Should I hit a Fade or a Draw?

I have never taken a golf lesson in my life.  I grew up watching Arnold and Jack going at it (dating myself here).  Golf swing analysis was much simpler then, at least from my remembrance of those TV days.  To me it was -  straight left arm, weight shift, shift weight comes back thru, finish high.  This worked pretty well for me;  although I never approached pro level, I did manage to drive my handicap down to a 7 at my peak.  I was pretty proud of my sojourns into the 70s (score, not decade), but it always bothered me that my natural shot was a fade and my big mistake was a slice.  To me, the "manly" shot was a draw and if you swing badly, it should result in a disastrous hook that bores its way thru rough and bush, not some sissy slice that falls softly in the woods or a water hazard.

Problem was, I struggled to hit draws and hooks.  When playing my best, I could hit some draws and hooks, but if I was playing on the "marginal" level, I would always revert to my natural left-to-right ball flight. So at some point I discarded Watson's advice (keep your swing long) and tried to shorten my backswing in order to produce an inside-to-out swing path that would result in a draw.  What followed was not pretty: picture Charles Barkley's ugly hitch-infested swing.  Yes, I was plagued with a horrible, unconquerable, mentally-paralyzing hitch that killed my enjoyment of golf for about 3 years.  Thankfully, I found my way out of that golf nightmare and arrived at a point where I could work on technical aspects of my swing.  After some effort, I now find I can produce draws quite often and my big miss is indeed a disastrous hook.  Now I fall back on the draw/hook when I'm not sure what to do.  This played out yesterday at the Queens Harbour course in Jacksonville, Florida, a Mark McCumber design.  I'd have to say draws really didn't help me that much on that water-laden course so I am now wondering if I should have just stuck with my old swing. Let me think........  Ah, screw it, I want to be a manly golfer with all the ills that come with that approach   ----  let the draws rule!!!!!!!

(this post was done with tongue somewhat planted in cheek.  Truth is if my short game was even close to my peak, I would've scored around 80.)  Gotta love hitting those sweeping right-to-left shots.

Can Tiger Catch Jack? The Definitive Answer You Won't Read Elsewhere

Tiger Woods is on the DL again, but that doesn't stop the tour and non-tour wags from speculating whether he'll break Nicklaus' record of 18 major tournaments.  First let's set the scene; he's been stuck on 14 now for what will be 6 years when the US Open kicks off in June at the legendary Pinehurst Number 2 (personally I can't wait to see how it plays after the Crenshaw-Coore restoration).  Based on recovery times for other athletes who had the same operation as Tiger, I'm counting him out of the majors for 2014.  It's possible he could play in the PGA, or miraculously in the British Open, but I wouldn't bet on him doing much, if he plays at all.  That means he goes to Augusta next year as a 39 year old golfer with a ton of mileage on his odometer.

The history of golfers winning multiple majors after the age of 35 does not bode well for Eldrick.  Arnie and his Army were done at 34.  Tom Watson you ask  -  done at 33.  Bobby Jones, winner of 13 majors?   He retired from competition (such as it was) at the ripe old age of 28 because he couldn't take it anymore.  Walter Hagen, winner of 11, gives Tiger some hope as he won two majors after he reached his 35th birthday.  But the dashing Hagen won these in his 36th and 37th years and was not even a minor factor in the majors afterwards.

But wait, the records of Nicklaus, Gary Player and Ben Hogan shine the light of optimism on Tiger's chances.  Gary won 4 after turning 35:  one at 36, two at 38 and the last when he was 42.  Hogan won all but one of his majors post 35   and Jack added 6 more after that age (although the Masters win at 46 falls into the miraculous category and should probably be eliminated from this study).  Sounds good for Tiger, right?  But hold on now.  First, Mr Player, the "Man in Black".  By the age of 39, Gary only had that '78 Masters still to come.  Also, Gary was one of the few golfers of that era who worked out. He was a "young" 38 when he won the Masters and the Open.  Even the most ardent Tigerphiles concede that he's an "old" 38, having gone through 6 surgeries of a serious nature.  So, Gary really can't offer much hope to Tiger.

How about Hogan?  8 majors after turning 35.  Not only that, he suffered serious injuries in a car accident when he was 37 from which he had to bounce back.  Surely this career is the one Tiger can grab onto for hope, right?   Not so fast.  Hogan won all those majors after 35 because he didn't develop his game fully until then.  He's known as the best ball striker of all time but he didn't become that until his years of intense practice and study produced the revelation that propelled him to the top of the game.  Tiger's career is notoriously "front loaded".  There was that unparalleled streak between the ages of 23 and 26 (featuring the "Tiger Slam") and another between 29 and 32, and then, nothing.  You don't have to be a PGA professional to realize that Tiger can no longer play the game that produced those two amazing streaks.  Another problem with this comparison with Hogan is the nature of the injuries.   Ben's near fatal accident involved broken bones, at least from a structure standpoint.  Athletic trainers will always tell you that a break is the best injury to have because the bone actually becomes stronger after it heals.  Tiger's injuries are typical athletic stress types that have damaged cartilage, ligaments and nerves and thus are much more limiting when it comes to athletic performance.  OK, I'm tossing out the Hogan comparison - too many discrepancies.

That leaves Jack.  Once again, it starts out promising  -  5 majors after turning 35 (as I said above, I'm not counting the '86 Masters - too much help from the Golf Gods).  He even had a "lull" at 36-37, then won one at  38 and two at 40.  Perfect for giving hope to Tiger, right?  Well, maybe not.  Let's compare their performances in majors from age 35 to 38.  In those 16 appearances, Jack finished in the top ten 14 times, one of the misses finishing 11th(!)   and one where he was cut (more on this later).  He won 3 times and finished 2nd or 3rd an incredible 6 times.  During his "lull", he finished 2nd 3 times, losing to hall of famers like Watson, Miller, Player and Trevino.  Tiger meanwhile, had 4 top 10s with the best being 3rd place.  He had finishes of 21st, 32nd, 40th twice, missed the cut in the PGA when he was only 35, and currently has 3 DNPs which could grow to 6 by year end.  Tiger finished well back of such legends as Webb Simpson, Ricky Barnes, Martin Kaymer and the like.  As for Jack's missed cut in the PGA - it quickly led to people saying he was washed up.  The following year he finished 65th.  The next year -  he won!   Meanwhile Tiger followed up his MC with an 11th and a 40th place finish, at a younger age. 

The contrast here is stunning.  Although Tiger has a few top tens, I can never recall feeling like he was going to win a major on the final day.  In fact, he's faded badly on the weekends in several. 
Jack was playing great in his late 30s whileTiger runs hot and cold (sometimes frigid) and injured.

The conclusion? Tiger WILL NOT catch Jack. He may get another major or two if things go very right for him but given his injuries, the diminishing game and the lack of parallels between him and those who have won in their late 30s, the Golden Bear's record is safe.