[TouccuraLar]

CB: Thanks for writing my headline: "Chamblee: 'I'm a huge ****!' " Let's talk Tiger. This year he had six wins and more than $10 million in earnings but no majors. Was it a great year? An average year?
BC: If we judge him by his own enormous standards, it was a good year, not great. Lately, he's been drawing our attention to his overall winning percentage, which is higher than it used to be, but only in tournaments that mean less to him—non-majors—than in the majors, which define his career, according to him. I don't believe him when he says it's a great year. I just don't. I believe he's disappointed.

CB: You've been critical of Tiger's driving, even though he ranks among the leaders in total driving on Tour.
BC: People point to his driving as having improved, but it hasn't, if you compare him to 2000. He hits his tee shots better, but his driver is not better than it was in 2000. Not by a long shot. The stats are misleading, because Tiger's hitting more 3-woods and irons off the tee, which helps his accuracy numbers. With his driver, he hits less than half his fairways. I've checked it on ShotLink.

CB: Sounds like you pay close attention to Tiger's swing.

BC: I have this argument with [Tiger's swing coach] Hank [Haney] all the time. Hank and I will go back forth with text messages, some angry, some decent. I have huge respect for Hank. I took lessons from him out of college. But you can say that we agree to disagree in terms of swing philosophy. In my opinion, Tiger's still struggling with his golf swing, and it hurts him in major championships. He doesn't hit the ball as far or as straight in majors, and subsequently he has to rely on his putter more. He's not [winning majors by] five shots anymore. He's not intimidating players the way he used to because he's not 40, 50 yards ahead of them anymore. He's not hitting short irons [into greens] while they hit middle-irons. He's playing from where they play. He's still better. He's still smarter. But now he's one of them. He's not blowing them away.

CB: Could he blow people away again, if he wanted? Does he have power in reserve?
BC: Tiger can't swing as hard as he did in 2000 because if he does, he'll miss the shot either left or right, because he doesn't have [the club] in as good of a position. That's a fact. Not an opinion. A fact.

CB: What, specifically, is holding Tiger back with the swing?
BC: I think he takes his arms too far away from his body on the backswing. This is physics, plain and simple. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If your arms move away from your body too much on the way back, your arms will naturally shallow out—whether you’re hitting a baseball, hitting a forehand in tennis, or hitting a golf ball. If you do that with your golf club and try to put the club in the same place coming down that you did going back, the club tends to get "stuck" on the way down, and you hit a push. With the exception of Lee Trevino, no great ball-striker in history has ever moved their arms away from their body going back. They stay more connected. Now, if you have this tremendous torque in your lower body to begin the downswing, like Tiger does, you can get stuck. He had his driver in a much better place back in 2000 and 2001, and he hit it great.

CB: So his swing was better in 2000?
BC: His driver was more reliable. He hit the ball as hard as he wanted and didn’t worry about hitting it left or right. In 2000, he was second in driving distance behind John Daly—and you don't really count Daly, who was hitting it as hard as he could. In 2000, Tiger averaged 298 [yards], and the next guy was Davis Love, at 288. He had a 10-yard advantage, which is a huge gap. He was bombing it by everybody and hitting over 70 percent of his fairways. Now when he swings hard, he misses the fairway. He hits less than half of his fairways with driver, so he'll hit a cut-off 3-wood or nail an iron, which he does well. He doesn't get stuck [with shorter clubs]. Tiger has a weight on his back right now—his driver. He can’t drive the ball the way he did when he beat everybody by 15 shots [at the U.S. Open] and 8 shots [at the British Open]. With the exception of the BMW Championship, he doesn’t really blow the fields away. He doesn’t scare people.

CB: The intimidation factor has vanished, hasn't it—along with his driver's accuracy?

BC: It used to be, guys could not play with him. Literally. They went to sports psychologists to learn how to deal with him. When I hear Tiger say that he's a better player now than in 2000, OK, yeah, he wins more regular Tour events. But is he a better striker of the ball? He's not. He doesn't hit it as far or as straight. And subsequently, he doesn't have the same intimidation factor. Last year, I looked something up. Look at everyone playing [professional] golf in 2000 who is still playing now. I'm talking about on the PGA Tour, European Tour, Nationwide Tour, the LPGA Tour, all over. There is only one player who has lost yardage from then to now. Only one. Tiger Woods. Look it up. Everyone else is longer, and he's lost yardage because he was bombing it then, hitting it right on the button, swinging as hard as he could.

CB: At a PGA Championship press conference this year, I asked Tiger who would win if he played his year 2000 self in a match. He said that 2009 Tiger would win because he's learned how to get the ball in the hole.
BC: I remember that! That was a great question. I played his answer [on Golf Channel]. But here’s the real question to ask him: "If you played yourself in a major championship, who wins: 2009 or 2000 Tiger?" How could he honestly say that he's better today in majors than in 2000? Does he think he'll go out and beat the guy who won at Pebble by 15 shots? [Today] he comes in after a round and says he's winning more, that his swing is better—but he's not winning more in majors. From the '99 PGA to the '02 U.S. Open, he won 7 of 11 majors. He doesn't win that often now.

CB: Fascinating. So, in his effort to win more tournaments, he's losing more majors. It's Tiger’s Law of Unintended Consequences.
BC: Put him on a course where you pay a higher price for missing fairways and a higher price for missing a green, and is he better than he was? No. Not in majors. Of course, I’m judging him on the ridiculous standard of 2000. It's funny. Hank will say to me, "Tiger thinks you hate him." Whoa, whoa! Are you crazy? You guys don't listen to the 30 minutes I go on about how great he is. He might have the greatest golf mind ever. And his short game? The only other superstar bomber who had a razor-sharp short game was Tom Watson, from '77 to '83, and he lost it and never won another major. Tiger Woods grew up bombing it, but his short game is as good as it gets. And I love his swing—his tempo, rotation, speed. But I just think if he moved his hands in his backswing, say, eight inches closer to his body—I think he would have already probably broken Jack’s record and might be out of the game by now. So in one crazy respect, I’m glad his swing isn't the same as 2000, because I want to watch him for another 10-15 years.

http://blogs.golf.com/flyers/2009/10...*-its-not.html

[datingcrew]

Interesting read. It does seem that Tiger has a very low percentage of keeping the ball in the fairway with his driver.

[hasasnn2345tv]

Use to be, but no longer a fan of B.C. I will leave it at that.

[Hoijdxvh]

People keep on talking that Tiger isn't as dominate as he once was... but I argue that the fields are sooo much deeper than they used to be. I think some of that is because guys are more athletic, more guys are playing now that Tiger made golf "cool" and you have to bring up the advances in technology... and by the way he is still winning at a ridiculous percentage... and when he doesn't he places in the top 10.

I will concede that he seems to have a block, when it comes to winning majors lately... and I don't have an answer for that when he wins every other tournament.

[ViagraPriceBuying]

Nice read. Not always a fan of BC but, good stuff. A lot has been written about what people have said is wrong with Tiger's swing. As quick as Tiger has changed his swing(coach) before, I am surprised Tiger hasn't adressed it. Maybe he has but, he is still with Hank.

[datingcrew]

I don't care much for BC either. He is right up there with Johnny Miller to me, both DBs. To me I would rather have less talk on the golf analysis and just give me the data, I don't need the commentary by some has beens. I guess the thing I like about Faldo is he is straight to the point.

It is just like in AZ when Troy won, all BC could say about Troy is he looks like he is really getting on his left side. BC, he is a stack and tilt player! No duh!

[loikrso]

Wow, I'm surprised by all the anti-Chamblee. I really like his commentary - mainly because I thought he didn't feel the need to talk all the time.

And it seems to me that Faldo is always babbling about something - mostly laughing at his own lame jokes.

[datingcrew]

I think it is just there are no good golf announcers in golf. The guys covering the Nationwide Tour do a better job at announcing then BC, Faldo or Miller. I would rather just see Kelly on the screen in a low cut top than listen to those guys. They need to get someone like Barkley in there announcing.

[Uzezqelj]

Gee, I'll bet Tiger is up nights thinking about this.


Chamblee is OK I guess but I have to laugh when I consider that that a guy who has won exactly one Tour event in an 18 year career (an obscure Canadian event at that) is offering advice to a guy who will most likely break every PGA Tour record ever established in the history of the PGA Tour before he turns 40.

As far as announcers go, if I had to choose between Faldo and Chamblee, I'd take Faldo hands down. Faldo is funny, he's right to the point, he knows what he's talking about and he's very self-effacing. Add to that the fact that Faldo has almost won more majors than Brandel has even entered and I'll take what Nick has to say over anything Brandel (if it wasn't for the fact that they gave me a microphone, nobody would know who I am) Chamblee has to say.


What else have you got?



-JP

[Aozozbag]

Don't mind listening to Chamberlee, but think he's wrong on this:

{BC}With the exception of Lee Trevino, no great ball-striker in history has ever moved their arms away from their body going back. They stay more connected.

Most tour players who I've seen swing sequences of have their arms extended away further from their body when the club is parallel to ground at start of backswing than at address. Talking distance between the bellybutton and the hands.

Swing Like a Pro shows it in detail, but you can look at most swing sequences and see that the hands move away from the body early to create width early in the swing.

[doctorzlo]

Brandel doesn't take into account the fact that Tiger is aging. He is over the hill, too old to compete with the young guys anymore. He might as well stay down in Florida and only enter his club tournaments so he has a chance. Yeah, that's it, he should only play on his home course. He's a has-been.

Seriously, hasn't almost every great player gone through a period where his game just wasn't as sharp? Haven't we all? I seem to remember Tiger tearing down and rebuilding his swing a couple of times and yet he still wins.

I think the most telling thing is that if he doesn't totally dominate every single event, then some talking head starts saying something is wrong.

[loikrso]

I think the most telling thing is that if he doesn't totally dominate every single event, then some talking head starts saying something is wrong.

Wow. Good call C-Tech.

[TouccuraLar]

Gee, I'll bet Tiger is up nights thinking about this.


Chamblee is OK I guess but I have to laugh when I consider that that a guy who has won exactly one Tour event in an 18 year career (an obscure Canadian event at that) is offering advice to a guy who will most likely break every PGA Tour record ever established in the history of the PGA Tour before he turns 40.

As far as announcers go, if I had to choose between Faldo and Chamblee, I'd take Faldo hands down. Faldo is funny, he's right to the point, he knows what he's talking about and he's very self-effacing. Add to that the fact that Faldo has almost won more majors than Brandel has even entered and I'll take what Nick has to say over anything Brandel (if it wasn't for the fact that they gave me a microphone, nobody would know who I am) Chamblee has to say.


What else have you got?



-JP

Love faldo,but would take Chamblee over Miller any day.Gawd,Do I hate Miller

[Aagotiq]

Gee, I'll bet Tiger is up nights thinking about this.


Chamblee is OK I guess but I have to laugh when I consider that that a guy who has won exactly one Tour event in an 18 year career (an obscure Canadian event at that) is offering advice to a guy who will most likely break every PGA Tour record ever established in the history of the PGA Tour before he turns 40.



-JP

WHile I do not agree with these statements, a good commentator does not have to be or have been a good player. If Hank Haney, Leadbetter, or any other coach had said the same thing, you would not say that. Yet they have not won the tournies that Tiger has.

Sure they are swing coaches, but the old statement that good players do not make good coaches and vice versa is so true on so many levels.

[soprofaxelbis]

Back in 2000, Tiger hit his 2-iron stinger off the tee very regularly. I'd be surprised if he hit his driver more often then than he does now. And in point of fact, his driving distance in 2009 is longer than his driving distance in 2000. And his accuracy is 7% lower. 7% of fairways is one per round. Hardly that big of a deal, in particular when you're as good as Tiger is from the rough.

