or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by ghalfaire

After reading a lot of the posts and especially the more recent ones,  one really does have to ask "does the entire PGA tour really matter or is it just the top players that have a realistic chance to win?".  
This is what I was talking about.  This would certainly indicate it is getting more difficult to win as the scoring deviation is getting tighter.  
I agree with this (above) and you're exactly correct.  What I don't know is the distribution of A, B, and C players significantly different today than in earlier eras?  How would one objectively "measure" that?  I agree what I did doesn't measure the field depth or as I called it competitiveness.  Because it is clear that today's tour scores are, on average, better than in the sixties.   Here is what I have been trying to say.  If we could plot the average score of each...
There have been more than one thread on this forum related to the competitiveness of the modern PGA tour Vs days of old.  I admit to my participation.  Like most I just argued without data which for an Engineer a cardinal sin.  So here is my first attempt to "measure" the competitiveness of the modern PGA with days of old.  These data were gathered from Wikipedia and limited to PGA events only.   In 1960 there were 45 PGA tournaments, 9 players accounted for a total 27...
@iacas    OK you're correct.  I got off of what I was trying to say in the first place which is you can't really compare golfers from different eras as to who is better and that I doubt the tour is "better" top to bottom than it was in earlier years.  In the former case, comparing golfers of different eras, we probably can't even agree on what measure(s) would apply to the individual performance(s) as earlier thread dealing with "who is the best golfer A or B" would...
OK let me try this with some different words about the dominate players would do in today's world.  I believe if Ben Hogan, Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, or several others I could list here were born on Rory's birthday with all the golf environment associated with that timing that they would be just a dominate as they were in their own era.  I don't know what is meant by today's tour is better than it was in the past. There are just too many variables to make such a...
I think I heard this argument in the Jack Vs. Tiger discussions in Tiger's early career.  I think it is a bogus argument that the quality of the field is better.  A lot of things are better but I doubt the competition is unless it is due to better equipment, better training methods and equipment, better course maintenance, and etc.  If that is the case then Rory has access to all of this that Tiger didn't have and so if he is as talented as Tiger we should expect him to...
I don't know much about your homeland but I look in the used club section at the local pro or golf shops and/or buy last year's model when they go on sale.  I would be very cautious about purchasing on line new clubs for what seems like a great unbelievable prices, they're probably counterfeit.  Good Luck.
I certainly thought so (the easiest and most clear no). The fact that there is any discussion at all about this question concerns me every time I walk onto the course.
This.  Rory may end up with a "better" career than Tiger but he has a ways to go yet.  So we will see.
New Posts  All Forums: