless guy a dollar, not even a hiccup in his finances. I could easily couch that is Phil being glib about his wealth. He carries (probably more than) $200 in cash with him during a tour round? As Erik said, or it was merely an investment in publicity. I'm not talking these guys DOWN because of it, but for all of you talk these people UP to some kind of higher status, and knock Tiger down because he doesn't do these things? You are all judging books by their covers from a mile away. So much so, that Tiger's reaction to his birdie putt is being scrutinized? Maybe it felt like an awful stroke to him, and it fell, and he thought, "man, five other putts today felt perfect and didn't fall, now that I'm out of it, lousily-stroked putts fall??!!??" Who knows? What drives me crazy about all of this, the good, the bad, Tiger, Phil, AK, whoever....is we can't just appreciate the face value. Everyone wants to make all these future predictions, assumptions, situations. Phil gives a guy $200 - ok, nice gesture, good for him. "Phil is a class act, what a great guy, what a good family man, and oh, well TIGER doesn't do things like that, he's such a robot, he curses..." I know I go on rants at times, and people think it's because I'm trying to spread my opinions; in reality, I'm usually talking people OUT of their own opinions, which are often so ingrained but based on so many loose assumptions. Don't read into things, don't read into people, don't assume you know the facts. You don't like Tiger's sulking, so what, I don't like it either, I don't christen him a bad person. Phil is Mr. Happy on the course, sure, but Phil also routinely packs his bags on Friday evenings, as do a ton of other 'top golfers' (Furyk went home with a +12 this week). I try to simply admire the fact that Tiger is there, fighting, scratching, clawing EVERY week in contention, and occasionally plays the game at an absolutely ethereal level. I don't like watching Phil's seemingly aloof attitude and lack of competitive fire (he seems to show it only when playing his best, IMO, otherwise, he seems ok with being mediocre), but he absolutely won that thing with some sick shots, great for him, but to go on and on about why he's so great, and Tiger's so whiny, and well, Jack was so great, and....man, speaking of soap operas,

I'm talking all things considered, not just a score. With the importance of the mental game at the PGA level, Tiger manages to compartmentalize his personal life, the media bonanza, the stress over what reception he'll get from fans and fellow players, and on and on, and shoot his lowest first-round at the Masters? I mean, if NONE of the 'stuff' had happened, at the time, we would have absolutely been talking about, Tiger shooting his best first-round ever, and maybe his running away with it because of that, and the great shot-making it took to shoot that score in that weather, and he did it all with a metric TON of distractions. In the end, the guy, in reality, finishes two "WTF swings" away from WINNING. Winning the Masters, his 1st tournament back, while going through what the media has declared the biggest scandal ever in the sport?? I think Tiger has only proved he still has many more miracles in his bag.

I'm going to say it, Tiger's first round may be the greatest round of golf ever played. Tiger hasn't played competitively in months, and he returns to one of golf's finest stages, with howling winds and blowing leaves, and he's pulling off 200-yd curling hooks and making birdies and eagles, and playing right alongside all of these other players that "had such momentum" from their already playing in five tournaments this year. Ernie, Phil, AK....all playing well, all with momentum, all 'finding their game' and favored to win by many, and here comes Tiger - after five months of his life being a wreck, a circus, a disaster, constant media fodder - jumping right into their fray, and shooting his LOWEST first round at Augusta ever. The guy's won it FOUR times, and THIS round.......THIS year......he shoots his best first round ever?? Are you kidding me?!?

