Sunday Leader Implosions

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lifter

New
You know, I haven't seen this mentioned before, but we've seen a remarkable frequency of Sunday implosions at the last four majors. And consider who the overnight leaders were:

Johnson, Oosthuizen, Watney, McIlroy

Three out of the four collapsed. And of the four, who would have predicted that Oosthuizen would be the only one to win a major? I sure wouldn't have.
 
K

Kevin Shields

Super Moderator
The pressure and scrutiny the leaders have now is at an all time high. The fruits that come with a major victory would be very difficult to block out the night before. It takes a special type of athlete (or one just "dumb" enough to not care) to overcome the pressure.
 
J

Jared Willerson

Super Moderator
You either need to be very smart or very dumb to be able that kind of pressure in golf...all the people in between are screwed, caught somewhere between thinking a bit too much but not enough or trying not to think but doing it anyway.
 
I

islandgolf629

New
When you're spoiled to the point where you never had a full-time job outside of golf, you become an easy target to succumb to Sunday pressure. Too many tour golfers are coddled and held by the hand starting at a young age. They have no real-life experience in what an average Joe goes through, which would put the so-called "Sunday Pressure" into perspective.

In my opinion I would be shocked if anyone ever wins more than 10 majors ever again. Just like the .400 batting average went extinct in baseball, a multiple major super power in golf could be heading in that direction too.
 
johnnymarlboro

johnnymarlboro

New
islandgolf629 said:
When you're spoiled to the point where you never had a full-time job outside of golf, you become an easy target to succumb to Sunday pressure. Too many tour golfers are coddled and held by the hand starting at a young age. They have no real-life experience in what an average Joe goes through, which would put the so-called "Sunday Pressure" into perspective.

In my opinion I would be shocked if anyone ever wins more than 10 majors ever again. Just like the .400 batting average went extinct in baseball, a multiple major super power in golf could be heading in that direction too.
Click to expand...

I'd say that sentiment has been around for a while.

“I feel sorry for the rich kids now. I really do. Because they’re never going to have the opportunity I had. Because I knew tough things. And I had a tough day all my life and I can handle tough things. They can’t. And every day that I progressed was a joy to me and I recognised it every day. I don’t think I could have done what I’ve done if I hadn’t had the tough days to begin with.” --Ben Hogan

I disagree to an extent though. Totally depends on the person. I don't think Tiger or Jack exactly had it real rough growing up. Some people build confidence in different ways.
 
I

islandgolf629

New
johnnymarlboro said:
I'd say that sentiment has been around for a while.

“I feel sorry for the rich kids now. I really do. Because they’re never going to have the opportunity I had. Because I knew tough things. And I had a tough day all my life and I can handle tough things. They can’t. And every day that I progressed was a joy to me and I recognised it every day. I don’t think I could have done what I’ve done if I hadn’t had the tough days to begin with.” --Ben Hogan

I disagree to an extent though. Totally depends on the person. I don't think Tiger or Jack exactly had it real rough growing up. Some people build confidence in different ways.
Click to expand...


True, Jack probably did not have it rough growing up, but he also did not have huge million dollar pay-outs. His total career PGAT earnings was $5,734,322 in 506 cuts made out of 594 ($11,333 average per cut made). So when he did win, there was less money to distract him from staying hungry to win his next tournament.


Tiger pre-fire hydrant was the exception to all this. Boat loads of cash and still kicking A$$ week in and week out. Will he ever return to that level again? No one can truthfully answer that question. So, enjoy watching a 14 major winner (and counting) because it could be a long time before the golfing world sees a 10+ major winner again, if ever.
 
BrendanC

BrendanC

New
Tiger's Sunday play has spoiled us.

Probability comes into it too of course. I don't think any of the above quartet were odds on to win prior to the final round.

Someone else is always going to get hot on Sunday.

'The market'/the aggregate opinion/the bookies rated each player individually as having a less than 50% chance of winning (at best).

In those circumstances, just one winner out of four is not all that unusual.

Though the nature of the implosions that happened is.
 
