Blake's famous poem - nearly as famous as Jerusalem, with the opening line described as "amongst the most famous in English poetry"- continues:
What immortal hand or eye,
Could frame thy fearful symmetry.....
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand, dare seize the fire?...
And what shoulder, & what art,
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand? & what dread feet?
Of course, I'm drawing a parallel with Tiger Woods after his remarkable achievement winning the Masters last weekend. He certainly had his game face back on the last 9 holes of the 72, where legend has it the Masters starts in earnest and high drama so often unfolds. The sinews of Woods's heart looked pretty tough again and he seemed to induce dread hands and feet into his closest opponents, just like in the old days. I'd rather thought Francesco Molinari might be immune, but no. Molinari, Finau, Poulter and Koepka all made a mess of the par 3 12th finding Rae's Creek rather than the green. Indeed four of the two final groups of three found the creek. This was exactly the way Jordan Spieth had crashed and burned three years ago when he let in England's unheralded Danny Willett for his Masters win. Woods played it exactly as Jack Nicklaus said it should be played, "between the front and rear bunkers, wherever the pin is". Molinari had a brain fade, going straight at the flag against that decades old advice of Nicklaus. In his post round interview he still thought it had been the "right shot"!
And that wasn't all of it as Molinari's lay up on 15 - not shown on TV because it was considered such an easy shot - outran the fairway leaving him a tricky pitch over the ditch to the shallow green. His attempt clattered into the tree branches and fell into the ditch in front of the green. I know this shot, I've done it many times myself where you concentrate so much on where the ball is going to land you forget to allow for it's trajectory hitting overhanging branches. But I'm a modest category 3 golfer, not the Open Champion, so I'm expected to do things like that, though I still beat myself up when I do it.
Woods's win after an eleven year gap since his previous Major was immediately described as the greatest comeback in the history of sport by some before one or two commentators reminded everyone that it wasn't a slam dunk for the greatest comeback in golf, Ben Hogan recovering after a he and his wife survived a head on crash with a Greyhound bus in 1949. The accident left Hogan, then 36, with a double-fracture of the pelvis, a fractured collar bone, a left ankle fracture, a chipped rib, and near-fatal blood clots. He would suffer lifelong circulation problems and other physical limitations. His doctors said he might never walk again, let alone play golf competitively. Hogan left the hospital on 59 days after the accident. He was back on the PGA tour at the start of the following year and went on to win that year's US Open before delivering one of the greatest single seasons in the history of golf in 1953, winning a "triple crown" of three majors in a calendar year, not achieved again until Woods did it in 2000. Indeed, we'll never know if Hogan could have won all four because that year the US PGA overlapped with the Open at Carnoustie, which Hogan prioritised and won. Hogan didn't like the US PGA matchplay format, which required golfers to play 36 holes in a day, as he struggled towards the end of 18 holes with pain brought on by his injuries from the RTA. As it panned out, Hogan stands fourth, tied with Gary Player in the all-time list of major-winners, despite also having a two year break in his career while he served in the US Army Air Force. One suspects his career must have been more disrupted by the war than those two years.
Woods of course has benefited from modern medical methods in recovering from his injuries. It's great that he is now pain free, having aspired just to get healthy again, even playing golf being beyond his hopes. But Hogan won 6 of his 9 majors in pain.... so I'd describe that as an even greater comeback myself.
Once the question "Woods clearly could win another major, but will he?" had been conclusively answered, speculation immediately turned to whether Woods would beat Jack Nicklaus's record of 18 majors (Woods is now on 15). I recall, shortly after I had started playing golf around 2004, reading a golf magazine article posing that question then, when Woods had won 8 majors. Half the page was occupied by a pundit saying "Yes, Tiger will pass the Nicklaus total". His argument ran: he's young, he's outstandingly the best golfer of his generation if not ever, he's got so much time, what can stop him? Another pundit wrote "No, he won't", arguing Woods would probably still have to be winning majors in his 40s, as Nicklaus did, but Woods's swing put so much strain on his body that his back in particular would not allow him continue playing the with the same brutal power. That second opinion turned out to be both right and wrong, but only because of the success of the back operation, fusing together vertebrae that was only the most recent of the medical interventions needed by the Tiger. Woods of course had to have immense fortitude, belief and dedication to get fit again, the credit doesn't all go to the surgeon by any means.
I felt a bit cheated by the final round on Sunday, though not because Woods, who I've only ever had time for as a golfer rather than a person, won. It was because the competition looked like being a classic, with 5 golfers sharing the lead when the last group had only half a dozen holes to go. As it turned out the Woods victory will live long in the mind but the Man City-Tottenham Champions League tie this week beat it for pure sporting excitement in terms of doubt about the result, if you can somehow leave the Woods historical drama out of it.
In the end Woods was able to close it out quite comfortably, though if Koepka's birdie putt had gone in on the last hole Woods wouldn't have had the comfortable two shot lead he held on the final tee. I still suspect Woods would have won, though in that case had he played the 18th as he did he would have found himself in a play off with Koepka.
It strikes me that Woods's approach shot to the last hole was Nicklaus-esque. Tiger had pushed his drive a little right, with those pesky tree branches potentially interfering. While the Woods of his golden years was an awesome sight he wasn't always best known for course management even though he demonstrated frequently in the Open that he could play patiently, managing risk. The Woods of old would probably have unleashed his "stinger" shot that would have taken the tree branches out of play by keeping the ball low, but with risk that it could overshoot the green. This version of Woods played a shot that fell short to the right but left him an easy chip and two putt, sacrificing par and consuming just one of his two shots margin. Our star young club professional asked me the next day whether I thought that was what Woods had meant, or whether it was a mis-hit: neither of us were sure. But on reflection I'm certain it was a percentage shot: might make the front of the green for the preferred uphill putt but, if not, it'll end up in a safe spot.
Nicklaus was almost notorious for his bail out shot to the right and even got castigated for designing golf courses including the bail out zones he favoured. The irony of Woods playing a Nicklaus-esque bail out shot to close out his win seems to have escaped most commentators, but I find it an amusing aspect to what remains a great unfolding story in the history of sport.
Our club's star golf coach had started a group lesson on Monday with a group of grizzled old seniors by asking "who's the greatest, Tiger or Jack?" "Jack" came the low grumble of a near unanimous reply. Said coach pointed out that Tiger had faced much more competition than Jack, so surely his achievements were greater. At the end of the lesson, after some reflection, I agreed with him that Tiger has faced more depth of competition, with greater numbers of players with the potential to win majors on the tour. But I argued that Jack faced stronger competitors. In his peak yearsTiger's main opponents, other than Phil Mickelson, were the likes of Ernie Els, Retief Goosen, Padraig Harringtom and Davis Love III. Jack's main competitors included Tom Watson, Gary Player, Lee Trevino, Peter Thomson (who won the Open 5 times), Johnny Miller and Seve Ballesteros. Comparisons across the ages are always problematic matters of opinion but, in my view, Ernie Els appeared to be a great bloke and a very good golfer but he was no Gary Player.
On Sunday evening Butch Harmon, for me the best ever golf commentator/pundit, was asked who was the greatest, Woods or Nicklaus? His reply ran along the lines that Nicklaus was the greatest ever champion, Woods was the greatest ever player. An elegant fudge which I think would get overtaken if Tiger were to pass Nicklaus's record and become palpably both of those things.
No comments:
Post a Comment