Jack Nicklaus has repeatedly said that he seldom watches golf on TV. But, like those part time fans who flock to their sets, Nicklaus makes it a point to watch Tiger when he’s in contention for a major.
And Nicklaus doesn’t just watch – he observes it all with those steely eyes that used to stare putts into the hole. In a short, but power packed six minutes with Golf’s World’s Tim Rosaforte, Nicklaus fired some shots of his own regarding the great chase, Tiger’s game, and his performance at the PGA. Let’s look at some highlights.
Yang Hangs Tough
“Coming down the stretch everybody usually falls apart. Tiger plays it very smart.
And I thought he played it very smart at the PGA.”
“He played very solid conservative golf but Yang didn’t fold.”
Unlike the others of his era.
Course Management
Tiger Woods’ went for the pin and flew the green on the 17th hole, leading to a bogey.
“I think Tiger made a strategic error on 17. He ended up making the mistakes that everyone else has made against him.”
Interesting observation. Perhaps Woods should have played short like Yang. If he hit the green, four good things could have happened; 1) he makes a birdie putt from whatever the distance; 2) Yang 3-putts (which he did) and they are even going into 18; 3) Both par 17 and Woods takes his chances on 18, a hole he birdied in 2002 to pull within a shot of Rich Beem; 4) The gust that blew his ball over the green might have blown it close to the cup!
Maybe it is a stretch, but it seems that Nicklaus , the master of course management, was inferring that he would not have a similar mistake.
Luck’s Role
Nicklaus’ comment on luck was particularly pertinent to this situation.
“Golf is not a fair game. You get wind conditions that you can’t control the ball. The ball’s in the air and a gust of wind comes up. You can’t control that. It’s just not going to be perfect every time.”
Sure enough, a gust of wind took Tiger’s well struck iron over the green into deep rough, leading to a crushing bogey.
Nicklaus has been victimized by some amazingly lucky shots down the stretch, and he mentioned a few. On Yang’s 60 foot chip in at the 14th:
“It reminds me of a lot of things that happened to me in my career. I got down to the stretch and somebody else did something that beat me. Yang did something that beat Tiger. And it hasn’t happened very much to Tiger. But it did this time.”
But if this kind of thing did happen as often to Tiger as it did to Jack, his major’s count would have been reduced by at least two or three.
The Major’s Record
As far as his majors winning record goes, Nicklaus believes Woods will do it.
“I think he probably will, but he’s still got to do it.”
“You can only control yourself. You can’t control what the other guys going to do and you’re going to lose sometimes. I had 19 seconds in majors.
On the matter of second place finishes, more and more observers are starting to value them, as they should. In this department, Nicklaus subtlety reminded the viewers of his huge advantage in this department.
“Tiger’s has what now, 5 or 6 (seconds). It’s not very many.”
Ouch. At the same point in his career, Nicklaus had 12, four at the hands of Lee Trevino.
Tiger’s Driving
Nicklaus opened this segment with words of praise – build’em up before you tear’em down.
“I’ve got great respect for Tiger and I’ve got great respect for his ability.”
Followed by:
“Here’s a guy who doesn’t drive the ball particularly straight most of the time yet he still wins. But you never know if he’s going to hit it down the fairway or off a fairway over.”
Yikes! Nicklaus throughout his career was much straighter and just as long for his time, a part of his game that needs to be fully appreciated when comparing the two.
Nicklaus’ Closing Words of Praise
“Up until this last tournament Tiger was perfect every time. That pretty darn good.”
Well, Woods had won every time he had the lead or shared it going into the final round. But he was far from perfect. Three times he lost solo leads and had to win playoffs. At the 1999 PGA, he blew four shots of a five shot lead, but hung on to win by a shot. And, on several occasions, he depended at least in part on collapses by his opponents, such as at the 2005 British Open when Colin Montgomerie and Jose Maria Olazabal faded on the back nine.