I wish I could see a history of Masters winners' previous weeks' results. I'm sure it's available, I just don't know where to compile it. My gut feeling is, moreso than other majors (at least, it feels that way), the Masters has a way of not giving a crap who is playing well up to that point. It's often out of nowhere we see a guy just "on" that week, and lots of favorites are laying sod all over the place. It's actually one of the things I like best about the tournament, is that you see guys without the 'huge games' that are just really focused and managing the course well with their games that do the best. Of course, that's all excluding the year Tiger just completely overpowered the course with seeming brute force and a deadly putter, but I love watching that anywhere. I think I want Tiger to do well, really well, even win, for one main reason. He was ruling the Tour all while his life was in shambles, right? Lying, cheating, not practicing his faith, etc..., and still winning multiple times per year, ho-hum. All this went down, and - IMO - people want his golf to suffer. They want to say, see, he was arrogant, he's flawed, it was all an act, all a sham, etc... He's done all these apologies, and laying himself at the altar of public sacrifice, and I think, deep down, people want the 'myth of Tiger' to crumble. I want Tiger to go to Augusta, and torch the place, and say, "oh, you thought things would change? Have you forgotten, I was born with a 7-iron in my hand? I make golf balls dance and dive, that's what I do. "Who I am" is something different, and yeah, that was bad, and now it's getting better, but let's be clear: I am still out to leave the PGA record books with only five letters: T-I-G-E-R." I never liked Tiger b/c I thought he was a family man, a humanitarian, or a good father. Good for him if he was, is or will again be, but what I liked....loved...is his mastery of arguably the most demandingly precise sport ever played, and I look forward to seeing it again.

No, not a bit. Just because it didn't turn out to be true, doesn't mean it wasn't the right call. Ernie's lacked killer instinct his whole career. If his game isn't dead "on," he doesn't contend. It's like Phil, you never know when they guy will just be completely off, despite runs where he seems effortlessly on. Ernie's in a good stretch, feeling great, but I say it can be derailed as quickly, and inexplicably, as it came. These guys, and others, all lack what Tiger has, which is the ability to grind your game into contention, no matter what. Without that, I just don't think any other player truly has the ability to compel people to believe they'll win multiple times per year. For Ernie to win two tourneys and a major would be ridiculous odds; fine if someone wants to call it and say, "hey, if I'm wrong, no matter, but if I'm right, I'll be considered a genius," but I'm a realist at heart. The best of the best are in the majors fields, and plenty of other guys can have their "on" weekend there, and if Ernie is even a little off, Augusta will spit him out.

One and done. C'mon, guy wins for the first time in, what, eight years, and we're suddenly thinking everything will align and he'll win again? Imagine the pre-Tiger world: a guy winning more than once a year shot him to the top of the "Player of the Year" list. Ernie's struggled way too much as of late. Good for him it came together one weekend, but again? And at a major? Highly, highly doubt it.

I'm not championing Tiger's behavior, I'm merely trying to avoid lynching him in the public square for it. And as far as his "class", perhaps you need a refresher on the difference between "fact" and "opinion." However, on a related tangent, if you haven't noticed, our society has a long and storied history of glamourizing destructive behavior. Look no farther than "Being John Daly," the feel good story of an alcoholic womanizing glutton (odds are very strong that, with his - what - five wives or something? - ol' John dipped his pen in a few forebidden ink wells). But, man, are we rooting for him to turn his career around, aren't we? That's what so frustrating for me. Some people get to hold their addiction, their philandering, etc..., as a badge of honor, as a sympathy vote. Robert Downey, Jr. went to heroin rehab like three times, still gets hired for $10M movie roles; Michael Irvin got like four chances after coke arrests to earn $7M per year, and then $X as an 'analyst' (I guess he's finally done now, though?)... the list goes on an on. It's like we can't wait to forgive people in some cases, but in others, we can't wait to tear them a new a$$hole first, just level them to the ground. Why can't we just stay more even-keeled, maybe spare some fellow human beings a little torture for once? As I've alluded, I really think people will forget all of this, probably soon, like we did for Clinton, Kobe and a host of others, but that's because none of us are really left with the sting of it all. Tiger's life is being deconstructed one fiber at a time, while we wait for him to do what we believe he should do to 'fix this,' yet when it's all said and done, we won't remember it. Sort of a good thing, but what will HE remember, and his wife and kids? Will they remember what it was like for everyone to be in their business, 24x7, during all of this? Barbs/insults flying, accusations, insinuations, meddling, judging? If we're going to forget it, which I believe we all will, then why not just back off now? Why do people seem so set on letting their (drastic) opinions fly? Maybe it's hard to believe, but the root of my argument is pushing LACK of opinions.

