Jim Flick On Tiger's Swing Changes: "I wonder if he gets bored"

John Strege recounts his interview with Jim Flick which may have been the last the legendary instructor gave before his death from pancreatic cancer last month. Just six days before he passed, Flick even called Strege back on his death bed, but it's some of the insights he passed along you'll want to check out.

I thought Mr. Flick's theory on Tiger's constant swing tinkering was spot on.

"I think Tiger feels like he needs to be motivated and I think he uses changes to do that. The truth is, in the year 2000, he [Tiger Woods] was probably the best player in the history of the game. I don't think we've ever had anybody whose concentration level is superior to Tiger's. I think he finds a way to get the maximum efficiency out of himself as a competitor. His short game is beyond belief. He had an incredible mind to find a solution for the challenge he was facing. He doesn't seem quite able to do that at the moment.

Comments

[golf drunk]

When Rory Mcillroy hangs up his spikes, he might have five majors. This would be a respectable career, certainly. Tiger needs that many to pass Jack. It just doesn't seem likely, which is sad, because Tiger at Pebble Beach 2000 was WAY better than Jack Nicklaus ever dreamed of.

[elf]

Tiger 2000, Tiger 2000 - excuse me while I scream. Tiger in 2000 was mind bogglingly good, it's true. But that doesn't mean it was repeatable - it was his career year. In truth, the whole Tiger 2000 swing is a myth, or not a myth but an incomplete statement. He used the same swing in 2001 and 2002 (and mostly 2003, just without Butch).

Which isn't to say Flick is wrong about why Tiger swing changes (I think it's probably a combination of factors), but 2000 wasn't going to be repeated no matter the swing. And as far as Tiger vs Jack, winning was a lot easier when Jack was playing - much smaller pool of competitors to beat.

Think it comes down to this who was better: Jordan or Russell? Russell has more career titles. but at his best nobody was more dominant than Jordan

[golf drunk]

Era argument are indeed futile. But Flick mentions the short game. I'm talking skills. For example, for a billion dollars, must hit the short grass, I'll take Trevino.

[Sun Mountain Man]

Jordan more dominant than Russell? That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time!

[18 beats 14]

In most relatively comparisons, Hogan's 1953 was as dominant, or more so, than Tiger's 2000. Just as many majors, but Hogan had a higher win rate and played injured.

But that said, Jack is still the greatest of the greats who ever played the game. One year does not define a player in terms of their overall greatness. 18 beats 14.

[KLG]

Then there is the fact that while the pool was smaller for Jack, there were more than a few shoals and dangerous currents that Tiger didn't have to consider. Maybe that is because Tiger was so good from 1997-2008. Maybe. But Jack finished second 4 times each to Watson and Trevino, twice to Palmer, and a few other times to Lema, Player, and the like. Not one of those guys curled up into the figurative fetal position when facing the Bear. Also, too, 20 also beats 17. I suppose that if I was a contemporary of Jenkins, I'd think the same about Hogan. Maybe ;-)