SPORTS
Tiger set bar too high for himself
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Ben Voelkel:
- Rocky trip Outback for UW (January 1, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Tiger back on prowl (April 13, 2005)
- PGA jungle needs its Tiger on prowl (April 8, 2005)
- Leave Tiger alone (November 19, 2002)
- Woods wins third Masters (April 15, 2002)
- Tiger over Federer in best-ever debate (September 21, 2007)
by Ben Voelkel
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Saturday night, the Masters was set up for a finish that seemed to be all too familiar and predictable.
With Tiger Woods only one shot back of leader Stuart Appleby and a history of slashing through the competition on Sundays in his traditional red attire, Tiger would roll out of bed before the final round, and by the fifth hole he would have the lead in what has become his tournament — and never look back.
Somewhere along the line, however, Hollywood stepped in and replaced that sure-thing script with a "Cinderella story" similar to that of Carl Spackler.
No way could a guy who wasn't even the best golfer on his high school team and who played golf at a small college in Iowa catch a Tiger from behind. (Although, looking back, with Jim Nantz making quips such as, "His first child is named Will, fitting because he has an iron will to win," we shouldn't have ruled it out so fast. Gag me, please.) After all, Woods holds the all-time tournament scoring and margin of victory records and wears a different green jacket to work every day for a week. (Save for casual Friday, when he would likely wear a Nike TW polo. All this assuming he wasn't worth an estimated $295 million.)
But some guy named Zach Johnson — a total unknown to anyone who doesn't follow golf closely — simply beat Tiger down the back nine of Augusta National. While Johnson birdied three holes in succession late on the backside, Woods simply made pars when he knew he needed better.
How did this happen? How did arguably the most dominant athlete ever, someone known for his ruthless dismemberment of opponents in the most crucial of situations, blink?
Well, there are several possible explanations.
It could be that Tiger had an off day. Maybe the breaks just didn't go his way as they did Johnson's. After all, Woods did play the end of his round without a full assortment of clubs after breaking his 4-iron around a tree. It had to be just fluky circumstances that led to Woods not assuming his place at the championship ceremony.
It also could have been his pink shirt. Salmon, coral, rose. I am personally not much of a fan of men wearing pink under any circumstances, and Tiger's shirt selection at the Masters simply continued a disturbing trend. Over the past couple of years, Woods' Sunday Red has gone from blood-dripping-off-a-fresh-kill red to "Oh hunny, this would look really good with the magnolias at Augusta" pastel, off-red.
Somewhat suspiciously, that time coincides almost perfectly with Woods' courtship with the smoking-hot Swede Elin Nordegren. Coincidence? I think not! Domestication at its worst.
Don't think there wasn't at least some symbolism and psychology behind the blood-red Sunday color. Tiger was on the hunt for a title, and now he's on a nice walk through the geraniums.
Those are both very plausible possibilities. But maybe, just maybe, it could also be that Tiger just isn't as good as many make him out to be. Before you turn the page and call me a "crazy [insert explicative]," this is no Tiger-bashing column. I am a Tiger fan. He's by far the best golfer I have ever had the privilege to watch, and any tournament he is in, I pull for him to win. But after two of the most impressive victories in the history of golf — the '97 Masters, which he won by 12 strokes, and the 2000 U.S. Open, in which he tamed the field by 15, kicking off his "Tiger Slam" — I think people's expectations and perceptions of Tiger, including my own, got out of control.
Those victories set an unreal benchmark. Looking back, there was no way anyone could steamroll all competition all the time like he seemed poised to.
Part of what fed into his dominance over that stretch was the lack of high-level competition on a weekly basis. Tiger looked that much better and that dominant at least partly because he was a freakish talent playing against a relatively weaker field than other greats before him. Vijay Singh, Phil Mickelson, Ernie Els and Reteif Goosen are all very good golfers in their own rights, but they don't measure up to the stiff competition Nicklaus and Palmer had with each other like Gary Player, Lee Trevino and even guys like Tom Kite and Ben Crenshaw shared.
Plus, outside of the "Big Five" of Woods, Singh, Lefty, Ernie and Reteif, the rest of the tour doesn't seem to have what it takes to stand up to any of them. As the leaders let Tiger back into the tournament this past Saturday, I finally realized why Tiger always wins: Everyone lets him.
Thing is, when he used to take that charity and run with it, he seems to be stumbling lately — maybe even giving some charity of his own.
At the 2005 U.S. Open, Tiger bogeyed two of his final three holes when leader Michael Campbell was well within reach. Then, earlier this year, with his foot on Nick O'Hern's throat and a three-footer to eliminate him from the WGC Match Play Championship, Woods took his foot off, missed the gimme and lost to O'Hern in extra holes. Now the Masters.
Is this just a blip on the radar, or is Tiger maybe now just entering a more sustainable level of play? Only time will tell. I know one thing for sure, though: Lose the pink, Tiger.
Ben is a sophomore majoring in political science. Also not the best player on his high school golf team, he has been inspired by Johnson to dust off the sticks and make a run at the 2010 PGA Championship at Whistling Straits. To talk him out of this potential embarrassment or just to talk golf, send him an e-mail at bvoelkel@badgerherald.com.
Anonymous (April 14, 2007 @ 10:44am):
Yes he has made mistakes this year, but I think you are reading too much into events, when you say he is not as good as previously assumed. The benchmark of 1997 masters and 2000 US open are way out of date. Even then he lost several tournaments and the ones that he won he did not win every tournament by 15 shots. I agree with you that The type of hyperbole that surrounds Tiger can lead to irrational expectations. I remember after 2000, when he won 1 major in 2001, there was talk of crisis, slumping etc. Same was the situation in 2003, 2004, when he won no major. But he has played pretty well in 2005, 2006 and in my estimation 2006 was probably a better year than 2000, considering the life circumstances he faced. Do not forget in 2006, at this stage, he had also won only 2 tournaments, and lost at the Masters by 3 shots despite trying very hard. Yet 2006 was a much more powerful testament of his legend that 2000. Winning 5 tournaments in a row was an awesome achievement. The way he won the open I think says a lot more of his talent than 15 shots blowouts. Actually, I think those blowouts are no longer necessary and what I am dying to see is a Tiger charge, winning from behind as he used to do in the amatuers and as he has done in non major tournaments. The phrase 'Tiger charge' after all came from somewhere. I think as fans, we must stop seeking instant gratification, and taking his victories for granted. In 2007, he has won 2 times, come second in a major, after playing only 6 times. Yet all that is being highlighted is where he fell short. I read a lot of nonsense on why he has underperformed and what it means. I also read a lot of baloney of how his 56 wins have been gifts rather than earned. This most erroneous perception is a gross misjustice. For example, it is unlikely that breaking every major record was a gift that the competitors granted. Of course, there are situations, where opponents have wilted, but to say Tiger wins because others let him to is BS.
My concern this year as a keen Tiger watcher, came before the Masters from various factors
a) His reduced schedule. I think it was a mistake to drop the Mercedes and Nissan. Not so much for getting match fit, but there was an element of overconfidence or complacency. I will do it my way type of attitude that can backfire.
b) the media hyperbole. Being billed as prohibitive favourite, even when his form was erratic e.g. after Bay Hill, WGC
c) the increase in off golf course activities (course design, tournament sponsorship
d) The absence of a credible and sustained competitive threat. 2005 he had Vijay Singh, 2006 he faced the Phil threat, 2000, he had David Duval. This year, Stenson was sort of kicking in then faded.
e)With hindsight, it was somewhat worrying that he dismissed the youngsters chances. He obviously might have underestimated the power of surprise and assumed that only major winners can win majors and the fact that there was no imminent threat from a major winner on the back nine (barring Goosen), might have lulled him into expecting the competitors to fold.
I do not doubt that Tiger 2007 is still capable of winning by 12 shots, if all aspects of his game click. He is a more experienced player, has greater balance and all he needs to do is to dig into his intensity and sense of purpose, and forget the legend, hyperbole. But more than pursuing this hype inducing wins, I think he needs to continue grinding wins interspersed with the blowout when all elements come together. Even the Masters 'debacle', Johnson's stellar play must be acknowledged for TW's failure to win. Good players like Goosen played at +1 in the back nine and barring Johnson's play (which I admit is meaningless to do in hindsight), it was possible that TW could have been in a playoff with his D game (poor iron play, so-so putting, erratic driving, poor course management, reduced psychological intensity).
I think the type of revision of TW abilities need to be toned down as does the hyperbole that assumes he is superman, or superstitously assumes a victory because he is in the lead or because he is wearing red.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