"Personal attack"? Because I told you to get over yourself? I didn't accuse you of anything, the whole "for all I know" comment was to make a point, I didn't state or nearly imply that you actually do those things. My opinion of TIGER is not higher, or lower, or anything. Yes, I'm getting fired up, because, ironically, it seems many posting here are, quite glibly and unemotionally, insulting the character of a human being that - when push comes to shove - you know absolutely nothing about. Does it not even bother you to lay such judgments? It's the Perfect People Foundation is just swinging the gavel of right and wrong around here. And you simply say it's just 'how much money his foundation has,' I guess the number of kids that have been helped is irrelevant now? That doesn't strike you as picking and choosing, discounting good things, overemphasizing bad things? When we didn't know about his affairs, his good deeds were evidence of his strong character, but knowing what we know now, his good deeds are simply seen as facades covering bad character? Fickle, mildly-informed hypocrisy is what that adds up to for me, and yeah, I get upset over that.

Get the f**k over yourself. Don't even begin to pretend to know what it's like to have been in his shoes. He was put on a pedestal SO HIGH he was bound to fall. He did, and don't pretend to know what it's like to be in his shoes NOW, either. For all I know, you beat your wife and ignore your kids, but the world doesn't give a flying rat's ass about your life. His is being dismantled in the public square for all to see. Give.....him......a......break. Even with the fault of nailing more tail around the world than ten men, he's still done more for this world than anyone on this forum 20x over (and, no, I don't mean by playing golf), and my bet is, not only will he NOT be a pariah, in two years, we'll forget this whole thing, and Tiger will be back up on a nearly-as-high pedestal. And, honestly, b/c all the hypocrites tearing him apart will likely be right back kissing his ass when he - inevitably - finally gets Jack's major record and hits 100 wins. Unlike Barry Bonds, who people dissed b/c it was believed he cheated AT his sport, Tiger's doubters will have no such ammo, it will be inarguable he is THE greatest golfer of all time. For people to bring in personal lives into that debate - as if they're REALLY aware of what Tiger's or Jack's or anyone's real character is - is absurd. [/RANT] http://web.tigerwoodsfoundation.org/index

I think the poll results say it all. Look, argue 'class' all you want. Personally, I think Jack comes off as an arrogant, smug old man, who knows his records are going to be obliterated, so he's milking his media exposure until they do. That's just me. It's also me that says, I'd put a crispy $100 that Jack boinked a stewardess somewhere along his way, too. I can't prove it, and I dont' condemn him for it, but please don't act like, because you think he didn't, that he's now some 'higher class' person. No one is perfect, Jack's got something in his closet. I don't care to know it, I don't judge him for it, but everyone's got something. To stand here and pretend that Jack is morally flawless and that gives him the edge over Tiger is unreasonable, as far as I'm concerned. I never cared if Tiger was a 'great husband,' and if you asked me, I'd probably have guessed he did his share of side-action (yes, reality has proven he went WAY overboard). I'm pretty sure he's helped, oh, ten million or so people through his charities. Wash. But this is irrelevant, and even if it wasn't, there's no way you can purport to have an accurate 'moral image' of these guys based on the media. It's simply impossible. It's about golf, and how one plays the game of golf. Outside that, I simply assume everyone is flawed, and just let it be. Wins are a huge statistic, yes, and Tiger will eventually have Jack's major title, and is already past him in total wins. Tiger will eventually end up with over 100 wins, obliterating Snead's record easily. So he has that. And that's big. I mean, c'mon, WINS and MAJOR WINS. And by a lot! To those who point to Jack's second-places - really? Those are called 'not wins.' What if he had one major and 20 second-places, would he be great? Tiger will have finished the deal more often, that's why he has fewer seconds. But let's examine Tiger's non-wins anyway: he is ALWAYS in contention. He missed a cut and the Earth nearly stopped spinning. When does he EVER finish off the first page? Rarely, rarely. Jack won a bunch but frequently was way out of contention, with occasional missed cuts. I would love to find the stats (I'll try to) and compare the percentiles that each man finished above Xth place, but my money is that Tiger % of finishing in the top XX that blow away Jack step for step. When this shakes out, assuming Tiger gets help for what definitely appears to be a psychological issue, and assuming he comes back, does his apologies and admissions (he doesn't owe it to us, IMO, but the media will damn near force his hand completely), and resumes his reign, focused and dedicated and now "moral," there will simply be nothing left to make the argument for Jack anymore. Not even a little bit.

