Tiger Woods car/life crash

yeah i agree w/that

I've been trying to think of a baseball player near Tiger's level who lost it overnight, and I'm having a hard time--McGwire, sort of, with some obvious extenuating circumstances. Maybe CAD can come up with somebody. Overnight baseball collapses are usually just explainable in terms of age. And, obscured by all his other problems, age is something Tiger has to contend with--I don't think a lot of majors have been won past 40, and he's getting close.

Masters is by far my favorite major. I like the others too, but Augusta is just an immaculate course.

He'll be 40 in 2015, but if he rebounds he's the type of player who could do really well on the other side of 40.

him almost winning today means that he still might be able to win a few masters since he's dominated that course over time but we'll see what happens when the courses change

I've been trying to think of a baseball player near Tiger's level who lost it overnight, and I'm having a hard time--McGwire, sort of, with some obvious extenuating circumstances. Maybe CAD can come up with somebody. Overnight baseball collapses are usually just explainable in terms of age. And, obscured by all his other problems, age is something Tiger has to contend with--I don't think a lot of majors have been won past 40, and he's getting close.

― clemenza, Sunday, April 10, 2011 7:41 PM (1 minute ago)

haha well my mother has always been convinced tiger has been on roids and his recent fall-off has fit her little narrative well, or so she thinks

most great players have won A major past the age of 40 but it's not like a common thing even for someone of tiger's caliber

That's why the missed eagle putt bothers me; the thing about older golfers is that they get the yips.

i almost brought up manny ramirez like 30 mins ago, that's pretty much what i was thinking of

Your mom may want to look at Mickelson. Dude's WAY too big for a golfer.

yeah i'm thinking he can win 1 or 2 more masters, plus iirc the british will be at st andrews in 2015 - that's a win - depending on where his game goes he could do it very easily or it could take him until he's 43 but i don't really doubt he's gonna do it

i think phil is just a big dude -- he used to be a kinda fat and out of shape but i think he's just toned himself over the years

(Oh yeah, I don't really think Phil is on steroids.)

According to the article below, only five guys over 40 have won a major: Nicklaus, Floyd, Irwin, Boros, and some guy I've never heard of.

http://www.lakeprofile.com/2010/03/winning-golf-lake-ozark/

everyone itt should read this http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/02/20/pushing-back-time/

We’ve covered this at some length with Tiger. People want to believe that golf allows players to stay great well into their 40s … which can be true, but mostly isn’t true. Yes, every now and again a golfer like Mark O’Meara or Vijay Singh will emerge in their 40s. Yes, every now and again a full-fledged old golfer will have a magical week — like Watson at Turnberry (though, sadly, he did not win). But the average age for major winners since 1970 is 32. Golfers rarely win major championships after age 36. Time can steal a golfer’s nerve, putting steadiness and consistency for four days, and his audacity on Sundays. Something may have clicked in Tiger Woods’ swing, and he might indeed start winning consistently again. Like I say: I hope so. But I don’t think so. I think the decline has begun.

it's more about de-rek je-ter than tiger, but pertinent

Lots of guys come w/in a few strokes, though. Tom Watson was just 1 stroke away from taking the British two years ago. xps

i'm not a scholar of golf history but i also want to say that it's probably harder to win now than when it was in the 70s -- i.e. how many charl schwartzels were there in the 70s? like random 26 year old south africans that can just rise up and snatch a major from one of the all time greats? there was like 5 charl schwartzels today alone, he just happened to win

phil still pretty fat tbf

standard of golfers has jumped too, in terms of the strengths tiger had over the field when he emerged. kind of jordan's point xp

hmm

maybe i'm not so positive he'll do it. but i don't think today as evidence that he won't, it was a storming round.

I'd more suprised if Tiger doesn't eclipse Nicklaus than if he does, even if it takes him past 40 to do it.

Good point about the wealth of young talent and the current golf era, though. Tiger was sort of anomaly when he came up, but now there are 50 Tigers.

clemenza you've never heard of mark o'meara? or gary player? or lee trevino? or ben hogan? or vijay singh? or tom kite? or sam snead? c'mon man

I think these horrible two years have helped him in one weird way: they made him mortal, and the gallerys are with him again. If he'd come out winning after his implosion, I think the gallerys would have gotten worse and stayed that way.

