I think Nickalus had something like 29 second place finishes in his career...But he also won when coming from behind on Sunday..Including his 1986 Masters win. But when you are 0-32 when trailing on Sunday, there has to be a reason for it..I don't know if it's Tiger trying too hard, or some other reason..I know he blew alot of 5 foot putts 6 feet past the hole and missed his comeback putts...There is no doubt he is the best golfer by far..I mean he missed every damn putt all week and still came in second place..Which also tells me something about the rest of the field..But Trevor Immelmen scored a +3 round on Sunday..If Tiger has shot his normal 3 under round on Sunday he would have found himslef in a playoff. And something tells me that if Tiger was on the lead going into Sunday, he would have shot 3 under..My opinion is he just gambles and tries too hard when he finds himself behind on Sunday.
To use an anology with horseracing where you have front running speed horses and run off the pace closers but in the end all that counts is how many races you win compared to the number of starts. The same can be said about winning golf tournaments.
Go wire to wire never headed or make a putt on 18 like Tiger did at Bay Hill last month to beat Bart Bryant by a shot - either way a win is a win is a win.
wil..
Go wire to wire never headed or make a putt on 18 like Tiger did at Bay Hill last month to beat Bart Bryant by a shot - either way a win is a win is a win.
wil..
13 major wins to 32 missed major comebacks.
He probably didn't even have a shot at a lot of the "comeback possibilities".
But 13 wins to 32 losses is better then about every single golfer ever so I don't understand why this is considered a diss against tiger.
This is golf, not football, you don't win even CLOSE to everytime, or half the time. Winning 1/4 of the time over your career in the majors puts you in the top 3 or so players ever.
Plus it's not about how you win, it's that you DO win. He's so good there is rarely a need for comebacks.
He probably didn't even have a shot at a lot of the "comeback possibilities".
But 13 wins to 32 losses is better then about every single golfer ever so I don't understand why this is considered a diss against tiger.
This is golf, not football, you don't win even CLOSE to everytime, or half the time. Winning 1/4 of the time over your career in the majors puts you in the top 3 or so players ever.
Plus it's not about how you win, it's that you DO win. He's so good there is rarely a need for comebacks.
he has won non majors coming from behind. Im not trying to defend him, I dont particularly like or dislike him. personally I sold my +440 to win from before round 3 on him at -460 to lose before round 4 and bought Immelman +155 to win. has nothing to do with this stat, it was I honestly felt that Immelman was being underrated and Woods was being overrated at that point. Woods was 6 back and I didnt see signs of cracking from Immelman who has a nice swing and isnt an unaccomplished player.
but I dont believe you are barking up a good tree.
if he is what 6 back like this one, a comeback wont happen much. being behind is also ( like this week) an indicator he is not on his game which would explain a noncomback.
most of those 32 were ones where he was more than 2 shots back. comebacks wont happen that much from there.
if in the next major he is 1 or 2 back going into round 4, I hope you dont believe him not to win is free money based on this, which is a very small sample size.
it is worth some consideration when capping, as many things are. but "Tiger cant come back" is no reason to make or not make a bet by itself. consider the next situation, not a trend that is dubious when making bets.
but I dont believe you are barking up a good tree.
if he is what 6 back like this one, a comeback wont happen much. being behind is also ( like this week) an indicator he is not on his game which would explain a noncomback.
most of those 32 were ones where he was more than 2 shots back. comebacks wont happen that much from there.
if in the next major he is 1 or 2 back going into round 4, I hope you dont believe him not to win is free money based on this, which is a very small sample size.
it is worth some consideration when capping, as many things are. but "Tiger cant come back" is no reason to make or not make a bet by itself. consider the next situation, not a trend that is dubious when making bets.
This thread is moronic. The way courses are set up today in the majors, it is virtually impossible to overcome any substantial lead on Sunday. The course Jack Nicklaus played in 1986, Tiger might shoot 59 on. I know Paul Lawrie came back from 10 shots in the 1999 British Open, but that was with every leader choking their guts out. Golf is a very hard game.
The question isn't whether or when Tiger will break this streak. I'm sure he probably will someday. It's how much are you willing to gamble on him every time this situation comes up? For the degree of difficulty it takes to come from behind in his situation being 6 strokes down, we weren't given very good odds..I think he was something like +325 on Sunday...So how many strokes does Tiger need to be down before he stops being a good bet in a major? Right now the only conclusion I can come up with is that if he hasn't played well enough the first 3 days to be in the last couple of groups on Sunday, he's probably not going to play well enough to win it. In other words, he'll always be an overpriced come-from-behind golfer on Sunday. 0-32 speaks for itself.