BrendanC

BrendanC

New
This seems to fit in (from the Hall of Fame website):

After taking the PGA Tour by storm in 1936 and '37, "[Sam Snead] suffered a major setback at the U.S. Open at Spring Mill in Philadelphia. Thinking he needed a birdie on the 72nd hole to win, but in reality needing only a par 5, Snead made an eight to finish tied for fifth. He would go on to finish second in the U.S. Open four times, once when he missed a 30-inch putt on the final green of a playoff with Lew Worsham in 1947."

And he never did win it either.
 
L

Lifter

New
sunmart said:
It's a changing of the guard. Probably the youngest group of Sunday major leaders ever.
Click to expand...

sunmart, I think you nailed it. In the five majors before Pebble Beach, the overnight leader also generally lost, but only lost narrowly. He didn't implode. Those leaders who lost narrowly were Perry, Watson, Woods and Westwood. That's a bunch of older, highly-experienced guys. Much more seasoned than Johnson, Oosthuizen, Watney and McIlroy.
 
L

Lifter

New
BrendanC said:
For me, Perry definitely imploded.
Click to expand...

My recollection is that Perry didn't tighten up until the 17th green. Seems to me that that is very different from Johnson, Watney and McIlroy, all of whom began to implode way earlier than that. Plus, Perry only lost narrowly (got into the playoff). Johnson, Watney and McIlroy didn't come remotely close to winning. Another big difference.
 
D

dbl

New
BrendanC said:
Tiger's Sunday play has spoiled us.

Probability comes into it too of course. I don't think any of the above quartet were odds on to win prior to the final round.
Click to expand...

It could be argued that the first three days they were playing way better than their actual average performance, and regression to the mean got to them. In other words, if they were really average 71 players in majors, and shot three 67's, then the 4th round might be 83 to get them back to where they belong for that average of 71. Psychologically, they may have realized they were playing better than they "should" and then found a way to get themselves back to "normal."

ETA: Change the numbers a little and if they were actually 70 shooters who shot three 67's then the 4th round would be 79 to get that average of 70.
 
Last edited:
D

dbl

New
Also just to throw in another Sunday implosion to recall which seems similar to the three being discussed: Baddeley's 4th round at Oakmont 2007 US Open. Tripled the first hole, leading to a round of 80. As I recall his putting stroke wilted.
 
L

Lifter

New
BrendanC said:
Makes sense: guy kept giving him 140 yardages to 125 pins for some reason......:D

I was refreshing my memory of the Perry one: I recall it as a meltdown and for me it started when he got a case of the hooks, and ended up well left of the 17th.

Perry admits choking down the stretch | Golf | Fox Sports
Click to expand...

I don't deny that Perry tightened up. I just think that he performed a hell of a lot better overall than Johnson, Watney and McIlroy. Not the same category.
 
A

aaron_lohan

New
Imo what Tiger has accomplished in winning 14 majors and his relentless pursuit of Jack's record since day one has raised the bar in terms of pressure at majors.
 
M

ms1170

New
dbl said:
It could be argued that the first three days they were playing way better than their actual average performance, and regression to the mean got to them. In other words, if they were really average 71 players in majors, and shot three 67's, then the 4th round might be 83 to get them back to where they belong for that average of 71. Psychologically, they may have realized they were playing better than they "should" and then found a way to get themselves back to "normal."

ETA: Change the numbers a little and if they were actually 70 shooters who shot three 67's then the 4th round would be 79 to get that average of 70.
Click to expand...
I think Regression toward the mean would more than likely give these players an average score in the 4th round close to 71. By your example, if a player with a 71 average were to start with 3 rounds of 78, he would shoot 50 in the 4th round to get back to average. "Mean" basically is defined as average. People regress toward the average.
 
BrendanC

BrendanC

New
Fair enough Lifter.

Kenny Perry (play to centre green), like Tom Watson (take one less club, play to front right of green), might have won if they had played safer as they felt the pressure.

I suspect Nicklaus was particularly good at matching his strategy to what his body was telling him. Tiger also plays really safe when he has too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top