Padraig Harrington- insight into a champion golfer

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anyone who loves the game of golf, has played competitively or just enjoy watching golf on television will love this interview with Padraig Harrington after his third round 63 at the Phoenix Open. He was asked why he tinkers so much with his swing and if he's made any recent changes. It's a long answer, but there are some gold nuggets in there.


Q. Did you change your golf swing?

PADRAIG HARRINGTON: No, I must admit yeah, I've changed my golf swing, but I change it every day. I changed my golf swing this week. That's what I do: I get up in the morning, and I change. That's who I am.
If I had a problem since 2008 going down the road of changing, I'm a person who has always managed never to read anything about me. I keep the media, certainly what people are saying about me, out of my world.
So since 2008 I'm on a higher level and I keep getting asked the same questions. Eventually if you keep getting asked why you change your swing, again, you start explaining yourself and it turns into defending yourself.
Probably last year I probably late last year I came to the conclusion, you know, I didn't actually change, because what I do every day is keep trying to evolve, and that's what I do. Every day I change is being me.
People's perception of me changed because they assumed that because I won and peaked in 2007 and 2008, they assumed I was at a level I wanted to be at or had what I wanted, and they assumed why would you keep trying to change. But the only thing I know is changing. It gets me out of my bed in the morning and gets me motivated.
I'm 41 years of age and I think I'm a kid, and the reason I think I'm a kid is I think I'm going to find the secret every day.
I hit eight bags of balls before my round Thursday morning working on my swing. I just love it. That's who I am.
As regards to my form, I peaked obviously in 2007 and 2008. Everybody peaks. Professional golfers tend to last about 18 months when they peak and drift back to who they are.
Now, if that was a peak, and then you have an average play, yes, probably in 2009 or 2010, anyway, I played below average. You have to play below average if you are going to peek as well. The way I look at it, and maybe this is a mistake I made, you're trying to compare yourself to your absolute peak in 2008, whereas I should always be trying to work off my base, my average play.
If I can improve my baseline, that means when the peak comes around, it will be a little higher, probably a little bit longer. You know, that's the game. It ebbs and flows.
You know, I'm watching a lot of players, and I see consistently it's about 18 months where they really have the game easy, you know, things good happen to them. Then they go into a period, and it depends how good they are, they reset to who they are for a while.
You know, if they're a really good player they will come back and peak again. That's just the nature of the game. I won three majors: one in 2007, two in 2008. Was I gonna win three in 2009? You know, when you look at the players out there, there's only two players, three players in the modern game who are playing at the moment who have won more than three majors, and it took Ernie 20 years, it took Phil quicker in terms of when he won his first one to the last one.
So, you know, if I'm to get out there and win more majors, logic would say it ain't gonna happen in 2009 necessarily, but it will happen eventually. When the good times come around, you know, I'll take my chances, and hopefully it will happen.
You know, I have to be patient, but it really is a question it's ebbs and flows in this game. I'm fascinated that, you know, the easiest thing to analyze myself is to actually watch other people, understand when you're watching other people how, you know, when they're on form how easy it is for them, how you know, they go out there and play like they shot 70 and they're signing for 68. When things aren't going for you, you play like you shot 70 and signing for 72. That's the nature of this game. We all go through that.
I did have big problems last year with my putting. I lost my confidence reading the greens. I think I was 13th in the stroke average last year. So I remember being told at one stage by somebody how I played bad, bad, and bad three times. The interesting thing about it was at the time I was like 9th in the stroke average. I hadn't putted well. I had a chance at the U.S. Open, a really good chance at the U.S. Open.
At the time I was the best wedge player on TOUR, and I had to get up and down on the last hole from 125 yards, 116 it might have been, something like that. To get into it would have got me into the playoffs. I had a genuine chance at the U.S. Open. The U.S. Open I had two four-putts and a number of three-putts.

I can't remember four-putting, I'm going back to being a kid. I could see the good play there, but perception is when you got to a certain height, there's a massive perception when you don't play to that level. Nobody can play at their peak all the time.
I explain at home very simply in Premiership Football. If you score 30 goals in a Premiership Football, you're going to be signed up for you know, some team is going to buy you for 40 million. But if your average is 20 and you scored 30 this year, well, that's 10 goals coming around the corner pretty soon if your average is 20.

But I would have been where I might have gone wrong well, where I probably went wrong, one, as I said, I was defending myself the at times, and two, I was trying to improve on the 30, whereas realistically I was trying to improve on the 20. This is where Dave Alred, I work with, has really helped me. It's about just improving what you consider your baseline. It's not about going out there and trying to improve the very top end, because, you know, as I said I went down a No. 13 today. Myself and Hunter Mayhan hit pretty similar shots. He's three yards left of me. He's in a bush. I hit 5 wood 15 feet. You know, nobody can legislate for that in golf.
There was not a difference between our two shots off the tee. He's in a bush. You know, that's golf. Golf is like that, and you get on a good run, and, you know, you don't find yourself in the bush. When things aren't going for you, you know, you do find yourself in the bush.
Again, that's life. You know, as a player you have to under that, and sometimes it's hard to understand that. There's no doubt at times I went from explaining myself to defending myself, and for a person like me, who I have kept the outside world way out of my inner circle, I have never let really, really work hard and not trying to let outside influences affect me.
But there is no doubt over those years when you are continually being asked the same question, all of a sudden you understand what people are thinking. Even though I haven't read it, I now understand if I'm continually asked, Why are you changing your golf swing, I'm thinking to myself, you ought to see the changes I made in my golf swing at different stages during my career.
Like when I turned pro I know I'm running on here. When I turned pro in '96, all I had ever hit in my life was a pull cut. I was short and hit a pull cut off the tee. I could not draw the golf ball.
John Jakes (phonetic), the orientation week at the European TOUR, taught me how to draw the ball. That was one month before I went out on TOUR. I qualified a month before I went to that. I played my first three years on TOUR with the biggest hook you could have. It was fantastic. I hit it 40 yards further and it was great.
'99 I finished 11th and 8 in European order of merit, and I came to the Olympic Club, US Open, and I played my best golf to finish 27th or something like that.
I chipped and putted everything to finish 27th. I walked away. Okay. Clearly if this is as good as I am, and I want to be better, well, I've got to change something. I went to Bob Torrance.

Dropped back to 32nd in the order of merit. I didn't win for a couple of years, and then all of a sudden, you know, I had a period there, 29 second places on the European TOUR, and all of a sudden I started winning again. Things came back.
I obviously peaked in 2007, 2008, and, you know, 2009 wasn't so bad. 2010 was a little bit iffy. 2011 definitely was a bit of a slump in there.
As I said, I saw some good signs, but in 2011 I got very frustrated that I kept playing well in practice and not bringing it to the golf course. So I again decided to make a big change. I started working with Pete Cowen on my swings, and that was a big change.
Then, you know, at different stages I worked with a psychologist in Europe, worked with Bob Rotella, I now have Dave Alred on my team.
About the only thing my physio and trainer are the only ones that have stayed constant over those years. This winter I started working with eye people. I'm always looking to what's the next thing to do. This year I will find something in my game and say that's not quite right, and we will endeavor to change it. I will say in 2007 I played with a draw to win the Open.
I was so frustrated with the tee shot I hit on the 18th hole that in 2008 I played with a fade. I made a change between those. And you know what? I'm going to change. That's who I am. You know, I like it.
You know, I saw Arnold Palmer when he was 70 years of age being interviewed after a Champions TOUR event, and he came off the golf course absolutely brimming smile from one ear to the other, saying he'd found the secret.
I want to be that man. I want to be 70 years of age out playing golf and just loving it, just the excitement of it all. The possibility of it getting better is far more interesting to me than the realization that it's never going to get better than this.
 
One thing that I noticed was his finish, Phil and Bubba's finish too. Best seen on driver swings, look at their left wrist and the position of their hands and the club. The only way I get close to that look is by pulling in and up as hard as I can through impact.
 
I once heard that happiness is having something to look forward to. Who doesn't play this silly game and think the answer isn't one swing away?

It's all about hope. Whether you are playing the game or teaching the game, it's all about hope.
 

Jim Kobylinski

Super Moderator
To preface my post, i didn't read the whole thing but i did find something interesting about what he says about peaking and then going below average and peaking again etc. Also, for those of you who don't know, my main career is in corporate finance with background work in statistics and kind of merging the two of them for business purposes; in buzzword terms it's called "predictive analytics" and it's gaining a lot of traction everywhere.

So why am i telling you this? Well because i've done a lot of analysis on various things that involve doing statistical analysis trying to predict and forecast people's ability into perpetutiy in regards to their sales #'s, people's productivity rates (in normal roles), advertising effectiveness, etc.

The main thing i have found when applying various methods to different issues is how "average" people perform. Generally my analyses have concluded in various applications that only really "average people" (at what they are doing) go through peaks/valleys. If you think about a bell curve and think about the middle of the curve there are going to be times that those people will perform above average for a period, perform below average for a period, and eventually settle back to who they are; hence why they are "average." Not to simplify too much but in the same way average people have peaks/valleys the "greats" are typically great all the time and when they do "dip" it's generally not for extended periods of times or even if so they return to some level of greatness meaning well above the average people. Now take what i just said above and reverse for people consistently below average.

I find that if you use the above and apply to various golfers and their careers you can really segment the group of them. For Padraig, i'd say he's above average but isn't one of the greats....say like 65th percentile.
 
Last edited:
To preface my post, i didn't read the whole thing but i did find something interesting about what he says about peaking and then going below average and peaking again etc. Also, for those of you who don't know, my main career is in corporate finance with background work in statistics and kind of merging the two of them for business purposes; in buzzword terms it's called "predictive analytics" and it's gaining a lot of traction everywhere.

So why am i telling you this? Well because i've done a lot of analysis on various things that involve doing statistical analysis trying to predict and forecast people's ability into perpetutiy in regards to their sales #'s, people's productivity rates (in normal roles), advertising effectiveness, etc.

The main thing i have found when applying various methods to different issues is how "average" people perform. Generally my analyses have concluded in various applications that only really "average people" (at what they are doing) go through peaks/valleys. If you think about a bell curve and think about the middle of the curve there are going to be times that those people will perform above average for a period, perform below average for a period, and eventually settle back to who they are; hence why they are "average." Not to simplify too much but in the same way average people have peaks/valleys the "greats" are typically great all the time and when they do "dip" it's generally not for extended periods of times or even if so they return to some level of greatness meaning well above the average people. Now take what i just said above and reverse for people consistently below average.

I find that if you use the above and apply to various golfers and their careers you can really segment the group of them. For Padraig, i'd say he's above average but isn't one of the greats....say like 65th percentile.

That means that Tigers first 12/13 years are so off the charts they would skew any graph.
 

Jim Kobylinski

Super Moderator
That means that Tigers first 12/13 years are so off the charts they would skew any graph.

No it wouldn't, remember it's a distribution and with him only being 1 guy (essentially the ideal statistical anomoly), he'd be way out in the t-tail and be in the 99th percentile. Think of all of them like SAT or ACT scoring; unless you have A LOT of people (or in this case a lot of Tigers) performing at that level it wouldn't skew it.
 
Myself and Hunter Mayhan hit pretty similar shots. He's three yards left of me. He's in a bush. I hit 5 wood 15 feet. You know, nobody can legislate for that in golf. There was not a difference between our two shots off the tee. He's in a bush. You know, that's golf. Golf is like that, and you get on a good run, and, you know, you don't find yourself in the bush. When things aren't going for you, you know, you do find yourself in the bush.


This is the hardest thing to deal with in golf. Rub of the green I guess. I choose to believe that in the end everyone will have a pretty equal amount of good breaks as they do bad ones.... Problem is its human nature to dwell on the bad ones and not enjoy the good ones. Isn't the trick to do just the opposite?
 
I heard this said in relation to another field but I think it is true of golf as well.

The difference between a gifted amateur and a professional is that the gifted amateur might produce better results quite often, but the professional will produce an acceptable result even when things are going badly.

The frequency with which top players seem to hit it all over the place and miss everything and still sign for 73 or 74 is incredible.

As for Padraig, I think he is a guy who needs to think he has a secret or an edge in order to win. It's where he gets his confidence from.
 

Jim Kobylinski

Super Moderator
The difference between a gifted amateur and a professional is that the gifted amateur might produce better results quite often, but the professional will produce an acceptable result even when things are going badly.

I think the above is a more succinct way of what i said in my post; nicely said (whoever you borrowed it from :))
 
Good to see that even the elite golfers are tinkerers and are always looking for something to make them just a little bit better.

We have a couple of guys I play with who never change their swing, but the majority are always working on something.
 

Jim Kobylinski

Super Moderator
Winning 3 majors and winning multiple Ryder Cups count you as being in the 65th percentile?

It was just a guess, i just ran a basic percentile on all the major winners in history and 3 majors puts you anywhere between 80th-86th percentile. However 2 out of those 3 majors are Open Championships which through history we've seen a lot of random winners and to me the weight of winning an Open versus say the Masters is not as big of a weight. So maybe my 65th was too low of a guess but in the 80's isn't correct either...meet me in the middle?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top