Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

Was this the Yip Heard ‘Round the World? Or not a yip at all…

Published

on

The other day while doing research on an article about “the yips,” I happened to watch the replay of the 1970 Open Championship at St. Andrews with Henry Longhurst calling the play-by-play.

This was the tournament in which Doug Sanders missed a short putt on the final hole to win the championship. In his defense, the putt was a downhill left-to-right slider, the most challenging putt for a right-handed player.

David Pelz, NASA scientist turned putting guru, refers to these sidewinders as “facing putts,” meaning that when the player sets up to the ball, they can see the hole in their periapical vision. This is opposed to right-to-left putts, in which the hole is essentially blocked from view by the player’s body.

The tendency with a “facing putt” is for the player to direct the ball at the hole, rather than on a line above the cup, causing the ball to finish on the low side. What happened as Doug Sanders stood over the ball? We’ll come back to that moment shortly. In the meantime, let’s see what events led up to that point.

The Road Hole

The tendency when examining a win or a loss is to focus only on what happened at the end of the contest, ignoring what led up to the penultimate moment. In this case, to put that final putt into its proper context, we need to go back to the 17th tee, which is where Sanders began to unwind.

Sanders and Trevino were playing together in the final group. Trevino had started the day at 8-under par, but he had slipped down the leaderboard to 2-under by the time they’d reached the 17th hole. Sanders was first to play off the 17th tee, but only after a bizarre series of events occurred. As Sanders stood over the ball with the hotel looming to his right, he turned his head back and forth, looking down his target line more than 20 times. Then, when it appeared that he was ready to pull his club away from the ball, he stepped away to wipe the grip of his driver with a towel.

Sanders then returned to the ball and the ritual began again, but this time the number of looks exceeded the first. And finally, when it appeared that he would never hit the ball, he began his swing, hitting the ball weakly down the right side of the fairway. Trevino played his tee shot down the left side, and with that, the two players started walking down the fairway.

Sander’s ball finished a good 20 yards behind Trevino, leaving him a considerable distance away from the green. After talking with his caddie, Sanders chose to play a fairway wood toward the right side of green. Sanders pulled it slightly to the left, and he and his caddie watched as his ball bounded into the left front bunker.

In 1970, the face of the Road Hole Bunker was not as steep as it is today, but it still represented a significant challenge to those who found themselves in it. The pin was tucked just behind the bunker, leaving Sanders only a few feet of green to work with. He dug his feet into the sand and then proceeded to play a brilliant shot, leaving the ball just a few inches away from the hole. He tapped in for a par, preserving his one-shot lead over Nicklaus.

Valley of Sin

On the 18th hole, the two men drove down the left side of the fairway. The pin was located just a few feet behind the “Valley of Sin.” Sanders walked from his ball all the way to the green, and then, taking a long look at the position of the pin, he walked back to his ball. Sanders was the first to play. His wedge shot landed well past the pin, stopping some 25 feet away. Trevino, who at this point nothing to gain or lose, played his wedge shot to roughly 15 feet behind the pin.

After Trevino had played, the two men walked up through the “Valley of Sin” together and made their way toward the back of the green. They each marked their ball and walked forward toward the hole to survey the area around it. The obvious challenge facing Sanders was that he needed to roll the ball to the hole, but at the same time, not run it too far by the cup.

For The Win

Sanders, looking first at the hole and then back again at the ball, proceed to take several glances back and forth before hitting his first putt. It stopped about 2.5 feet from the hole. The championship belonged to Sanders if he could negotiate the next putt. If he were to miss it, he would fall into a tie with Jack Nicklaus, who was already in the clubhouse waiting for him to finish. In the event that the two should tie, it would be broken by an 18-hole playoff the following day.

In preparation to hit what he hoped was his final putt of the tournament, Sanders placed his putter behind the ball. And then, as he had done before, he began to swivel eyes back and forth… to the ball, to the hole, to the ball, to the hole, to the ball, to the hole. And then, perhaps sensing that he had already spent more time than he should over the ball, he appeared to rush the putt once he’d settled over it.

The unthinkable happened.

Sanders missed the putt, letting it slide to the right below the hole. The following day, Nicklaus won the 18-hole playoff, ending Sander’s bid for his first and only major.

Did He Yip It?

And now to the point. Do you think Sanders yipped that final putt? The answer to that question would depend on how you define the yips, so let me help you. There are any number of people who say they have yipped a putt or that they have “the yips.” In fact, they are more likely suffering from poor mechanics that are exacerbated by performance anxiety.

“The True Yips,” as I define the condition, are only present when there is a visible muscular spasm in anticipation of striking the ball. And to the question as to whether Doug Sanders yipped the putt, I’d invite you to watch the replay on the internet. What you will observe as you watch him putt is that there is no visible spasm present at any point in his stroke.

Sanders just made the same mistake as any other golfer might who was playing with his friends on a Saturday morning; he didn’t start the ball on a line high enough above the cup when playing a left-to-right putt.

And so, for the record, Doug Sanders’ miss at the final hole of the 1970 British Open was not a “true yip,” but just a miscalculation of line and speed.

Rod Lidenberg is the author of a new book based on this experience treating students with The Yips. The book is entitled “The Yips: Dancing with the Devil, Rewiring Your System for Success.” The book will be released for publication sometime before the end of the year.

