or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by brocks

Nothing mind boggling here and purely anecdotal:   What is it about the final hole in a round that often seems nearly perfect?  Just about everyone experiences that even during a horrifying round, it seems like everything comes together on the 18th.  Maybe because you are simply resigned, and thus more relaxed, not trying so hard to fix something, I don't know.............  Almost as deep as asking "What is your purpose in life?".   Like yesterday, long drive, down the...
Sorry if this is an old question, but I don't follow the LPGA much. I saw Ko interviewed on Golf Central today, and her cap was full of sponsor's patches and logos. How is that compatible with amateur status?
Yeah, he's probably faking, just like that fake injury when he WD from the Players a couple of years ago. You know, the fake injury that made him miss the next two majors.
You are absolutely correct. The number of recreational golfers in the world doesn't have much to do with the depth of fields in pro golf. What counts is the number of talented and serious golfers --- talented enough to be scratch players, and serious enough to want to compete in world class events. Hackers don't matter at all, and scratch players don't matter if they don't enter big time events.Fortunately, there is a number that easily measures the number of talented...
That's like asking why Tiger would eat imported Russian caviar when there was perfectly good Spam down at the 7-11. The answer is, because he's rich, and he can afford the best. Galea had a reputation among other athletes at being the best in the world at what he did, and so Tiger flew him in. Obviously, he wouldn't have done it if he had known he was involved with PEDs.Correct. And after all of that investigation, depositions under oath, and doubtless offers of...
I'm leaning the other way. Right now, I think it's Jack by a whisker, but if Jack never wins another major, I'd have to go with Tiger.
May I ask the people who think it's so important that Tiger says "most majors" is the standard, would they go along with him if he changed his mind, like Jack did? If he says he now thinks that "most wins with at least 64 of the world's top 100 players in the field" should be the standard, which would make the count something like 32 to 13 in Tiger's favor (adding Tiger's WGCs to his majors, and throwing out the majors Jack won before 1970, except his US Opens, which IMO...
Although I agree with your points in general, you have made some factual errors.Majors have been called "majors" for a very long time. For example, here's an article from 1930, which credits Bobby Jones with winning "the four major golf championships of the year, two in England and two in the United States," and goes on to say that his total number of major wins is 13. So it's clear that they are talking about the same events as people who discuss Jones's career...
Interesting stat. I especially like it because it sort of takes the strength of field into account. There are exceptions, but usually the strongest events have the highest payouts, so winning a big event will give you a higher percentage of the yearly possible total than winning a minor event. In particular, the British Opens of the 50's and 60's usually didn't pay as much as a regular PGA tour event, which IMO was an accurate reflection of its strength of field.I don't...
Depends what you mean by "major metric." Of course the British Open was a big deal 100 years ago, although it wasn't such a big deal 60 years ago, when it was so unusual for an American to enter it that the PGA didn't even bother to worry about whether its own championship conflicted with the date of the Open. It's kind of amazing that Snead and Hogan are given credit for a major win in the Open, when they each won it on a lark. Their great esteem for the Claret Jug can...
New Posts  All Forums: