My Slant on Tiger's Shot at #16

My Slant on Tiger's Shot at #16

Post by BowTie - Chev » Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:43:37


"News alert.  Ken doesn't think it was skill.  It must be a illegal
club."

If Tiger did not have a lot of confidence that the shot on 16 was going
to spin hard, he would have played a flop shop in a way similar to the
shot that DL3 holed out, instead of the low sizzler that he played. My
question is, how else could you get that kind of spin on such a short
shot with grass directly behind the ball ? Excessive grooves with sharp
edges are against the rules because it lessens the penalty that is
intended to come with being in the rough. As usual, I am being
mis-represented. I didn't say that Tiger was cheating for sure. I am
saying that it sure looked fishy to me.

**That is in spite of the fact that I believe the shot was played with
supreme skill.** If that ball does not bite like it did, Tiger would
have been left with a 25 foot putt on the same line as DiMarco and
outside of DiMarco (who was putting for birdie of his own). Holing out
for birdie, when par was looking pretty tough, won the tournament for
Tiger. At the very least it allowed him to be in the playoff.

Once again, I remain amazed at the faithful who were posting that the
tournament was over when the two leaders were still on the front nine.
Pure ignorance.

Ken

 
 
 

My Slant on Tiger's Shot at #16

Post by Annika198 » Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:50:38

My question is, how else could you get that kind of spin on such a
short
shot with grass directly behind the ball ? Excessive grooves with sharp

edges are against the rules because it lessens the penalty that is
intended to come with being in the rough. As usual, I am being
mis-represented. I didn't say that Tiger was cheating for sure. I am
saying that it sure looked fishy to me.
-------------------------

The shape or size of the grooves has little or no effect on a shot that
short.
---------------------------------------

Quote:
>Once again, I remain amazed at the faithful who were posting that the
>tournament was over when the two leaders were still on the front nine.
>Pure ignorance.

So when do you think the tournament will be over?
You'll tell us, right?

 
 
 

My Slant on Tiger's Shot at #16

Post by BowTie - Chev » Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:57:51

You think he could play that same shot with a dimple faced wedge from
about 50 years ago ? You cannot get that kind of spin with classic
V-shaped grooves. Period. I would like to have examined his ball right
after he played that shot. I would bet it was lightly shredded. You
know what I'm talking about. I promise you his wedge is right on the
bleeding edge of what is allowed. It might fall on one side or the
other if tested.

I did tell you. As I posted elsewhere, it was over when Tiger made
birdie on the first playoff hole. Not a second before.

Ken

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

The shape or size of the grooves has little or no effect on a shot that

short.
----------------------------------------

So when do you think the tournament will be over?
You'll tell us, right?

 
 
 

My Slant on Tiger's Shot at #16

Post by Annika198 » Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:17:58

Quote:
>You think he could play that same shot with a dimple faced wedge from
>about 50 years ago ?

Yes.
-----------------------------

Quote:
>You cannot get that kind of spin with classic V-shaped grooves.

Period.

Sure you can if you use the correct ball.
Grooves don't cause backspin.
 -----------------------------

Quote:
>I promise you his wedge is right on the bleeding edge of what is
allowed.
>It might fall on one side or the other if tested.

Call it in, Pernice.
 
 
 

My Slant on Tiger's Shot at #16

Post by Alan Bake » Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:47:43



Quote:

> "News alert.  Ken doesn't think it was skill.  It must be a illegal
> club."

> If Tiger did not have a lot of confidence that the shot on 16 was going
> to spin hard, he would have played a flop shop in a way similar to the
> shot that DL3 holed out, instead of the low sizzler that he played. My
> question is, how else could you get that kind of spin on such a short
> shot with grass directly behind the ball ? Excessive grooves with sharp
> edges are against the rules because it lessens the penalty that is
> intended to come with being in the rough. As usual, I am being
> mis-represented. I didn't say that Tiger was cheating for sure. I am
> saying that it sure looked fishy to me.

> **That is in spite of the fact that I believe the shot was played with
> supreme skill.** If that ball does not bite like it did, Tiger would
> have been left with a 25 foot putt on the same line as DiMarco and
> outside of DiMarco (who was putting for birdie of his own). Holing out
> for birdie, when par was looking pretty tough, won the tournament for
> Tiger. At the very least it allowed him to be in the playoff.

> Once again, I remain amazed at the faithful who were posting that the
> tournament was over when the two leaders were still on the front nine.
> Pure ignorance.

> Ken

I'm only going to say one thing, Ken:

Davis Love's shot was *not* a flop shot. It was pretty much the same
thing that Tiger did.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

 
 
 

My Slant on Tiger's Shot at #16

Post by Willia » Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:09:03


Quote:



>> "News alert.  Ken doesn't think it was skill.  It must be a illegal
>> club."

>> If Tiger did not have a lot of confidence that the shot on 16 was going
>> to spin hard, he would have played a flop shop in a way similar to the
>> shot that DL3 holed out, instead of the low sizzler that he played. My
>> question is, how else could you get that kind of spin on such a short
>> shot with grass directly behind the ball ? Excessive grooves with sharp
>> edges are against the rules because it lessens the penalty that is
>> intended to come with being in the rough. As usual, I am being
>> mis-represented. I didn't say that Tiger was cheating for sure. I am
>> saying that it sure looked fishy to me.

>> **That is in spite of the fact that I believe the shot was played with
>> supreme skill.** If that ball does not bite like it did, Tiger would
>> have been left with a 25 foot putt on the same line as DiMarco and
>> outside of DiMarco (who was putting for birdie of his own). Holing out
>> for birdie, when par was looking pretty tough, won the tournament for
>> Tiger. At the very least it allowed him to be in the playoff.

>> Once again, I remain amazed at the faithful who were posting that the
>> tournament was over when the two leaders were still on the front nine.
>> Pure ignorance.

>> Ken

> I'm only going to say one thing, Ken:

> Davis Love's shot was *not* a flop shot. It was pretty much the same
> thing that Tiger did.

> --
> Alan Baker
> Vancouver, British Columbia
> "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
> to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
> if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In addition to what you say Alan, TGC had on Mike Schroeder (sp?) couple
nights ago and he said the vertical or more upright take away that Tiger had
to do because of the tall grass behind the ball naturally creates more spin.

Bill

 
 
 

My Slant on Tiger's Shot at #16

Post by Bruce Newma » Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:49:12


Quote:

> My question is, how else could you get that kind of spin on such a
> short
> shot with grass directly behind the ball ? Excessive grooves with sharp

> edges are against the rules because it lessens the penalty that is
> intended to come with being in the rough. As usual, I am being
> mis-represented. I didn't say that Tiger was cheating for sure. I am
> saying that it sure looked fishy to me.
> -------------------------

> The shape or size of the grooves has little or no effect on a shot that
> short.
> ---------------------------------------

> >Once again, I remain amazed at the faithful who were posting that the
> >tournament was over when the two leaders were still on the front nine.

> >Pure ignorance.

> So when do you think the tournament will be over?
> You'll tell us, right?

There are two basic types I have no time for: 1) the loud, newbie, beer
drinking idiots who fawn over Tiger without even a clue about golf and
2) the obsessive Tiger haters who are so consumed that they are blind
to his skills and abilities.

Ken Pitts is in the second group. Wasn't he pleading for mercy several
months ago, practically crying that no one would read his posts? Not a
lot of character there, I'm afraid. Oops, I'm wrong; he IS a character!
:)

Bruce

--
Bruce Newman  *  Fredericton, NB, Canada
Open & Limited Edition Golf Art  *  http://brucenewman.com

 
 
 

My Slant on Tiger's Shot at #16

Post by Alan Murph » Thu, 14 Apr 2005 20:45:45



Quote:

> "News alert.  Ken doesn't think it was skill.  It must be a illegal
> club."

> If Tiger did not have a lot of confidence that the shot on 16 was going
> to spin hard, he would have played a flop shop in a way similar to the
> shot that DL3 holed out, instead of the low sizzler that he played. My
> question is, how else could you get that kind of spin on such a short
> shot with grass directly behind the ball ? Excessive grooves with sharp
> edges are against the rules because it lessens the penalty that is
> intended to come with being in the rough. As usual, I am being
> mis-represented. I didn't say that Tiger was cheating for sure. I am
> saying that it sure looked fishy to me.