The thing I find most interesting and challenging in golf, is that your plan for each shot must be made with complete awareness of your shortcomings and inabilities. The execution of the shot must be made with complete ignorance of them. Only then will the list of your shortcomings and inabilities shrink, and your game opened up to new levels of excellence.

I find it unfathomable why people just can't resist deciding why and how another person's mind works. You haven't anything even resembling enough information to make such a conclusion. Whatever the form, we either hold celebrities on the highest pedestal, or jump at the chance to wreck them and sling them down to the sewers below us. And we wonder why their lives tend to be so bizarre? Tiger is not a 'pro golfer,' nor 'professional athlete,' nor even 'celebrity.' Tiger, quite literally, was made out to be a deity. Forget Kobe, Jordan, Jeter, Federer....NO ONE carried the clout of Tiger...ANYWHERE. Chosen from birth, he has been successfully writing the story of the best golfer, athlete and competitor EVER since he was 3. You name it, he's done it: win the amateur (multiples), win a major (multiples), win more than ANYONE else (he surely would have, and still may, if this doesn't derail his career), win one - why not - on a broken leg (Willis Reed who?), start a foundation, help kids pick up the game, marry a beautiful woman, have (I'm sure to be) beautiful children, kickstart an entire sport's marketing anew, design courses all over the world, host tournaments...and that barely scratches the surface. There is simply NO ONE in the world that can relate to Tiger...NO ONE. And he slipped up, big time. No, it wasn't a one-off, so f**king what. All of you have the NERVE to judge this fault as if, somehow, there is a clear ranking among faults? Tiger Woods has a stack of 'good' piled up so high - a bulk of which EVERY ONE of us has enjoyed via his play, and the thrills and the fire and the willpower we see in him when he competes and wins - that NO ONE has the right to declare him 'ruined' or his life 'over' or any such thing. To make a horribly-concocted golf analogy: his drive went way right, into the concession tent, maybe. ALL he can do - all ANY of us can do (b/c all of us have been there, in some sense) - from there, is make the best playhe can. Maybe birdie is out of the equation (although we all know Tiger's made better shots from a parking lot than a lot of us have from the fairway), maybe it's not. Maybe par is all he can make, maybe bogey. But no one is made to just pick up their ball after a bad shot and go home. He deserves the right to finish out the situation - and NONE of us could possibly know the right way for him to go about it - and make the best of it he can. And then on the next hole, you get to tee it up and start fresh all over, sins of the past forgiven. Shame on all of you who want nothing but to condemn his mistake. We are all flawed, there's is no hierarchy of flawed. Realize that, all around you, are people who make mistakes every single day, and they each deserve to live their lives without your judgment or ridicule. How pompous of any of us to think, "harump, well, at least I didn't do THAT!" Is that what makes you so good, that 'at least' you haven't made the mistakes of people 'worse' than you? I won't applaud him for getting through this, any more than I support and respect and applaud EACH of us for getting through whatever struggle we have on any particular day. With the detachment it deserves of someone I DON'T KNOW, I feel bad for him, for Elin, for the kids, everyone, just like I feel a little bad for - wait......wait......ok, now - the guy who JUST hit his wife, or the guy who just ignores his wife every night, or the guy who just screwed his coworker out of credit for a project, or the guy who just yelled "F**K YOU" out his car window in a fit of road rage....or all the people who make a mistake every minute of every day that aren't any better or worse than 'cheaters' and who are just as responsible for making the world a lousy place at times. Tiger Woods has given us a lot of things to enjoy, inspirational even at times, if not simply entertaining. And he made a bad personal mistake. And we all give good things to the world most days, and then other days, we all make personal mistakes, of all forms, severities and directions. Let's move on.

