http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/golf/confessions-of-a-golfing-guru-the-long-and-the-short-of-it-869574.html

Heres the stats:

http://www.usopen.com/en_US/scores/stats/drives_avg.html

 

you decide.  Not that any stat matters when you win...

 

Pelz was a former NASA scientist.  Is that right?  If so, the real question is: Was it lucky for him to quit his daytime job?

---

i agree that tiger was lucky. if the definition of luck is where preparation meets opportunity, then tiger was more prepared and had more opportunities. so yea, tiger was lucky.

BrianP9969:

Heres the stats:

http://www.usopen.com/en_US/scores/stats/drives_avg.html

 

you decide.  Not that any stat matters when you win...

the question was not how far tiger hit the ball, but where and why he hit the ball where he did. pelz seems to be questioning tiger's golfing integrity by not even trying to hit his own fairways...

"When Phil hit his bad three woods they went in the deep six-inch rough; when Tiger hit his bad ones they went into the next fairway or the trampled-down dry dirt. So if you're going to miss, miss big and have a unique set of circumstances when your knee hurts so bad before the tournament that all you do in the build-up is putt all day, every day and go on to make 75 footers, 50 footers, 40 footers...

"That actually might not be a bad way to do it," he adds.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

even though pelz doesn't necessarily agree with the method, he agrees with the madness. the rules may not encourage what tiger did if what pelz said was true, but they definitely protect tiger. i see nothing wrong given the circumstances.

Nice luc  =) 

The link takes you to driving distance but there are several other key stats you can sort to.  Such as Phil hit 3 wood for the first few days and yet still was dead last in driving accuracy or close to it for those who made the cut. 

Tiger fairway % at Torrey has never been great yet he always does good there.  One reason is he hits the correct club off the tee and usually misses in correct locations.  The other part of it is he's probably the greatest iron player of all time and makes everything on that course. 

It really wasn't a strategy that Tiger was only able to practice short game prior to the event but rather an unortunate necessity.

All I got from the article was sour grapes... I always hate when people try to take away from others accomplishments implying "luck" was the sole reason.  Just in poor taste in my view

 

Pelz needs to give Tiger some credit.....but instead he gives excuses.

 Not only did Tiger play incredible golf, but Phil just played poorly. His short game was bad, driving, putting, everything. What day was it that he needed to take 5 or 6 swings to get on the 13th green? On a course he knows as well as Tiger or maybe even better? Come on! For the #2 golfer in the world that's terrible!     Bob

BrianP9969:

Nice luc  =) 

The link takes you to driving distance but there are several other key stats you can sort to.  Such as Phil hit 3 wood for the first few days and yet still was dead last in driving accuracy or close to it for those who made the cut. 

Tiger fairway % at Torrey has never been great yet he always does good there.  One reason is he hits the correct club off the tee and usually misses in correct locations.  The other part of it is he's probably the greatest iron player of all time and makes everything on that course. 

It really wasn't a strategy that Tiger was only able to practice short game prior to the event but rather an unortunate necessity.

All I got from the article was sour grapes... I always hate when people try to take away from others accomplishments implying "luck" was the sole reason.  Just in poor taste in my view

 

you have to consider the source, in this case, the coach of the #2 golfer in the world. its understandable given his guy didn't drive the ball well either, but he at least makes the argument that phil at least attempts to play the game the way it should be played. unfortunately that's what it comes down to. the rough was the talk of the tournament as it is for any major and i'm sure pelz felt tiger should've been penalized just the same by it. yet he wasn't. tiger was able to avoid it, and pelz thought that was one of the keys to tiger winning, and phil losing, the tournament...

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/golf/confessions-of-a-golfing-guru-the-long-and-the-short-of-it-13911445.html

 "I look at Mickelson's worst three drives and he made two doubles and a bogey and then I look at Tiger's worst three drives and he made eagle, birdie, par. Tiger's three-under, Phil's five-over. Tiger's drives were worse than Phil's, yet finished in better spots.

 

When you leave your driver home and tee it up with a 3 metal, you'd better hit the fairway almost every time. Phil missed the fairway almost every time!  As the #2 golfer in the world there is no excuse for that! 

  And even though Tiger did occasionally find the rough, his brains and strength got him out and safe without losing much ground.

Phil just showed us how much room there is between himself, and the #1 golfer in the world..... Bob

I mean to be fair Tiger had, I believe, 5 doubles for the week all setup by errant drives so it's not like he had perfect lies in the rough.   It's also assinine to "take" Tigers worst drives and compare to Phils based on proximity to the fairway and then compare the score.  You can miss it by 1 ft but if its on the wrong side of the fairway well back (3 wood) it may be much worse than flaring it 30 yards right where its wide open and much closer to the green.  Not a great use of shot link.

To a certain degree you set your self up for "luck" by making the right play, but from there you still have to make something happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is just Pelz trying to justify a bold strategy that on paper (to the self-proclaimed stats guy) looked good, but it FAILED!  I think maybe Pelz was too clever for his own good.  If you're going to carry an extra wedge - you really have to think about what club you're taking out.  I heard Pelz comment that Phil had 19 clubs in prep for Birkdale.  Having to decide on 5 clubs to remove seems like way too many.  I can understand trying to decide between a 2 Iron and 5 wood, but 5 extra clubs???  Finally - I'm not former NASA scientist, but maybe Pelz and Phil should be working on comming up with several different shots with each of his current wedges than adding new ones! 

Regarding Phil and is poor putting earlier in the season - the same could be said about just about everyone on tour.  When Tiger's putter is off - think 2008 Masters.  When it's on - think 2008 US Open. 

---

"Golf is a silly game played with instruments ill-suited for the purpose." Sir Winston
Churchill

"Never has my flabber been so gasted" David Feherty on Tiger Woods circa 2006

Good points Dave. 

Did Tiger reject Pelz's services or something early in his career?  I swear I have never heard Pelz say one positive thing about Tiger Woods.  I admire loyalty but good is good and you should really recognize.  I mean I have watched a few Pelz 'better' putting segments and he will talk about certain players that are great putters and he will mention Phil, Vijay, then he'll cough out Tigers name, like he's allergic.  It's pretty funny.  I doubt ignoring his existence will make it any easier on his boy.

Looking forward to the next time Tiger out "lucks" his star pupil or whatever. ya, keep tellin yourself that