golfrewind.com

Womens Update:

Christie Kerr won from 8 shots back at the Canadian Womens Open:

She shot 65 in round 4, which was a -7 round.
She started the day 8 shots back, and posted an early clubhouse lead, quite impressive, but still behind the leader at that point.

Angela Stanford, the leader from round 1 to round 3, was still in the lead with 2 holes to play.
However she shot bogey bogey to hand the title to Kerr.

All credit to Kerr for posting a good round, but the tournament once again showed how often the myth of "knowing how to win" proves wrong. All Kerr did was post a clubhouse lead, and then her success depended on another golfer.
The other golfer didn't perform and so Kerr won the title.

Does that mean Kerr closed the deal?
Yet if Stanford had posted 2 decent pars on a relatively easy course, would that have meant Kerr failed to close the deal?
In either scenario Kerr did the same thing, just posted a good score, and relied on another player.

Another perfect example of the too much falsely used "knowing how to win" term, in golf.
Of course there are examples of proven winners like Tiger who win and win again in different situations. However many golf tournaments are won and lost, not on knowing how to win, but on how opponents happen to perform.

In Other News:
Annika and Lorena Ochoa had a showdown at The Scandanavian Open with both players playing magnificantly.
Annika opened equalling the course record with 66.
Lorena broke the course record in round 2 with 65 to join Annika in the lead.
They both shot 69 to still share the lead after round 3.
In round 4, Annika equalled the course record with 65, and Lorena posted a very good 66 of her own.
Terrific stuff from the number 1 and 2 ranked players.

Another Winner and Great Golfer shot down by the infamous rodney_c...........

The true test is how they play the course. Christie conquered it. She won. There's always a story, but, in the end, it's golfer against golf course.

Bottom line - whoever plays the best wins. Cristie played the best.

Enlighten us. What exactly is this "knowing how to win" myth?

And who cares about closing the deal - a win is a win. 1 trophy per tournament, given along with 1 oversized to 1 winner.

I want to add to this. One golfer said that par is the playing field for that course. If you break par, then you've beaten that course.

The "knowing how to win" myth, is where winning is discussed as some sort of a block that someone has to get over in order to win the tournament.
That can be true of many tournaments.

However when it comes close like that and Cristie just posts a good score that is 1 shot off the lead, then what has Cristie proved?
She has proved that she can post a good score, and that is it. (discussion in relation to that one tournament only, I'm well aware she has more wins).

9 times out of 10, the winner may make par or better. Does that suddenly make Cristie's performances, a lesser performance? No it doesn't.

Cristie played well and won a tournament. However, it doesn't mean that she is any mentally stronger or indeed better at winning, just because the leader messed up the event.

Note: comments are not against Cristie, but are merely against the learning to win debate, and claims that have been made that anyone who wins a golf tournament, suddenly knows how to win.

Christie has won many times on tour, 6 victories before this, including two last year. She played a brilliant final round, and while it wasn't enough by itself to win the event, it was enough to put the pressure of a number to a leader who had only won once back in 2003.

Maybe learning how to win, or remembering how to win in this case, is important...

IF you are going to use Christie to beat the myth, you have actually used Angela to support the myth.

Thanks for your help Rodney.

'Learning how to win', in my book, is what Angela Stanford would have done had she parred the last 2 holes. She didn't, and lost out. It doesn't matter what Kerr did earlier on, the number was posted and that's that

Although it was just a clubhouse lead as you call it, a player who is in contention will know about what score they need to have a chance, and will possibly push on some holes that they would otherwise settle for par...winning is winning, and unfortunately in stroke play usually players don't go head to head for the championship...

Yes she does know how to win.
She knows the method of posting a good score, and if she is lucky enough, the leader will falter. That's a method of winning, but certainly not a fullproof method, and depends on her opponents to do her favours.
9 out of 10 players in that scenario will not pick up the win.
Do all of those other 9 players also know how to win since they put pressure on the leader, and did exactly the same thing as Cristie did? It's not their fault that the leader didn't crack in their cases.

Exactly, to have a chance. But in most tournaments someone will do that. However posting a score that is one behind the leader on an easy course doesn't usually get it done. It has an outside chance.

Lets use the case of:
- 10 players do exactly what Cristie did.
- They all post a clubhouse lead which is 1 shot behind the leader in different tournaments.
- In Cristie's case the leader falters with bogey bogey, and Cristie wins.
- In each of the other 9 cases, the leader goes par, par, and the player who posts the good score doesn't win.
- Okay in all other 9 cases, the player has done EXACTLY the same thing as Cristie did.
- So does that mean that all of them other players also know how to win?
Since their actions were identical to Cristie's actions, wouldn't it suggest that they do?

Two points:

1) I would bet Christie knew she had to post a good score that day to win; and

2) I don't agree with you're equating the fact that Kerr won because "the other golfer didn't perform". Homegirl threw up a 65 on Sunday.

If this was her only win, your argument would make more sense, ie "she's never won before, she just happened to throw up an unbelievable round and eeked out a win." That I could agree with in some sense.

But Christie has (by my count) 7 LPGA Tour wins. She definitely "knows how to win".

Change that to: "to have any chance of winning".
If she had a score in mind to try to win, my guess it would be better than 65, because she wouldn't have thought that the leader would shoot 74 in that round.

I stated that I was aware she had many wins, but was using this as a single case incident, as if she had not won before.