I hate to burst your bubble, and trust me, this is not me calling your friends slimeballs, not in the least, but the fact is, it is HIGHLY, HIGHLY likely that someone you know has done it. IMO, there is a pervasive mindest in this country where we like to believe that "bad" stuff doesn't happen, and when it does, the people it happens TO are "bad" people. The fact is, normal, everyday, GOOD people make mistakes, of all kinds, severities and forms, and - let's take our moral high ground down a notch, mistakes are just that - mistakes. Never underestimate the value of shrugging something off and moving on. For this to be Tiger's downfall would be a crying shame. He's donated PILES of money, dedicated HOURS of his time to charities, established foundations that do good things every minute of every day, and I'm sure has provided Elin and his children, thus far, with plenty of love and companionship. Then he f'd up. Now he should deal with it and get back on track. He shouldn't be crucified for it, nor should he be praised for 'recovering.' He should deal with his life, and we all should move on.

I read an article, and I have to say I agree with it in one respect. These tabloids/TMZ-type places, when they proffer something about 'so-and-so being seen partying with so-and-so," unfortunately, they tend to be right, A LOT. When they outed Jon Gosselin, he denied it vehemently in the beginning, then - whaddyaknow - Jonny admits to shagging the nanny (or whoever she was). You trying to tell me that NONE of the means of egress in that Escalade were functional (four doors, one liftgate) after a collision in which the airbags weren't even deployed? Does she run to the car WITH the golf club first? Wouldn't she run to it with nothing first, then survey the situation, and she really found no way to get him out, so she runs back and grabs a golf club and smashes a window? Then what? Did she reach in and lift him out through the window??! Or climb in the window and get her AND him out the window?? I LOVE Tiger, and I don't even care if it turns out he had an affair or whatever, but seriously, when you hear hooves, it's usually horses, not zebras.

Saw this on a Google ad, decided to check it out. Either endorsed or started by Nyle Pruitt, I'm not sure. Seems like a nice guy, really seems to understand not only the golf swing, but amateur problems with it (i.e., it's not about details, it's about 'large muscles' and core swing mechanics that most of us need). There are some parts of the site that are a bit 'meat-headed' (e.g., they say where you 'really earn respect' is by blasting tee shots, LOL, I wholeheartedly disagree), but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater... There is one free video they show you, link as follows: http://www.performaxgolf.com/free-lessons/ I thought it was a great tip, and really opened my eyes, as an athlete who plays (and used to excel) at multiple sports. I think a great takeaway is, realizing how the golf swing is different, but keeping in mind the general 'athletic' moves that all 'swings' must still maintain. Reminded me of the Playing Lessons with Paddy, where he said, 'that's how power is created in all sports, by stretching the muscle...' The main point of the above video is, that the transition actually starts BEFORE the top of the backswing. Take any 'swing' or 'throw' action: tennis, baseball, etc... As we get ready to hit or throw, generally speaking, the hands/arms/implement is moved backwards/away from the target, as our body begins to go toward the target. That creates the stretch, which then naturally turns into speed as we then make the core turn/unwind and release/hit. Moreover, he says, anyone who does not start their transition until the club has reached the top, WILL come over the top to compensate. So, you've lost power AND your plane is now poor. Bad recipe. I know, personally, that this could be THE tip that gets me back the distance I've seemed to lose as of late. I've been so concerned with balance and rhythm, that my body has been stagnant in the backswing, and then I'm trying to bring everything forward at once. I consistently come over the top and alternate pushing and pulling. Even my 'pure' hits, I notice my divot points significantly left, meaning (unfortunately), I've learned to compensate for my poor path by leaving the face open, so even hits that feel good, have very poor distance. I don't think I've 'compressed' a ball in two years! Check out the video, I hope it helps.

