Tweet
I watched the ESPN 30 For 30 on Greg Norman last night. I thought it was ok, and enjoyed it, although I thought the filmmaker and a fair number of the talking heads were pretty harsh on Norman. The guy was a terrific golfer for a long period of time. Undoubtedly he is known for some of his great losses, but still. In my opinion, the two people who came out looking the best in the show were Norman and Jack Nicklaus.
The show did have a really interesting moment, and sort of an unfair moment, near the end.
The talking heads were talking about the idea that Norman was "snakebit" in some of these major tournaments, versus the idea that he was simply a choker. A couple of them made the point that while Bob Tway did beat Norman in the PGA by making a miracle shot out of the bunker on the last hole, and Larry Mize won the Master's playoff by making a miracle chip shot on the second playoff hole, in both instances Norman found himself in that position because he had played very poorly down the stretch.
The talking heads then asked the question, was Norman really snakebit, or did he simply play himself into a position to allow those things to happen to him. The clear suggestion was, if he wasn't such a choker, Tway doesn't have a chance to win with his chip in, and there is no playoff in the Masters.
The filmmaker then goes to Norman and asks this question: "There are two schools of thought. One is that you were snakebit in these tournaments, and the second is that you played yourself into a position to have these bad things happen to you. Do you agree with either?"
Norman picked the latter, but it was clear from his answer that he interpreted the latter school of thought as something like, "Norman was such a good player, for so long, that he put himself into multiple positions where he could be beat out for a major championship by miracle shots."
As a viewer you just wanted to say, "ah Greg, that's not really what they were saying."
All and all, though, an interesting watch, especially if you like golf and are old enough to remember any of the events.
The show did have a really interesting moment, and sort of an unfair moment, near the end.
The talking heads were talking about the idea that Norman was "snakebit" in some of these major tournaments, versus the idea that he was simply a choker. A couple of them made the point that while Bob Tway did beat Norman in the PGA by making a miracle shot out of the bunker on the last hole, and Larry Mize won the Master's playoff by making a miracle chip shot on the second playoff hole, in both instances Norman found himself in that position because he had played very poorly down the stretch.
The talking heads then asked the question, was Norman really snakebit, or did he simply play himself into a position to allow those things to happen to him. The clear suggestion was, if he wasn't such a choker, Tway doesn't have a chance to win with his chip in, and there is no playoff in the Masters.
The filmmaker then goes to Norman and asks this question: "There are two schools of thought. One is that you were snakebit in these tournaments, and the second is that you played yourself into a position to have these bad things happen to you. Do you agree with either?"
Norman picked the latter, but it was clear from his answer that he interpreted the latter school of thought as something like, "Norman was such a good player, for so long, that he put himself into multiple positions where he could be beat out for a major championship by miracle shots."
As a viewer you just wanted to say, "ah Greg, that's not really what they were saying."
All and all, though, an interesting watch, especially if you like golf and are old enough to remember any of the events.
Comment