Padraig wins the old-fashioned way
Want to know what it takes to be a champion?
As part of Padraig Harrington's team of coaches, I've been fortunate to watch him develop into a world-class player. I remember being at his house in Ireland, on one of those Irish winter days when it's 40 degrees and raining sideways. Padraig was hitting balls into a net inside when he came across something he liked.
"I've got to go outside and hit balls," Harrington said.
I looked at another friend and we said to each other, "There's no way we're going out there." So next thing you know, Padraig grabs a jacket and hat and goes outside to hit balls. Amazed, we watched him through the window hit ball after ball in the driving rain.
That's how you become a champion, by doing the stuff the other guys won't do. Padraig works hard to understand how to get better. Tiger does the same thing, and now we're seeing someone else going about his business and getting the job done. Ten years ago, no one would have predicted that Padraig would be the second- or third-best player in the world. Sure, he's a great athlete, but hard work has gotten him to the top.
In many ways, I thought the PGA Championship played out a lot like the Open Championship at Royal Birkdale. Oakland Hills was a test of mental fortitude with the rain delays and the bad weather. At the start of the day on Sunday, everybody was looking at Phil and Sergio. But Padraig is amazing. He just grinds away and grinds away and never gives up. Look at how he played 18. He puts his drive in the bunker, then hits his second shot a little heavy and it ends up in the deep rough. The guys on TV are wondering if he's going to be able to get a club on it, and Padraig hits it to 20 feet and drains the putt to win the championship.
The funny thing is that on Friday reporters were saying that Harrington still had a British Open hangover. Even he admitted to being a little tired and not hitting it as well as he would have liked. But he followed up a 74 on Friday with two 66s on the weekend. I didn't see anybody else do that. He's not the kind of guy to be cocky, but I think on Sunday he was thinking, "I've done this before, I've been in this position before, and I'm capable of winning no matter what."
Was he ever.
(Photo: Fred Vuich/SI)
Posted by: taipan | Aug 12, 2008 7:37:38 AM
Harrington's tenacity reminds me of Gary Player. Neither the Irishman nor the South African were blessed with great golf swings, but they have temperament in spades. People often enthuse about Tiger Woods' shotmaking, but what wins him some many majors is what he has between the ears. Tiger has a great temperament and results in terrific putting. In the PGA's final round Harrington looked the same, knocking in putt after putt. I played a round many years ago with that greatest putter of all-time, Bobby Locke. Afterwards, Locke said the "15th club" was the one that really counted: the one on your shoulders!
Posted by: Raymond Nyamweya | Aug 12, 2008 8:28:35 AM
From reading this story, I do not see what is old fashioned in it. In the contrary, he won in a very modern fashion. Gives a lot of hope to players approaching their 40's
Posted by: You | Aug 12, 2008 9:15:56 AM
Now...seeing the PGA players in the most challenging conditions is fun, but it's starting to get old. It's really not fun seeing most of the leaderboard over par, and struggling to keep the ball in the fairway. It doesn't make the pros look like the super-talented phenoms that they really are, and those who wouldn't know any better (that is, people who watch the broadcasts but aren't necessarily die-hard golf fanatics) can't tell the difference between the level of play on TV and those on a municipal golf course. I think instead of growing the rough to waist high and pushing the tee markers to the fences, they should make the conditions easier. Make the greens softer, the rough shorter, move the tees up and have the pros go at it in a low-scoring contest. Give them options like driving the green. Sure, it makes the courses seem like they aren't that difficult, but it's the integrity of the game that I'm worried about. People who don't know the game as well as others might just think that these guys aren't good when they're shooting 5 over par, like those from previous U.S. Opens. Non-golf fans don't think about conditions, they care about scores. They want to see something fantastic, and chopping a ball sideways out of 8 inch rough isn't fantastic. Seeing someone at 13 under for a tournament would definitely make them think "Wow, that guy is good." Make the tournaments more conducive to scoring. Most people who watch golf have played a round, and know how difficult it is. When they see a big low score, they'll think "How can they possibly do that?" That's why ratings go down without Tiger: he gives the audience shots that are impossible with stunning consistency. Excitement is where the ratings come in, and a low round shootout is the way to go.
Posted by: George Woster | Aug 12, 2008 9:23:02 AM
You does have a point. Did anyone notice the gallery of people following Ben Curtis? There were only a handful of people watching him, and he was in contention for the PGA. The galleries at tournaments love seeing good approach shots and players making the putts. Making the conditions easier would those who paid to watch the tournament in person a great show.
Posted by: Al | Aug 12, 2008 9:26:09 AM
One of the majors should be match play. Head-to-head competition is always a fun prospect.
Posted by: dorkus | Aug 12, 2008 9:30:28 AM
then sergio could actually win a major
Posted by: Mike | Aug 12, 2008 11:13:01 AM
Tiger pulls off great shots, but his recoveries from the deep rough and all the hazards are what make him great. If there weren't any penalizing rough, Tiger wouldn't have any of those remarkable shots. Plus having no rough wouldn't penalize the longer hitters for not hitting the fairway. It would make it all too easy for them to score, and leave all the others behind. Plus I think you're underestimating the skill and difficulty it takes for these pros to get the ball out of rough like that. Padraig hitting his shot on 18 out of the rough was genuinely heroic.