That ball was not embedded or plugged, it was UNDERGROUND. He could barely get it out by hand. He would have needed a backhoe to swing that out of there. Not only could he have easily risked something crazy (double-hit and/or backwards into the water), he would brought on the serious risk of busting a club and/or a body part.

A gimme shouldn't require even the least bit of effort, by definition. I play in a competitive league; good-natured, social, but still competitive. I never, ever expect to be given a putt. I play my ball tee to hole. That being said, I had a really good year putting, and was finding that many people were giving me putts quite generously at times. Fine. But, if they don't give it to me, it's on me to make it, plain and simple. If it's so obvious they should, then it shouldn't take me hardly any time at all to knock it in.

JeezusHChristonapopsiclestick...... We do this every year. We try to reason why Tiger can't possibly have another year like the one he had, or we try to overemphasize the 'struggles' he had and how he won't be able to overcome them. Meanwhile, we pick whoever the guy who happened to have a good stretch run toward the end, and talk about how he'll scream into the next year and dethrone Tiger. And it never happens. Has there ever been a year where someone has won more events than Tiger in a year (aside from 2008)? Anyone who consistently claws into contention in every major each year like Tiger seems to? No. There are guys who spark up occasionally throughout the year, and at any given time, there may always be one who beats Tiger. But the common thread is: Tiger competes. EVERY time. I don't care what kind of fall Phil had, my odds are NEVER for Phil to be there every week, and certainly not for any one other person to consistently be there, either. People drone on and on about 'who will dethrone Tiger,' because, if they say it enough, one year they may finally be right, and they'll pretend their Nostradamus, but the truth remains, at the outset, it's simply never the odds-on-favorite call to say Tiger will go down.

My gut instinct: since I believe the "stack" is the idea of stacking certain body parts all on top of each other, the "tilt" must refer to the tilting of that stack so as to create a swing plane that points down at the ball. That is, if I stacked all those things but just stood straight up, I'd have more of a baseball swing, a horizontal plane. So, you 'tilt' it all over to make the diagonal swing plane.

I use that same image! I think it works great, although it really just tells you direction of break, not the amount. I agree, though, it takes the technical aspect out and reduces it to a feel thing, and most people will generally tell you that, when you're playing well, it just 'feels' right, and I think that goes for putting. You're 'seeing' the lines and 'feeling' the speed, not 'I calculated the break as 2.75" outside right," :lol

I tried to search online, but I'm almost positive that it was a Pelz thing I was reading that said downhillers tend to hold their line. Regardless, I've seen it in practice, I've seen downhill putts seemingly 'resist' taking a break. I'm going to try to search harder for the Pelz article... edit: I found this: http://davepelz.com/golf_magazine_pe...ort-putts-easy , which also published here: http://www.golf.com/golf/instruction...59682,00.html# He doesn't say here that downhillers WILL break more. My interpretation, he's saying that, b/c he's recommending the LEAST speed possible for a downhill putt - that is, die it at the hole - you have to allow for the fact that, if you read the break properly, the ball will take that break the most as it dies, so you have to die it on the high side; putts don't generally die into the cup on the low side. Conversely, for uphill putts, b/c they won't run away, you can be aggressive, hit it hard, and take the break out, making it less important for you to have read the break properly. edit2: http://davepelz.page12.net/golf_maga...up-for-success I stand corrected. However, in practice, I would have never guessed this was the case, and am still very curious about the physics because it does seem to contradict some conventional wisdom. If you can hit a ball hard (fast) to take break out, how do faster greens break more? Interesting, no?