Stricker is Back! Stricker has the low round of the day right now at -4. Is he back? Should he be the favorite at Chambers Bay?
Comcast, Get Rid of Chamblee: Chamblee is a one-trick pony whose trick sucks. Whatever coach Woods gets is the wrong one, according to Chamblee. Why, if he would just go back to Butch, he’d be No. 1 in the world in no time.
Consider the following:
- Harmon is Phil Mickelson’s coach; Mickelson’s results have dropped off; Mickelson is 44; why can’t Butch “fix” him?
- Chamblee lost his PGA Tour card in 2003; he was 41 years old; why didn’t Chamblee simply go back to the swing he had at 25?
- Woods, who will turn 40 this year, is not playing like he did when he was 25; Woods has had numerous injuries and surgeries; one of the reasons Woods went with Foley (who Chamblee also blasted) — and Woods stated this — was to get a swing that didn’t cause injury, that allowed Woods to play with a more vulnerable body.
Brandel, Woods can’t freaking “go back to Butch’s swing.” He’s not 25 years old. He’s 40 effing years old, with a long list of injuries and almost certainly PED usage. He’s been through a humiliating scandal and his image was irreparably damaged; he’s never going to feel “invulnerable” again.
Brandel ignores all of these incredibly obvious facts, ignores them, then lectures viewers with, Why, all Tiger Woods needs is to get a tip from Butch Harmon or Hank Haney.
Maybe it is me who is ignorning the obvious: “Tiger Back With Butch” would give the Golf Channel a bogus “reason” to stay with their All Tiger All The Time routine. If Brandel can bully a Woods/Butch reunion into being, GC can fill up their air time with: “Butch said he hit it better than in 2000.” “Notah said he didn’t hit a bad chip in ten hours of practice.” Lather, rinse, repeat.
If Brandel’s tirades led to such a reunion, I don’t doubt some substantial GC money would find its way into Chamblee’s pocket.
Guys, your act is beyond old. Comcast, clean house!!
11:00 am Update: Woods shoots 74 in round 4. Played last six holes in +5. His 74 equals the worst score on the course, though no one else is yet to finish.
Noren wins in Europe. I just realized he hardly played in 2013 and 2014 due to a bad wrist injury. I remember when he was an up-and-coming golfer to watch a few years ago. Good to see him get the W.
9:30 Update: I neglected to mention Woods needs to move up above 60th place to collect any OWGR points. He’s currently 5 shots behind the guy in 70th place, so he’s likely to get the big goose egg, meaning his slide in the world rankings will continue at least two more weeks.
Downtrend Channel: Remember when I wrote about downtrend channels? Here’s a graph to remind you:
Tiger Woods’s 85 represents one of the lower lows. It doesn’t mean he is finished any more than the T-17 at the Masters meant he was rocketing to the top. But both scores fit very nicely into a downtrend chart. None of the suggestions — serious or otherwise — anyone proffers changes the fact that Woods is in a downtrend. Maybe it’s more fun to treat every bad round as “the end” or every good round as “Tiger’s back,” but the boring reality is that, barring injury, all golfers’ games gradually fade away.
Consider Ian Baker-Finch. Most people have an image of him something like this: Won British Open, lost his game. But as y0u can see at OWGR, Baker-Finch won the British Open in 1991, then gradually faded away until 1994-1995 when things got really ugly. For example, he finished T-10 at the Masters in 1994. That wasn’t a signal that “Ian’s back!” It was just one of the “lower highs” within his downtrend channel.
There is no quick fix for Woods because there is no fix whatsoever. We all age no matter how much we might wish we didn’t. Perhaps a player makes a change and has two or three good rounds in the aftermath. He may say, and the media may write, everything is just like the good ole days now, but it’s not.
In the Good Ole Troller Time: Remember when I mentioned Kyle Porter yesterday? I said he was more interested in trolling for views/comments at CBS than in golf journalism. I used this example from an article the day before, where Porter refers to a comment Woods made after his first or second round:
I see what he’s saying, but it’s a strange thing to hear the greatest golfer of all time that he’s purposely missing fairways because of the swing he’s using.
I pointed out he was trolling for comments (which lead to views) by “casually” referring to Woods as “greatest golfer of all time.”
Then yesterday Porter writes:
The only issue here is that Nicklaus is saying what Nicklaus has to say. Anything the best ever in a single sport says about the second-best ever is going to be a headline.
Where it gets out of control is if the best ever (Nicklaus) says something inflammatory about the second-best ever (Tiger).
In two consecutive sentences, Porter hammers home the view that Nicklaus is “best ever” and Woods is “second-best” ever. This, of course, directly contradicts what he wrote a day earlier. He’s obviously trolling. (Just as obviously, he’s hoping some readers will start a flame war over whether Woods even deserves #2. Or Jack #1, for that matter.)
It cheapens the articles, the second of which actually made the solid point that what Nicklaus says is of little import because Nicklaus is not going to say anything to create waves.
Remember Tiger: Remember that Tiger Woods tees off at 8:10 EDT this morning. Not sure if Woods, playing alone as the first player out, will be the “Featured Group” on Live@ or not. (No, he’s not. It’s Mickelson and Stricker at 8:40.)