Posted by: George Woster | Aug 12, 2008 11:33:33 AM
Well, you could look at it a different way, and say that shortening the rough would be beneficial in some respects. For instance, shorter hitters would have more of a chance to contend, since shorter hitters are really the ones who fall victim to the rough, and find it impossible to reach the green in regulation. Some of them are fantastic putters as well, but it becomes difficult when all they're putting for is par or worse. Then you can think about the whole USGA wedge groove fiasco, which helps pros spin the ball out of the rough easier. Shortening the rough would relax the need for the u-grooves, and open up a variety of options for getting into the green. Not to mention a lot of pros are getting really bitter with the conditions of the rough, especially with the article on how Lee Westwood and other contenders were clearly upset with the officials for the conditions at Oakland Hills. The longer rough can also lead to injury (or add insult to them), as was the case for Phil, who injured his wrist before Oakmont last year. Shortening the rough does have its positives beside the pitfalls that it can make the tournament easier for the long bombers. In the end, it's the short game that dictates how well the players do. Hitting it far makes a difference, but hitting it close is more important.
And this isn't to say that the rough is the only detail to consider in preparing a golf tournament. Royal Birkdale's main determinant was the weather, and the players had to survive the conditions more so than battle the actual course.
Posted by: Westy | Aug 12, 2008 12:07:17 PM
In response to Raymond N., "Make the course easier so people will say, wow, these guys are good"? That is ridiculous! Sure, the PGA needs people to go to the tournaments and watch it on TV, but making the courses easier won't turn more people on. They watch Tiger because he wins everything, so we need to get some more competition out there but I don't know who's going to be able to match what he's done. Before him, most people only watched the Masters on TV and the rest of the tourneys were just a good excuse to take a nap. Definitely some highlights before him but he's the one who brought the game to the masses in the modern age. I LIKE SEEING HIGH SCORES. "Non golf fans don't care about conditions, they care about scores." My friend, if they're not golf fans then they won't be watching anyways! It's about who's in contention and the drama on the last 9 holes. That's what they play for and that's what I watch for.
Posted by: Westy | Aug 12, 2008 12:16:34 PM
I was wrong about who posted that comment, it's actually by "You"... as in you suck. HA! Just having some fun!!
Posted by: fawltyoldboy | Aug 12, 2008 12:48:16 PM
I have been somewhat surprised by the comments that have decried the conditions that last 2 majors were played in. Last time I looked, Golf is played outdoors, not in a biosphere. The professionals are supposed to be the best in the world at this game and should be able to handle the elements. Golf was begun in a country where the weather always played a key role. That is why performances like Harrington's Open victory should be acclaimed. Between this site and numerous others, there seems to be an effort to diminish the winners because of Tiger's absence. This stinks of nothing more than sour grapes. David Phillips hit it right on the head - Harrington is prepared to work as hard as it takes to keep improving. Nick Faldo commented during Sunday's final round about the 'look' on Padraig's face - he had the look that Nicklaus and Woods had when they smelled blood!
Posted by: youngengolfer | Aug 12, 2008 1:46:25 PM
I don't think Padraig has always had this tenacity. He said in a GOLF Magazine interview that he used to play with fear, and that he would make excuses for him to lose on Saturday's when he was in contension or even leading. I think Padraig has always had the game, but he lacked self-confidence before his first major. Winning his second British in a row proved to him that the first one wasn't a fluke.
Posted by: Mike Tee | Aug 12, 2008 3:26:14 PM
Shorter hitters do not suffer the rough more often. The shorter hitters are the more accurate ones. Fred Funk, for example.
Ooh, it's too hard to play!
If you want to whine like that, move to France.
Posted by: Phil Mickelson | Aug 13, 2008 10:13:41 AM
I personally believe that shortening the rough is a good idea.
Posted by: John Riggins | Aug 13, 2008 10:20:48 AM
Westy, You was basically just thinking of alternatives to draw more viewers into watching golf while Tiger isn't around. We know, it's a major hit without the number one guy around, especially with what he can do. That's not to discredit Harrington for winning two in a row, but most people in America who don't follow golf would be asking the same question: "Who on earth is Padraig Harrington?" If you ask anyone to name professional golfers they know, Phil and Tiger would probably be the two names (and possibly the only two names) that come up, and that's really just America. Sure, people around the world know Paddy, and he's a great guy, and a proven champion, but You was trying to think of a fresh idea for viewers. Sure, it's not the best idea in the world, but when you look at the caliber of professionals out there, national and international alike,and their reactions to the course conditions, maybe there's room for scaling things back.
Posted by: YUK | Aug 13, 2008 10:27:53 AM
quote: "The course is 7,500 yards long, the greens are firm, and the pins are tucked away," Westwood said of Oakland Hills (official yardage: 7,395). "They are sucking the fun out of the major championships when you set it up like that. The fairways are narrow, and unfortunately if you miss the semi [rough] by a foot you are worse off than if you miss by 20 yards. I asked my partners [Geoff Ogilvy and Zach Johnson] if I was out of order, and they said 'No, if you are slightly off-line, you are crucified.' It is too thick around the greens as well. It takes the skill away from chipping." -Lee Westwood
Posted by: chawnkymawnky | Aug 13, 2008 10:31:53 AM
I LIKE SEEING HIGH SCORES. Of course, that's all he sees on his own scorecard.
Posted by: Gib | Aug 13, 2008 11:32:45 AM
Not to take away from the discussion at hand but I must point out Padraig's putting. The thing that won Padraig that tournament was his putting(slash his short game but his putting is really where it's at). Look at the shots Sergio was making throughout the last round and compare them to the shots Padraig was making. Night and day difference. Harvey Penick put more emphasis on chipping and putting than any other facet of the game. I love to see a guy go out there and show everyone that what Harvey said is true, "A good putter is a match for anyone. A bad putter is a match for no one."