or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by turtleback

Really?  Who was the great player of the era between Tiger and Jack?  For me there weren't any.  There were a lot of very very good players, but Faldo and Price were the closest.  Norman could have been but while majors are not the only things they still count for quite a bit and his major record never lived up to his record in non-majors.
 It is sports.  Talking about who is better than who is what we do, even though it is unprovable.  But just because something cannot be proven* doesn't mean we cannot talk about it.  Very little in this world outside of the narrow worlds of symbolic logic and mathematics is actually provable.  But for the vast body of things which are not provable w can still collect and analyze information and make inferences, which are not proofs, but are evidence. Debates about...
OK. so for like 200+ pages of the Tiger/Jack thread I argue for a holistic comprehensive comparison of the careers of people we are comparing.  I refuse to use majors only.  And now because I also refuse to use strength of field only, which is absolutely consistent with the position I have taken here and defended for a long long time, all of a sudden YOU decide that I am inconsistent.  YOU, on the other hand, are clearly just acting like a gadfly arguing any position for...
Number of majors is important but not determinative, IMO.  And it is the same with strength of field.  You are just elevating strength of field to the one and only criteria, which I disagree with, the same as I disagree with elevating number of majors to be the one and only factor.  So agree or disagree with me I am being consistent in looking at the whole career including degree of dominance which I consider very important.  And since it is very unlikely at this stage of...
Thanks Erik, that is what I was looking for.  So in the instant case I imagine the pro at Dick's is OK, particularly since the solicitation wasn't made directly by him but rather by a fellow employee.
 Yes.  I concede this point.    But nothing else.   IMO it is far more important to know what the rule is before you start wondering why it is what it is (recognizing that some might disagree with that view).  And confusing the former in an attempt to get the latter is likely to be more confusing than anything else for someone who does not know the rules well.
Stevie is playing?
 Actually it does not because the nature of the questions are completely different.  If you think the question of what the effect of modern equipment and the strength of fields is anything like the question of what the criteria should be for GOAT than there is not much more to say.  Except that Tiger really had no choice given the fact that it has been over 40 years since Jack convinced the golf world that majors are all that counts for GOAT. If anything you should give...
This is a tough one for me.  Unlike the case of Tiger and Jack, there is more going for Arnie than just 7>5.  To me the biggest difference is that for a period of several years Arnie was rightfully regarded as the best player in the game whereas at no point in his career has Phil been widely considered as the best player in the game for even a single season.   Arnie has 2 POY awards, Phil has none.   Arnie has 4 Vardons, Phil has none.   Just as it is facile to use...
If I might ask another question, do you know anything abut how they do the course rating and slope computations for the course?  Have they come up with their own methodology or do they use the USGA process?  It seems to me that even if the algorithm for computing the handicap were to be the same, if the CR and slopes are determined using a different process than the USGA process there would still be the potential for a systematic difference in the handicaps.
New Posts  All Forums: