The RBC Canadian Open starts up today in Ontario. Worth another look at Tiger's second shot on the 18th in 2000.
Post Reply
1 of 1
Tiger's second shot from the 2000 Canadian Open
1,705 Views |
8 Replies |
Last: 8 yr ago by Yesterday
He was late on both the tee shot and 2nd shot. Not a whole lot different than his issues today.
It didn't even find the green.
Boy he wore some b**** clothes lol
That was an interesting phenomenon with Tiger beginning at about that time in his career. He had a 1 shot lead at the time but Grant Waite was already on in two and had an eagle putt to take the lead outright or birdie to tie, and Tiger had the luxury of being able to go for it. (Which is not to say that any old run of the mill PGA tour player at the time had the skill and/or guts to pull that shot off like he did, but most of them wouldn't have had the absolute freedom to try it either.)
By that point (already) for Tiger, prize money didn't matter, and top 5's, top 10's, etc. didn't either. All that mattered was winning. It's more common now with some of the players than it was back then (due to dramatically higher payouts and endorsement money [due obviously to TV money and Tiger's influence on fan interest, and whatever cause/effect those two had on each other]) but he was in the unique position of having absolutely nothing to lose by going for it.
When I say he had nothing to lose that's clearly a huge assumption on my part, but for a bit of perspective here's where his career stood at that point: I had to look this stuff up of course, but by the time he took that chance and went for it on 18 in the final round of the 2000 Canadian Open, at the ripe old age of 24 and with all of 4 years on tour at that point, he'd already won 23 times including 5 majors, and had amassed about $19 million in tourney payouts alone (and I'd assume that much or more in endorsements as well, but who knows). Hell, in 2000 alone leading up to that point (roughly 9 months worth of work) he'd won 8 times (out of 16 events played, 13 of which he finished in the top 5, and none of which did he finish worse than T23rd), and after a disappointing 5th place Master's finish, went ahead and won the US Open, Open Championship, and PGA. Oh, and cashed about $8 mil in winnings just that year.
So the money already didn't matter (and probably didn't even before the 2000 season started), and it already didn't matter whether he ended up in the water and finished in 2nd or 3rd or 5th or tied for 12th. The only thing that mattered for him, even that early in his career, was # of wins, and # of majors won.
For comparison's sake, had their roles been reversed would Grant Waite have played the same shot with Tiger already on with eagle to lead or birdie to tie? I know nothing about the guy so it's difficult to guess, but I seriously doubt it and here's why... Leading up to that moment in Grant Waite's career, at the age of 36 and with 11+ years on tour, he'd won 1 tournament, missed the cut over 40% of the time, and tallied a little over $3 million in winnings. Would he still want to win?...F' yes. But does the difference in 2nd place money and 3rd or 4th or 12th place money start to become a factor in the decision making? I'd bet so. Not so for Tiger. Golf being the ultimate risk/reward sport there is, Tiger's risk factor was so low that the reward part dominated his decision making a lot more than it did for others.
****TFLDR summary: Tiger had the luxury of taking shots like that while most guys don't. :-)
By that point (already) for Tiger, prize money didn't matter, and top 5's, top 10's, etc. didn't either. All that mattered was winning. It's more common now with some of the players than it was back then (due to dramatically higher payouts and endorsement money [due obviously to TV money and Tiger's influence on fan interest, and whatever cause/effect those two had on each other]) but he was in the unique position of having absolutely nothing to lose by going for it.
When I say he had nothing to lose that's clearly a huge assumption on my part, but for a bit of perspective here's where his career stood at that point: I had to look this stuff up of course, but by the time he took that chance and went for it on 18 in the final round of the 2000 Canadian Open, at the ripe old age of 24 and with all of 4 years on tour at that point, he'd already won 23 times including 5 majors, and had amassed about $19 million in tourney payouts alone (and I'd assume that much or more in endorsements as well, but who knows). Hell, in 2000 alone leading up to that point (roughly 9 months worth of work) he'd won 8 times (out of 16 events played, 13 of which he finished in the top 5, and none of which did he finish worse than T23rd), and after a disappointing 5th place Master's finish, went ahead and won the US Open, Open Championship, and PGA. Oh, and cashed about $8 mil in winnings just that year.
So the money already didn't matter (and probably didn't even before the 2000 season started), and it already didn't matter whether he ended up in the water and finished in 2nd or 3rd or 5th or tied for 12th. The only thing that mattered for him, even that early in his career, was # of wins, and # of majors won.
For comparison's sake, had their roles been reversed would Grant Waite have played the same shot with Tiger already on with eagle to lead or birdie to tie? I know nothing about the guy so it's difficult to guess, but I seriously doubt it and here's why... Leading up to that moment in Grant Waite's career, at the age of 36 and with 11+ years on tour, he'd won 1 tournament, missed the cut over 40% of the time, and tallied a little over $3 million in winnings. Would he still want to win?...F' yes. But does the difference in 2nd place money and 3rd or 4th or 12th place money start to become a factor in the decision making? I'd bet so. Not so for Tiger. Golf being the ultimate risk/reward sport there is, Tiger's risk factor was so low that the reward part dominated his decision making a lot more than it did for others.
****TFLDR summary: Tiger had the luxury of taking shots like that while most guys don't. :-)
Samuel E. Cronkowitz
Joined:
Jun 14, 2004
Posts:
58,047
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Thats great and all, but he didnt just take the shot. He executed it to near perfection.
If all Tiger cared about was winning, it looks like he had a lot to lose by attempting that shot. Waite was unlikely to eagle, so going for the green was really the only way Tiger could lose. Laying up and hitting a wedge on pretty gave him par at worst and the chance to make an birdie to win.
I do agree with your premise that he had nothing to lose. I just don't agree that it dictated his play there. He just had a perfect lie and didn't mi**** many shots. I don't think he considered it a particularly risky play for him. Now, did he expect to push it 10 yards right of his target...probably not.
Thanks for the flashback. I had forgotten how dominant he was at that time.
I do agree with your premise that he had nothing to lose. I just don't agree that it dictated his play there. He just had a perfect lie and didn't mi**** many shots. I don't think he considered it a particularly risky play for him. Now, did he expect to push it 10 yards right of his target...probably not.
Thanks for the flashback. I had forgotten how dominant he was at that time.
Damp fairway bunkers are perfect to hit out of. He might as well have been in the fairway.
quote:See Para 1, last sentence in parentheses.
Thats great and all, but he didnt just take the shot. He executed it to near perfection.
quote:
That was an interesting phenomenon with Tiger beginning at about that time in his career. He had a 1 shot lead at the time but Grant Waite was already on in two and had an eagle putt to take the lead outright or birdie to tie, and Tiger had the luxury of being able to go for it. (Which is not to say that any old run of the mill PGA tour player at the time had the skill and/or guts to pull that shot off like he did, but most of them wouldn't have had the absolute freedom to try it either.)
By that point (already) for Tiger, prize money didn't matter, and top 5's, top 10's, etc. didn't either. All that mattered was winning. It's more common now with some of the players than it was back then (due to dramatically higher payouts and endorsement money [due obviously to TV money and Tiger's influence on fan interest, and whatever cause/effect those two had on each other]) but he was in the unique position of having absolutely nothing to lose by going for it.
When I say he had nothing to lose that's clearly a huge assumption on my part, but for a bit of perspective here's where his career stood at that point: I had to look this stuff up of course, but by the time he took that chance and went for it on 18 in the final round of the 2000 Canadian Open, at the ripe old age of 24 and with all of 4 years on tour at that point, he'd already won 23 times including 5 majors, and had amassed about $19 million in tourney payouts alone (and I'd assume that much or more in endorsements as well, but who knows). Hell, in 2000 alone leading up to that point (roughly 9 months worth of work) he'd won 8 times (out of 16 events played, 13 of which he finished in the top 5, and none of which did he finish worse than T23rd), and after a disappointing 5th place Master's finish, went ahead and won the US Open, Open Championship, and PGA. Oh, and cashed about $8 mil in winnings just that year.
So the money already didn't matter (and probably didn't even before the 2000 season started), and it already didn't matter whether he ended up in the water and finished in 2nd or 3rd or 5th or tied for 12th. The only thing that mattered for him, even that early in his career, was # of wins, and # of majors won.
For comparison's sake, had their roles been reversed would Grant Waite have played the same shot with Tiger already on with eagle to lead or birdie to tie? I know nothing about the guy so it's difficult to guess, but I seriously doubt it and here's why... Leading up to that moment in Grant Waite's career, at the age of 36 and with 11+ years on tour, he'd won 1 tournament, missed the cut over 40% of the time, and tallied a little over $3 million in winnings. Would he still want to win?...F' yes. But does the difference in 2nd place money and 3rd or 4th or 12th place money start to become a factor in the decision making? I'd bet so. Not so for Tiger. Golf being the ultimate risk/reward sport there is, Tiger's risk factor was so low that the reward part dominated his decision making a lot more than it did for others.
****TFLDR summary: Tiger had the luxury of taking shots like that while most guys don't. :-)
Interesting perspective. I enjoyed the fact drops. It's crazy to think he had won so much so fast.