The Tim Clark dilemma

By Matt Cooper Last updated: 27th January 2010

South Africa's Tim Clark has been a regular on the PGA Tour since the start of the 2002 season. He has finished in the top ten on 36 occasions, 16 of those being top five.

In that time he has also won four Open titles worldwide: two South Africans, one Australian and one Scottish. In doing so he has defeated some high class opposition.

He has won over $20 million in prize money and represented the International team on three occasions in the Presidents Cup.

So he's a successful golfer, right?

Well, that depends. If you also factor in that he is yet to win on the PGA Tour despite all that consistency - in fact he has finished runner-up on no less than eight occasions - you might join the chorus who, on Monday, as he played the final hole of the Bob Hope Classic, were shouting "choker!" in his direction.

On that final (par-five) hole the situation was simple: Matt Kuchar had finished on 29-under-par, Clark was in the middle of the fairway on the same score, behind him, on the tee, Bill Haas was also on 29-under.

A birdie would give him the lead and put the pressure on Haas.

Clark had 224 yards over water to the pin. He turned his back on the fairway wood and played short of water, prompting snorts of derision worldwide.

Internet forums were typical: "what is he doing? does he ever want to win? He's so gutless," was the gist of it.

Now I'm very guilty of taking a contrary view for the sake of it (although I do suspect that the minute there is a consensus it is worth considering if it is wrong) but I do seriously wonder if the obvious is quite so clear-cut.

Here is what Clark himself said about his decision:

"Yeah, there's a chance I could have gotten there, but (a) great shot still would have left me probably over the ridge with a tough 30-footer down the slope.

"My wedge game is my strength, so I knew laying it up I hopefully wouldn't have more than 10 feet. And I left myself a perfect 7/8-footer, not much to it.

"So at the end of the day, I think I did what I needed to, to give myself a best look at birdie there. I certainly didn't want to throw away the tournament.

"If I hit my three-wood there, it's probably going to come up short in the water. A great shot is probably going to either leave me a long two-putt or a chip from the back of the green, which I didn't want either.

"So I tried to play it the way I played the whole round and the whole week. I don't want to get ahead of myself and try and do anything silly."

Most have claimed that he should have just gone for the green. But Clark knew his week-long strategy was working - that was, after all, how he had got his score to -29 so he stuck to his guns. Why change his method in trying to get to -30?

The entertaining US blogger Shane Bacon (of Dogs That Chase Cars) didn't agree, writing a piece entitled: "Tim Clark Defends The Wimpiest Move Of All Time".

But Clark also said: "I think I had, like, 231 (yards) to the flag. Then again it's just a little bit of a downhill lie. And with an uphill lie, then it's probably a much easier shot with a 3-wood.

"But I don't hit the ball high enough to land it soft enough on that green to keep it on that bottom tier."

I've got two thoughts on this. 1, it further indicates Clark was staying calm enough to evaluate the situation and chose the best method of making birdie; 2, he was rationalising everything afterwards, talking up the difficulty to justify the lay up.

Who knows which is true? Could easily be either or a bit of both.

Bacon counters with a really good point: "the best wedge player in the world hits 20 shots from 90 yards and 20 putts from 30-feet ... which end up closer?"

On the other hand that kind of assumes that Clark would have executed a "great" 3-wood to 30-feet (which is what Clark said it would have been).

Anything worse than great was either short and flat into water, or through the green (and he had just watched Kuchar fail to get up and down from that situation).

Also consider Clark's stats.

This year (not a massive sample but a good indication of his form) he is, on average, hitting shots of 75-100 yards to four feet and 10 inches.

So having left himself 84 yards to the pin he would have been quite confident of getting the ball close (albeit nearer than the eight feet he did leave).

Admittedly it is not quite the same, but David Toms knows all about executing a strategy that could be easily mocked. He won the 2001 PGA Championship by laying up on the final hole - and that was a par-four!

Ok, it was a 490-yard par four, but Toms gave it some thought and worked out the best way he could make four from where his tee-shot landed.

The difference between Toms and Clark was that Toms holed his eight-footer and Clark didn't.

And that, if you ask me, is the key - the putting.

Read more of Clark's interview and you realise just how lacking in confidence he was, not just of a clutch putt at the end of an event, but of his flat-stick form all week.

"I just never felt great with the putter. I just never stood over one thinking I'm going to make it. So it's tough to play like that all day pretty much. The good thing is I still drove the ball good, hit a lot of good chip shots, which enabled me to shoot 7-under.

"I made a bunch of birdies (all week so) you would think I putted my eyeballs out, but I missed a lot of short ones. I had a 4-putt on the first day, first round on a par-5 for a double."

Basically he had used tactical golf to paper over the cracks (of his putting) all tournament and when it really mattered he stuck to the policy.

Would it not have smacked of panic to change at the very last minute?

I'm not trying to say Clark doesn't have a problem, I just don't think his decision-making is necessarily that problem.

I could be wrong: it might well be that he chickened out, but he might equally have been remaining icily cool under severe pressure. Without access to Clark's brain at the vital moment, it is all speculation.

What is clear-cut is that he has a problem on the greens - missing eight-footers when it matters has become a habit.

We saw him do it at the Colonial last May and he has done it again this year.

Clark is a short hitter who has never ranked inside the top 150 for Driving Distance. His strategic golf is getting him into winning positions not spurning them. His putting is doing that.