The other thing Chamblee seems to miss is that courses are almost certainly set up tougher now than they were in 2000.

Oh, and JB, if a coach says something like that, that's one thing, but Chamblee isn't a coach is he? He's a player (former). Your comment about good players making bad coaches is apt and seems to agree with what JP said. So are you agreeing or disagreeing with JP?

[Aagotiq]

Neither. But to say that because Chamblee did not win, he is not as good at his job as Miller or Faldo because they did is not really correct. His job now has nothing to do with his playing days. His job now is to analyze players just as any other color guys job. So many great commentators never won a tourny, but they can still offer advice on the game and the swing.

[piramirra]

Neither. But to say that because Chamblee did not win, he is not as good at his job as Miller or Faldo because they did is not really correct. His job now has nothing to do with his playing days. His job now is to analyze players just as any other color guys job. So many great commentators never won a tourny, but they can still offer advice on the game and the swing.

Personally I think with the high speed cameras they have now for analyzing the swing they force guys like Miller, Faldo, and Chamblee to fill a long amount of time. Like 20-30 seconds in terms of watching a swing that is a long time and they have to talk, talk, talk and I think it makes them say things that might not make all that much sense.

[Drugsonl]

I believe that Tiger thinks this WAS a good year, better than he could have ever hoped for. He came off major surgery and 8 months away to put up POY stats and to contend in most of the majors - how could anyone expect that much from any other golfer but Tiger? If Ernie Els had a year like that after his knee injury, he'd be turning handsprings. Next year is the one to watch - if Tiger goes without a major win in 2010 I think then it is legitimate to ask whether his domination is over.

[Kragh]

Neither. But to say that because Chamblee did not win, he is not as good at his job as Miller or Faldo because they did is not really correct. His job now has nothing to do with his playing days. His job now is to analyze players just as any other color guys job. So many great commentators never won a tourny, but they can still offer advice on the game and the swing.

I agree with you on this - Chamblee knows his stuff. Most of the great instructors were not winners on tour either, that makes no difference at all.

[Uzezqelj]

Neither. But to say that because Chamblee did not win, he is not as good at his job as Miller or Faldo because they did is not really correct. His job now has nothing to do with his playing days. His job now is to analyze players just as any other color guys job. So many great commentators never won a tourny, but they can still offer advice on the game and the swing.

And as the old saying goes, "Opinions are like...", well, you know the rest.

Guys like Chamblee certainly impress the masses because he looks good on camera and speaks well and the public believes that anyone with a microphone and thirty seconds of air time is automatically some kind of expert anyway. But from a player's perspective, Chamblee's street cred is virtually non-existent because his only claim to fame is winning the Greater Vancouver Open and if I'm a fellow Tour player - especially someone like Tiger, I'd politely thank him for his observations and then I'd walk away. Perception is reality and I just can't see a top-shelf player like Tiger putting a whole lot of stock in the opinions of a guy whose career consisted largely of showing up for a tournament and little else.

It's like Monday Night Football. When Jaworski and Gruden start talking "X's and O's", Tirico seems like a fish out of water because he never played a down of pro football. Thankfully, Tirico recognizes this and sticks to what he does best; play-by-play, and leaves the "been there" stuff to the players.

If Chamblee were some renowned golf instructor - like Kostis or Ledbetter, then he'd have more credibility. But Chamblee has no such credentials (to my knowledge) and since his career consisted more about making Friday evening travel plans than kissing trophies, I just don't see a whole lot of players putting a whole lot of stock in what he has to say.

From a layperson's point of view, I'm sure he comes off as some kind of Einstein. But from a player's point of view - from a jock's point of view - there has to be some "Been there, done that" angle for them to take him seriously and Chamblee's career just doesn't bear that out.


Like I said, "Opinions are like..."

and that's mine.



-JP