Ernie Els: Failure to Interpret Reality

We have just witnessed two of the most promising players to emerge in the 90’s suffer very differing fates at this weeks bay hill invitational. We are of course talking about The big Easy and tiger. Tiger looks to be able to win again, although how often is still a question mark at the moment, while Ernie is struggling with the yips and serious swing flaws. The sky analyst pointing out that his wrist angle when he sets the club is at major odds with the position he reaches at the top of his swing. Thus meaning his downswing is now an ugly looking thing where he tries to recover whereas it was a thing of beauty in years gone by. But was it effective?

Ernie is of course a little older than tiger so it is hardly a fair comparison but if we wind the clock back ten years we get to the last time Ernie won a major (aged 32). He had ten PGA tour wins (including 3 majors) up to his 2002 open triumph and has won 8 more since then (no majors). Another stat shows he had 17 major top tens up to 2002 and 14 since then.

As I have said many times on 606v2 Ernie has underperformed in the last ten years and should have added to his major total.

I propose that his failure during this period is down to not evolving his swing over the years, and the small matter of tiger breacking him mentally. He did change swing coach in 2008 from Leadbetter to Harmon but by this stage it was 6 years without a major and he was 38. If we look at his GIR stats below it seems Harmon was able to make some improvements during this period.

2000 83
2001 99
2002 135
2003 28
2004 83
2005 N/a
2006 143
2007 98
2008 178
2009 64
2010 75
2011 7
2012 29

It would be easy to fall into the trap of thinking his swing looked good so therefore was good, and further conclude that no change was needed. Sadly reality does not back this up. He sat idly for six years with terrible GIR stats (poor accuracy) and did nothing. This is the key, Tiger and other players such as Faldo had the courage to improve while on top and the results were extremely successful. Jack Nicklaus also made some pretty big changes from 1962 through to the mid 70’s. He moved away from his free flowing lateral movement swing to a more solid base. He realised the swing of his youth was not the one that would win him the majors he craved.

If we look at Ernie’s swing from 1994 through to now we see very little change other than what the effects of aging have imposed on him. It seems he was fooled by the beauty of his own swing rather than really looking into the results of his swing.

Sadly for him it meant he lost a decade of his career when he could have racked up a few more majors.

I wonder how focused ernie has been over the past number of years. I think being second to Tiger for so many majors also left a psychological scar that never healed.

Very interesting article Mac.

He is obviously a very devoted family man and I wonder whether the time he has had to spend giving his autistic son the best care and support in life has had a bearing on his golf. I think he also done a lot of charitable work for autistic charities.

Maybe now he has got his son settled he will start playing some decent golf again and challenging for titles.

Hmmm. Interesting thesis but not sure your Els analysis really stacks up that well. There've been many more who've ruined their game by trying to make 'improvements' so I'm not sure how this is relevant. He's also clearly been right at the top for overall scoring average through much of his career so it's clearly more than just GIR that's important. I didn't hear many 'experts' saying he's being fooled by the beauty of his swing (and, actually, his swing's pants) when he was winning regularly but that's the case with the usual 20-20 hindsight??

As for the Sky 'expert', can I ask who it was?

I don't think you give any credence to what Humpyd mentions either and he seems a far more rounded person than TW ever will be. To TW, golf is the be-all and end-all; I'm not sure that's remotely the same for Els.

Interesting stuff Mac, but not sure it's helpful to take those stats at face value. There's a very significant injury in there also, as well as the problems described by Humpy, and we don't really know how long they affected him.

He had two big wins in 2010, plus should have won McDowell's US Open, but did little last year when his gir looked so impressive.

I'd agree he's doubtless disappointed that he hasn't won more Majors and, until he improves his final round putting, he won't win any mote. Sadly.

I went to a Peter Allis book signing event in Aberdeen about 4 years ago. At the time Ernie Els was in a slump. A member of the audience asked Allis if he thought Ernie would make a come back.

Allis thought not listing age, motivation, dedication and his son's disability - similar list to previous posts.