As a teacher, Rod Lidenberg reached the pinnacle of his career when he was named to GOLF Magazine's "Top 100" Teachers in America. The PGA Master Professional and three-time Minnesota PGA "Teacher of the Year" has over his forty-five year career, worked with a variety of players from beginners to tour professionals. He especially enjoys training elite junior players, many who have gone on to earn scholarships at top colleges around the country, in addition to winning several national amateur championships. Lidenberg maintains an active schedule teaching at Bluff Creek Golf Course Chanhassen, Minnesota, in the summer and The Golf Zone, Chaska, Minnesota, in the winter months. As a player, he competed in two USGA Public Links Championships; the first in Dallas, Texas, and the second in Phoenix, Arizona, where he finished among the top 40. He also entertained thousands of fans playing in a series of three exhibition matches beginning in 1972, at his home course, Edgewood G.C. in Fargo, North Dakota, where he played consecutive years with Doug Sanders, Lee Trevino and Laura Baugh. As an author, he has a number of books in various stages of development, the first of which will be published this fall entitled "I Knew Patty Berg." In Fall 2017, he will be launching a new Phoenix-based instruction business that will feature first-time-ever TREATMENT OF THE YIPS.

12 Comments

12 Comments

  1. David

    Dec 27, 2017 at 6:47 pm

    That is not a yip

  2. Stan

    Dec 27, 2017 at 3:04 pm

    Not the yips, a misread

    “But was it really a choke? Before Sanders took the putter back, the man who set the pin, Gerald Micklem, told those in the Members Room in the clubhouse that Sanders would miss it because he “won’t see the break because you can’t see the break”.
    Source
    http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/sports/old-st-andrews-article-1.878308

  3. peter

    Dec 27, 2017 at 1:17 am

    Yep, rushed the stroke and pushed it.

  4. Drbopperthp

    Dec 26, 2017 at 6:04 pm

    He choked, plain and simple.

  5. John K

    Dec 26, 2017 at 3:30 pm

    The instant the ball left his putter it appears he tried to guide it. Been there done that! I would call it uncertainty in his decision more then a yip!

  6. Michael

    Dec 26, 2017 at 2:12 pm

    See the guy quite often hitting balls at the range. He is the nicest dude in the world and talks to everyone about the game. I personally find it stupid to call this putt a choke when the hole before he hit one of the greatest bunker shots ever. Sure he might of screwed up moving whatever he saw in his line but it was one hell of an effort to get to that point. The fact is he should of played safer on his approach and played for par.

  7. Hugh

    Dec 26, 2017 at 1:43 pm

    Pretty sure you meant “peripheral vision,” not “periapical” unless he was lining up the putt with his teeth.

  8. Dan Retief

    Dec 26, 2017 at 1:11 pm

    I had always believed that Doug Sanders addressed that short putt then leant forward to sweep a pebble, or something, off his line and then went back into his stance and missed. I might even have read it in Sanders’ entertaining autobiography “Come Swing With Me.” The story went that when Ben Hogan, watching on TV in Texas, saw Sanders move to sweep the line he cried out, “step away!” Sanders didn’t and might have slightly altered his stance and alignment. However this is not shown in the clip you have attached. Did it happen? That little putt on the 18th at St Andrews to this day breaks to the right… wonder if poor old Doug at the last second thought he was lining up too far outside the left of the cup and, like the rest of us, self-corrected his stroke by slightly opening the putter face and pushing it to straight, thus it took the break and missed right. Agree that it was not a yip.

    • Frank Korfanta

      Jul 1, 2022 at 12:39 am

      Your assessment Dan is 100% correct! The author of this article fails to mention this critical error by Sanders. He didnt rush the putt or yip it, he failed to step off and re-align this challenging slippery left to rignt downhill putt. After he reached over brushed the pebble away or whatever it was he saw, he altered his stance just enough to change his original line. It never had a chance…sadly! Why he didnt step off and re-align the putt is the real mystery?

  9. John Grossi

    Dec 26, 2017 at 11:58 am

    Sorry, I cannot watch again that stroke.
    I truly believe he yipped that putt.

  10. Todd

    Dec 26, 2017 at 11:18 am

    Agreed, ball never started left of the hole like it needed.

  11. Pete O'Tube

    Dec 26, 2017 at 10:59 am

    Not quite a yip, but a shove with the right shoulder!

Leave a Reply

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Opinion & Analysis

The 2 primary challenges golf equipment companies face

Published

on

As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!

Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.

Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.

One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?

Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.

Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.

Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”

For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…

Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.

Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…

That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.

Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.

@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic

Continue Reading

Podcasts

Fore Love of Golf: Introducing a new club concept

Published

on

Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!

Continue Reading

Opinion & Analysis

On Scottie Scheffler wondering ‘What’s the point of winning?’

Published

on

Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by BBC SPORT (@bbcsport)

“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”

Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.

That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.

As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.

I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.

One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.

The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.

If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.

Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.

As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.

It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.

David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.

In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:

“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”

Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”

Eventually, though, something shifts.

We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.

Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.

Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.

Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.

So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.

I see someone evolving.

He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.

It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.

Continue Reading

WITB

Facebook

Trending