Sunday, July 20, 2008

Shark Falls Short in Bid for Third British Open Title

For Greg Norman, a British Open that started out as such a wonderful and completely unexpected fairy tale story came with a very familiar ending: he entered Sunday's final round with a two stroke lead and finished up in a tie for third, six strokes behind winner Padraig Harrington, who claimed this title for the second year in a row. This is the seventh time that Norman held or shared the lead in a Grand Slam event going in to the final round but did not win the tournament; he won the 1986 British Open after having a 54 hole lead and he also won the 1993 British Open despite trailing going into the final round. Those are Norman's only Grand Slam wins, though he famously "won" the so-called "Saturday Slam" in 1986: Norman led after the third round in all four majors only to come up empty each time other than his British Open victory.

When Norman electrified the golf world by taking the lead in this year's British Open, the Chicago Tribune's Mike Downey rightly noted that no one should feel sorry for Norman because of his previous disappointments in the final round of Grand Slam events. After all, Norman still must be considered one of the greatest golfers of all-time. He topped the end of the year Official World Golf Rankings seven times (1986-87, 89-90, 95-97) and finished second on three other occasions (1988, 1993-94). Only Tiger Woods (nine) has ranked first at the end of the year more times than Norman has. Norman spent a total of 331 weeks ranked as the number one golfer in the world, second only to Woods' 504 weeks at the top--and the next closest competitor is, frankly, not even close: Nick Faldo was ranked number one for 98 weeks. Norman was the leading money winner on the PGA Tour in 1986, 1990 and 1995 and in 1989-90 and 1994 he won the Vardon Trophy for posting the lowest scoring average on the PGA Tour.

It is hard to understand or explain why such a talented and highly accomplished athlete has fallen short so many times in Grand Slam events. It is easy to mock Norman as a "choker," but that label is clearly inappropriate regarding this year's British Open: he set a record by becoming the oldest player to hold the 54 hole lead in a major championship and finishing third is quite an accomplishment for a 53 year old who hardly even plays golf anymore. This result is so much better than anyone could have reasonably expected that it cannot be classified as a failure for Norman, particularly considering how well Harrington played in the final round.

As for Norman's disappointing Grand Slam finishes during his prime years, they are frankly quite puzzling; he obviously won a lot of big events in order to maintain his world number one ranking, so it's not like Norman does not know how to manage final round pressure and emerge victorious. I don't believe in luck but Norman seemed to have a lot of bad fortune that directly coincided with good fortune for his opponents in those situations. Perhaps the best explanation is that the traits that make Norman great also leave him vulnerable: he is a confident, aggressive golfer, so the same bold strokes that enable him to carve out big leads can also result in bogeys at the most inopportune times.

Woods is something of an "anti-Norman" in terms of Grand Slams. While Norman will forever be known as the Shark who let many "fish" get away, Woods has never lost a Grand Slam after having the 54 hole lead. As I mentioned in a July 23, 2007 post titled "The Difference Between Winners and Champions," "I hear golf analysts make much of the fact that on the one hand Woods rarely gives up a lead on Sunday but on the other hand he has never come from behind on Sunday to win a major. I think that the former is much more significant than the latter. When Woods has his 'A' game, as he would put it, he wins, point blank--he gets a lead, he keeps it and they put his name on the trophy. When he has his 'B' or 'C' game, he still may be in contention just because he is so good but someone else who is having the tournament of his life may end up winning."

According to the standard that I mentioned in that post, Woods is a "champion" while Norman is a "winner" but I wonder if in this case that harsh distinction is really fair or accurate. Norman spent the better part of a decade ranked as the number one player in the world in his sport and he did win two Grand Slams. Even though Norman has come up short so many times in Grand Slams, I must say that he is still a champion--just not as great a champion as Woods, who seems to be on a path to become the greatest champion in golf history and one of the greatest champions in sports history.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

anymous reggie

the shark was a great player in his heyday but he was the biggest choker in golf history he gave away 3 leads on saturday in 86 96 masters and countless others he should have twelve majors his career the shark would be the greatest player ever if golf was 3 rounds and not 4.

he was number 1 for five years he married to chris evert it was a great story for him to be up at 53 years old on saturday in a major anyway too bad he couldnt close the deal said he was tired the back nine unfortunate.

David Friedman said...

Reggie:

He was actually number one for seven years, as I said in the post.

He choked away some leads but he also won a lot of tournaments, including two majors. I've always found his career to be a fascinating contradiction in terms.

Anonymous said...

anymous reggie

he choked alot of leads david he was golf before tiger. he always choked in big tournaments, it's easy to win a buick open touranment alot diffrent at big 4

but yeah tiger has been ripped by skip bayless who calls him the greatest frontrunner of all time and mike lupica has said you cant looka at him better than nicklaus if he dont come from behind in a tournament not that there that smart in sports anyway. but isnt it impressive to be able not to give away a lead or share of a lead in a major 14 times and not be beat that is impressive in itself, but always gonna be haters i guess buti think he can come from behind in a match if need be

David Friedman said...

Reggie:

Those criticisms of Tiger are asinine. Tiger has been the dominant golfer in the world for a decade and there is every reason to believe that he is going to shatter Nicklaus' Majors record. People who actually participate in competition understand that it is not easy to maintain a lead. For instance, a chess grandmaster will tell you that the hardest thing to do is win a "won" game and we see similar things in other sports. Even if Tiger never comes from behind to win a Major he is still a great champion.

As for Norman, if he built up those leads in Majors but never won anything then one could perhaps say that he does not know how to win--but Norman did win two Majors and he won enough other events to have a stranglehold on the number one ranking. I disagree with you that it is easy to win the Buick Open; it is not easy to win any event on the PGA Tour and it certainly is not easy to maintain a world number one ranking for years and years. Norman's career defies simple explanations.

Anonymous said...

anymous reggie

i guess nicklaus came from behind seven times so that means more supposedly what people miss is he beat dimarco in masters when dimarco stood up to him and wasnt scard he beat mediate in playoff and 3 or 4 of them he had share of lead and he won in playoffs it came down to the wire and tiger outclutched his opponet.

it's not like he always 5 strokes ahead and when his opponet on sunday gains on him he feels the pressure and falls apart when e been stood up two or the guy doesnt go away he still doesnt lose as you said those people like bayles and lupica are crazy for suggesting it i was just asking your opion.