All the golfers you mention were great...but did they win a major past the age of 40? I was going by the article.

I just don't know if tiger can regain that mental headspace he had before the life crash

Checking Player, he won a PGA at 43, so either I misread the article or their research is shoddy. So good point.

nicklaus won 3 majors in his 40s after not winning any tournaments for a little under two years fwiw; i have enough doubt that i wouldn't put money on tiger passing him (esp since i don't think i'd be getting great odds) but at the same time he's not david duval just yet, let's not be too quick to write him off.

Hogan won three at 41, O'Meara won two at 41, Trevino won at 45, Singh at 41, Kite at 43, Snead at 41. What the hell are those people talking about?

yeah who would've thought that information from lakeprofile.com might not have been totally accurate

Damn--I'm now starting to question their big "E Actually Equals MC-cubed" article from last month.

the thing about tiger that confuses everybody is that the "decline" is so closely tied to that kneee injury he had and his whole life meltdown--like if those hadn't happened it's v. hard to believe he would have had such a shit year+--there is an intrinsic belief that he can get back on track, but this season and next will have to have some signs of life in them.

btw i love tiger and will be rooting for his resurgence

I started a thread on that last year--trying to separate the personal meltdown from the physical problems from the fact that he was already showing signs of decline when he blew his first Sunday lead at a major to Yang Yong-eun. It's very complicated to parse them out. Throw in possible PED use and it's even more complicated.

yeah i remember that thread--it's a complicated question for sure.

i just wonder if he'll ever be able to get his fundamentals straight on a consistent basis

I kinda figure anybody on the tour has the physical skills necessary to win 100% of the time

well tiger's problems are not physical

technical, maybe mental

I mean the thing about golf is that to win you need to be incredibly consistent in performing the same actions hundreds of times over the course of the tournament, where your margin of error is probably less than 2%. getting back to that kind of mindset after his meltdown...

like that was what made tiger frightening before the crash - his maniacal day-in-day-out consistency. if he's ever able to put together that mental state again I have no doubt he'll be winning into his 40s and maybe even 50s.

There was a physical element involved--he won his last major hobbling around the course, then went in for knee surgery and time off afterwards. I don't know if that's still a lingering factor or not.

hah that kinda proves my point - he was in such a zone last time that he was able to win with bone-on-bone grinding in his knee. I don't think any current injury is enough to physically prevent him from winning, rather it's if he lets it influence his psyche, then that's another matter.

Here's the thread from last year:

Tiger: Why?

Sounds like you would have been a 100%-mental vote.

oh no doubt - the short game is where you win championships, and that's where physical issues matter least.

lol, actually I posted in that - search for 'dyao'

yeah that's the thing too - i appreciate appealing to history which tells us players rarely win into their 40s, but tiger is not like other players - his skills, his athleticism, his nerve, he's an anomaly and always will be xps

Found it--very consistent. (And right below you, someone quotes a long passage from Posnanski!)

Good point. Tiger rewrote what was possible for a golfer under 35, so history may not be a good guide for what he does after 35.

the single-minded focus on history & stats is probably my least favorite part of sports journalism (lol as if there were any good parts) - history predicts things until it doesn't.

I'd be completely fine with it if the guys appearing from nowhere didn't always seem like boring assholes!

Boring assholes are good at golf, whatcanyoudo? It's like motorsports in that regard. Also, boring assholes + attractive women, they seem made to go together in that world

clemenza; didn't Big Papi drop off very suddenly as well?

From what I could tell Tiger's short game was really bad, which seems to be a focus problem, but otherwise he looked awesome. When he was dominating though he wouldn't miss half as many putts and obviously it all added up in the end. The only real reason why I doubted Tiger was because Posnanski wrote some very convincing articles on why you should. I don't really like him but still kind of want him to pass Jack just for the story

Also, the convienience stores here now stock three different kinds of "Arnold Palmer" drinks, one of them has this drawing of a 40-ish Palmer chilling near a tree with his drink and his dog, golf clubs on the porch; I can't think of a more badass can

this cuts out the golf clubs but you get the picture

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lj911mxJHX1qz8k23o1_500.jpg