> **That is in spite of the fact that I believe the shot was played with
> supreme skill.** If that ball does not bite like it did, Tiger would
> have been left with a 25 foot putt on the same line as DiMarco and
> outside of DiMarco (who was putting for birdie of his own). Holing out
> for birdie, when par was looking pretty tough, won the tournament for
> Tiger. At the very least it allowed him to be in the playoff.

> Once again, I remain amazed at the faithful who were posting that the
> tournament was over when the two leaders were still on the front nine.
> Pure ignorance.

> Ken

This is a common shot played to hard links
greens in the UK. It is played off the back
foot with a hooded sand wedge, bounces
once and checks very rapidly on the second
bounce. Tiger picked a spot where he wanted
the ball to stop and gravity did the rest. Superb,
well thought out shot. Try it.

Alan

 
 
 

My Slant on Tiger's Shot at #16

Post by Carbo » Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:55:19

Pitts' Slant on Tiger

Tell all the Truth but tell it slant --
Success in Circuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth's superb surprise

As Lightning to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be blind --

- Carbon***inson

 
 
 

My Slant on Tiger's Shot at #16

Post by Alan Murph » Thu, 14 Apr 2005 22:42:40



Quote:

> "News alert.  Ken doesn't think it was skill.  It must be a illegal
> club."

> If Tiger did not have a lot of confidence that the shot on 16 was going
> to spin hard, he would have played a flop shop in a way similar to the
> shot that DL3 holed out, instead of the low sizzler that he played. My
> question is, how else could you get that kind of spin on such a short
> shot with grass directly behind the ball ? Excessive grooves with sharp
> edges are against the rules because it lessens the penalty that is
> intended to come with being in the rough. As usual, I am being
> mis-represented. I didn't say that Tiger was cheating for sure. I am
> saying that it sure looked fishy to me.

> **That is in spite of the fact that I believe the shot was played with
> supreme skill.** If that ball does not bite like it did, Tiger would
> have been left with a 25 foot putt on the same line as DiMarco and
> outside of DiMarco (who was putting for birdie of his own). Holing out
> for birdie, when par was looking pretty tough, won the tournament for
> Tiger. At the very least it allowed him to be in the playoff.

> Once again, I remain amazed at the faithful who were posting that the
> tournament was over when the two leaders were still on the front nine.
> Pure ignorance.

> Ken

This is a common shot played to hard links
greens in the UK. It is played off the back
foot with a hooded sand wedge, bounces
once and checks very rapidly on the second
bounce. Tiger picked a spot where he wanted
the ball to stop and gravity did the rest. Superb,
well thought out shot. Try it.

Alan

 
 
 

My Slant on Tiger's Shot at #16

Post by Mark » Thu, 14 Apr 2005 23:19:20

Quote:
> > If Tiger did not have a lot of confidence that the shot on 16 was going
> > to spin hard, he would have played a flop shop in a way similar to the
> > shot that DL3 holed out, instead of the low sizzler that he played. My
> > question is, how else could you get that kind of spin on such a short
> > shot with grass directly behind the ball ? Excessive grooves with sharp
> > edges are against the rules because it lessens the penalty that is
> > intended to come with being in the rough. As usual, I am being
> > mis-represented. I didn't say that Tiger was cheating for sure. I am
> > saying that it sure looked fishy to me.

> > **That is in spite of the fact that I believe the shot was played with
> > supreme skill.** If that ball does not bite like it did, Tiger would
> > have been left with a 25 foot putt on the same line as DiMarco and
> > outside of DiMarco (who was putting for birdie of his own). Holing out
> > for birdie, when par was looking pretty tough, won the tournament for
> > Tiger. At the very least it allowed him to be in the playoff.

> > Once again, I remain amazed at the faithful who were posting that the
> > tournament was over when the two leaders were still on the front nine.
> > Pure ignorance.

> > Ken

The shot was landed on a steep uphill part of the green, which is why it
rolled back to the cup. That is also why it stopped so and changed
directions. It is hard to see the undulations of the green on TV.

Augusta National is considered to be a course with a lot of changes in
grade, both on fairways and greens. But it doesn't look that way on TV, in
fact it looks rather flat. This is because of the long focal length of the
TV cameras uses, which tends to flatten everything out.

 
 
 

My Slant on Tiger's Shot at #16

Post by Alan Bake » Fri, 15 Apr 2005 03:10:07


<snip>

Quote:
> >> Once again, I remain amazed at the faithful who were posting that the
> >> tournament was over when the two leaders were still on the front nine.
> >> Pure ignorance.

> >> Ken

> > I'm only going to say one thing, Ken:

> > Davis Love's shot was *not* a flop shot. It was pretty much the same
> > thing that Tiger did.

> > --
> > Alan Baker
> > Vancouver, British Columbia
> > "If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
> > to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
> > if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

> In addition to what you say Alan, TGC had on Mike Schroeder (sp?) couple
> nights ago and he said the vertical or more upright take away that Tiger had
> to do because of the tall grass behind the ball naturally creates more spin.

> Bill

Well... ...I doubt the *takeaway* itself can create spin, but the more
vertical downswing probably could... :-)

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

 
 
 

My Slant on Tiger's Shot at #16

Post by Loudon Brigg » Fri, 15 Apr 2005 08:27:41

(CLIP)

Quote:

>> > I'm only going to say one thing, Ken:

>> > Davis Love's shot was *not* a flop shot. It was pretty much the same
>> > thing that Tiger did.

The main difference was the direction traveled after landing on the
green... Wood's ball pretty much moved at a right angle, whereas
Love's formed a large U shape and actually traveled back toward the
starting point.

One thing to remember... both shots required a lot of talent, but, if
they had stopped within a foot of the hole, they still would've been
great shots. The fact that they went in required a lot of luck,
however, as we all know, the more talented one becomes, the luckier we
seem to get too. :}

--


"How Can You Not Like A Game Where It's Okay To
 Get Teed Off, Tote A Six-Iron, Shoot Birdies,
 and If You're Under Par It's A Great Day!"

(from "Frank & Ernest" by Bob Thaves -- used with permission)

 
 
 

My Slant on Tiger's Shot at #16

Post by BowTie - Chev » Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:55:16

Newman -

I don't hate Tiger. His fans are another matter. Witness how so many of
the idiots were saying the tournament was over Sunday while Tiger and
Chris were still on the front nine. Tiger's tee shot was so
exceptionally bad on #17 that it allowed him to escape from the next
fairway over with **only** a bogey. It could have been much worse. For
instance, if he was in the crotch of one of those trees and had to take
an unplayable and still be hitting three from the "log cabin". How
would 6 or 7 have played instead of 5 ? I would really be saying "I
told you so.".

Thanks for going out of your way to slam me without even bothering to
read what I posted. In the post that started this thread, I said that I
believe that the shot was played with "supreme skill". But, I hate
to confuse you with the facts.

What is wrong with what I posted ? It is about the most recent major
golf tournament, the current #1 player in the world, his equipment, a
deciding shot that he played and my opinion about it. On top of that I
was clarifying my position based on another slam from FredK. Please
explain what is wrong with any of that.

I was hardly pleading. Believe it or not. some of my worst critics are
actually friends of mine. (Annika1980, Bobby Knight). But, leave it to
you and certain others to show not one bit of consideration for me.
Always potraying me in the worst possible light.

But I guess in Newman's world, all opinions must pass his smell test.
And those found to be unsavory must be cast aside. And in the case of a
miscreant (like me) no opinion at all is to be allowed. The miscreant
must be rejected. Tarred and feathered. Run out of the virtual town on
a rail. Drawn and quartered. Ignored. Snubbed. In the immortal words of
Monty Python - nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

EH?????

Ken

 
 
 

My Slant on Tiger's Shot at #16

Post by BowTie - Chev » Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:56:55

Alan Baker -

Call DL3's shot whatever you like. I remember the shot like it was
this week instead of years ago. The point is that it had some air time
and Tiger's was flaming along at about shin-bone high. Not at all the
same shot. Film at 11:00. But, I'm sure you are going to throw rocks
at any opinion I express.  

Otherwise, best regards.
Ken