So, Nicklaus is fascinated enough by Tiger’s Quest to watch golf on TV. He also agreed to be interviewed about the experience, during which he made comments that show he still cares about his stature in the game. But then again, he’s a fierce competitor and always has been, so it’s only natural that he care. When asked if the PGA humanized Tiger he said, “Sure.” Turns out Nicklaus is human too.
RSS
7 responses so far ↓
1 Edson // Aug 25, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Help me understand this fascination with Nicklaus’ second place finishes. Yes he had many and Tiger has “some”. But if you take the second place finishes of each and divide by the total majors played by each, the percentage is pretty close. I’d day Tiger is on pace to match that as well, if he plays as many majors.
2 rexfordbuzzsaw // Aug 25, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Re 2nd place finishes:
Tiger plays against a much deeper field where more players have a chance to win because of factors like technology, more access to the game and increased fitness.
3 MikeZ // Aug 28, 2009 at 8:34 am
I always thought the second-place statistic was a double-edged sword. That is, you could argue that it gives Jack an edge because he was in contention more often. Or you could argue that it’s advantage Tiger because when he is in contention, he (almost) always wins — that is, that he’s a better closer than Jack was.
On the whole, however, I think it’s advantage Jack — mostly because of the guys he finished second to. Nicklaus was beaten 1-2 by Trevino four times and I believe by Watson, as well. (And isn’t Player responsible for a few of his seconds as well?) While it’s true that the depth of the field is greater now, I don’t think the other top players are as strong in the Tiger era as they were in Jack’s. Who are the players who have won when Tiger was in second? It’s kind of a mish-mash of guys, right? (Phil, can you shed some light here? I’m at work and can’t/shouldn’t look it up right now!)
Nicklaus has said that it’s “easier” (for him) to win a major because half the field is defeated before they even tee it up — they don’t have the nerve to win. In the Tiger era, is it three-quarters?
4 Phil // Aug 28, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Mike
In the Nicklaus Era, less was more. Who cares about players 5-70 on Sunday. The guys he had to beat in the top four didn’t choke. Tiger’s main competition might fold (Mickelson, Els) if they could only get themselves into position to be in the final group with Woods. In the Tiger Era, I think the percentages is 85-90%, maybe more!
5 BD // Sep 2, 2009 at 9:10 am
I’ve gone over this ground many times in my head, and I’m still on the fence about it. Ultimately, I just can’t get my mind around the idea that if Player A has a dozen 2d place finishes behind a dozen different guys, he is for that reason not as good a player as Player B, who has a dozen 2d place finishes, but all behind the SAME guy. That’s the claim, isn’t it? We’re saying that four second-place finishes behind Trevino, a multiple-major winner, are better than four second-place finishes behind four different, SINGLE-major winners, and it’s irrelevant to this analysis whether the four no-name guys were better than Trevino on the particular week in question??
6 Phil // Sep 3, 2009 at 10:18 am
BD
Interesting argument. But the idea is that Trevino was there, causing a second that wouldn’t have happened otherwise. Another way to look at it - a player (Woods) with 14 wins would have 4 fewer if a Trevino was in the field.
7 BD // Sep 3, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Phil: I don’t follow. How do we know Trevino would have finished ahead of Tiger in this hypothetical scenario?
Anyway, your response seems to miss the point I was addressing, which focuses on the identity of the player to whom the player in question (Jack or Tiger) finishes second. If Jack and Tiger each had the same number of 2d place finishes, does it tell us anything useful about their skills relative to each other that one of them finished second to just 2-3 different guys while the other one finished second to 10 different guys? There seems to be a suggestion afoot that finishing runner-up to just 2-3 different guys is somehow better than finishing second to a larger sample of champions, but why that is completely escapes me. My gut tells me that, whereas Tiger and Jack did not contend in majors against any common opponents (who were also in contention), there are no useful conclusions to be drawn regarding Tiger’s and Jack’s relative merits based on who they finished second TO.
Leave a Comment