However, Ernie did find his game for a season or so and this year he seems to be close to finding it again. I for one hope he does as great to see that slow swing at work.

biltongbek wrote:I wonder how focused ernie has been over the past number of years. I think being second to Tiger for so many majors also left a psychological scar that never healed.

i dont think so lol. there is an argument that many feel the 'tiger factor', but its not just ernie at all!!

good player in his heyday and won some tournies, not sure what else to say really. The guy is playing ok but past his peak- pretty typical of aging star golfers

however mac- I think we could but poddy in the catergory that really shouldnt have tinkered with his swing- the guy wins 3 majors and then tries to get better! and yes his swing is technically better- however he is a shadow of his former self!!

Faldo changed his swing before he started winning majors.

Tiger is a different league golfer and had to change his swing due to injuries. However it isnt going to make him a better player, just a neccesity for him. However tiger at 80% is still good enough to compete in the biggies

I don't think Poddy has been the same since Transitions took over the sponsorship of the Innisbrook event.

It meant the chance of Pod winning the PODS had disappeared.

i will add - i think the reason ernie didnt win more majors is simple as the fact that tiger dilluted the chances the field had of winning them! the same could be said for many golfers.

Ernie was a better talent than poddy (also on 3 majors) but is he better than norman(2 majors-- ermmm- not sure)

the fact is though all 3 will go down in the history books with 2 or 3 majors.

why?- ernie was born at an unlucky time perhaps, norman was a bottler, poddy had a crazy couple of years when not only was he on it and had the mental strengh to win big ones(like someone like faldo but for a shorter period of time) but also very lucky to peak at the time when tiger was not only out of the game but had seeminly zapped confidence from the other top golfers out there!!

I've also heard from several different sources that the big fella was rather fond of getting bladdered more than just occasionally. Dont know how much truth is actually in it or if indeed he still partakes. Bet he felt like drowning his sorrows last night!!

I wonder if Els improved his putting by 50% what could he achieve now?

Did Els spend too much time travelling and playing too many events around the world. It was great he wanted to be this global golfer but it must have been tiring. Woods gets slated for the paucity of his schedule but at the end of the day the results showed it worked for him being a tad selfish.
In my mind he is just past it now, Im sure his talent will glimmer every now and again but that will be it. Even in the sedate sport of golf they only go on so long and Ernoe has been around at the top of the tree for a very long time.

JAS wrote:I've also heard from several different sources that the big fella was rather fond of getting bladdered more than just occasionally. Dont know how much truth is actually in it or if indeed he still partakes. Bet he felt like drowning his sorrows last night!!

Well, doesn't he have his own vineyards and wine label(s)? Just saying....

Navy

you really dont think an improvement in his GIR would help lower his score? So what if he had ok averge scoring stats and low GIR, might as well not bother trying to get better.

OR not, and here is the point. His GIR stats are bad and if he were more inclined to improve and as driven as someone like Faldo he would have improved his GIR and had even better average scoring. Given that GIR is linked to driving accuracy and iron play I would hardly ignore it, would you?

Maybe no experts claimed he was fooled by the beauty of his swing, but I have for a while and now it seems I was correct.

The main point however, is that a swing can only win majors for a short period of time, and to not change is to give up on winning a major.

I think that most generations produce a game changing player who by being so far ahead forces all his peers to up their games. This generation it has obviously been Tiger and has introduced fitness and strength to the mix. (Think of super fit Schumacher in F1 and look at the drivers now compared to the Mansells from when he started.)

I think it is pretty safe to say that pre-Tiger you could get further with just talent but now it seems that the time and effort required to get to the top has increased so unless you really put the time in then you will drop away pretty quickly.

I think this is where Ernie is/has been. Really seemed to stem from his knee injury and maybe this meant that he took a review of his life and priorities.

I get the feeling that this year he has really reapplied himself and assuming that he doesn't get too disheartened and carries on the effort he will get back into the top 50 and start winning again. I guess the trouble is that he will have to really work harder as his age starts to catch up.

Look at Monty a few years back, he was extremely successful, dropped like a stone then really worked to get back then appears to have decided that it was too much and dropped back. Or you could just compare his waistband to world ranking ratio!

what do you mean with the mansel schuy comment?

mansel was a quality driver and held his own amongst senna- in all fairness I couldnt even say that schuy was exeptional- just that his car was and that he was a stone cold no.1 driver- very good yes- but a tiger woods!!! never

Maybe federer or messi are better examples

I'd say that Federer has had a far better career than Woods because it relies on talent amd a level of fitness that no golfer could ever hope to get close too.
All that in a high impact sport without incurring the laughable injuries that Woods has had make him a far more impressive sportsman, even if he is a smug git with an ugly wife.

Federer get's a pretty simple seeded draw and only really has to beat two or three top players to win events compared to up to 150 on a level playing field that Tiger has to beat. Impossible to compare.

Woods doesn't have to beat people. They have to beat the course. They can't directly impact someone else's game. I don't think Woods supposed fitness had anything to do with it either, he was simply more talented, he could have looked like cabrera and still won. Ironically, its his over the top physique which is probably going to cost him a prolonged career and a realistic tilt at jacks record.

monty junior wrote:Federer get's a pretty simple seeded draw and only really has to beat two or three top players to win events compared to up to 150 on a level playing field that Tiger has to beat. Impossible to compare.

what the heck are you on about monty. fed was a dominant no1 so was woods- very easy to compare.

Tiger's fitness will likely keep him competitive for years to come - his swing changes with Foley paying off big time. Will he challenge Jack's professional major record? He still has a shot, but different era -- much better competition these days, IMO.

Not sure Els has the drive anymore. Sure, he has the desire to win, but with all his success thus far and his family demands, does working on his game take absolute priority? A wonderful family (or so I observe), a home at Wentworth, and access to all those heathland greats, I'm not sure I would want to make the necessary sacrifices to ratchet it up a notch. A stellar career, no matter how you look at it.

mystiroakey wrote:what do you mean with the mansel schuy comment?

mansel was a quality driver and held his own amongst senna- in all fairness I couldnt even say that schuy was exeptional- just that his car was and that he was a stone cold no.1 driver- very good yes- but a tiger woods!!! never

Maybe federer or messi are better examples

What I mean by the Mansell comment is look at how fit he was compared to today's drivers. At the end of a race he was totally knackered but Schumi and Senna changed the game by being exceptional athletes that allowed them to perform at the peak. The other drivers realised that to try and compete they had to step up. Look at the drivers now - come the end of the race they jump around. Mansell looked like he needed to be put on a drip.

Not denying that he was a quality driver, just the game moves on.

Woods' gym workouts and conditioning made others follow to try and catch up but he wasn't the first. Like him or loathe him Gary Player was able to play and compete for decades and there is no doubt his dedication to maintaining a very high level of fitness & flexibility helped.

Had Monty the same kind of dedication for laying off the pies and working out, he'd probably still be competing.

Jack was and probably will be the last player that dominated golf over a long period that didn't spend a significant amount of time working on conditioning (well I assume he didn't, certainly not in the same way that todays top players do)

Some people are so naturally talented (and I would put Els in that bracket) that they can get to the upper echelons of the game without all the gym work. If however they want to compete and win regularly and keep doing so, they need to keep searching for that extra edge.

I was once told that at the start of a tournament a few people could keep up with and surpass Tiger distance wise but....on the back 9 on a Sunday he was still hitting his 3 wood and Driver the same distance as on the front 9 on Thursday whereas others would lose quite a few yards through simple fatigue (ergo failing to clear trouble or leaving a longer club in or making poor mental decisions etc etc)

twoeightnine wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:what do you mean with the mansel schuy comment?

mansel was a quality driver and held his own amongst senna- in all fairness I couldnt even say that schuy was exeptional- just that his car was and that he was a stone cold no.1 driver- very good yes- but a tiger woods!!! never

Maybe federer or messi are better examples

What I mean by the Mansell comment is look at how fit he was compared to today's drivers. At the end of a race he was totally knackered but Schumi and Senna changed the game by being exceptional athletes that allowed them to perform at the peak. The other drivers realised that to try and compete they had to step up. Look at the drivers now - come the end of the race they jump around. Mansell looked like he needed to be put on a drip.

Not denying that he was a quality driver, just the game moves on.

Have you seen the doc senna- he really wasnt an exeptional athlete at all- he would scream at people to not touch him after races because he was in so much pain. senna was not fitter than mansell!

I do agree that drivers have got fitter with time(same with golfers)- sports evolve - and it becomes survival of the fittest, even in less than physical sports!!- but you also have to understand the demands of the cars back then as well- year on year droivers may get fitter- however year on year cars do more work for the drivers as well!! so deffo abot of both