or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Golfingdad

You already know this, but there is no magic elixir to break any milestone number.  Obviously, practicing your swing (and putting and pitching) is a given to improve from any level to any other level, so I don't speak to that.  What I assume you mean when you ask questions like this is 'What other things, besides practicing and getting better, can you do to make the jump?" So my answer is probably exactly the same no matter what milestone you are talking about because...
Yeah, cuz when I opened mine, I saw that the street name was wrong, then noticed the outside of the box had a fedex sticker over the fedex sticker ... so it still got there but probably should have arrived Monday or Tuesday. Maybe @mvmac can check for you. I wore mine at the range today and will probably wear it a few more times before my reivew.
Agree.  Although, to clarify, I assume that what @Always an 80 means to say is not "ban from a post" but rather "restrict from a thread?" Regardless, what people don't seem to realize when they make these claims is that we all play by the same rules.  I know of several people who are long time members or "friends" with the Admins who've been restricted, or who've been penalty boxed, or who've been outright banned.
Avoid making dumb mistakes (strategy-wise), avoid hero recovery shots, take your medicine, and do your best to avoid "blow-up" holes.  You are perfectly capable of getting around a course with few (maybe even zero) holes worse than bogey. Keep the triples and worse off the card, the doubles to a minimum, and sprinkle in 5 or 6 pars, and there you go.
Is that not the very definition of "deeper fields?"  Remember that the field doesn't just mean "everybody else."  It includes Tiger now, and Jack then.  So, if the players of today are more closely grouped together, then doesn't it stand to reason that there are more people that could beat Tiger today than could beat Jack in his day? But talent has nothing to do with the conversation.  It's not possible to quantify.  The whole debate is based on circumstantial evidence of...
But that's the whole point with the article.  In this thread, many of us just say "there are more players now, and common sense tells us that means deeper fields."  But he didn't do that, he formed a hypothesis, then analyzed the data, and then came to a conclusion.  Here: The only assumptions he's making are that if you extrapolate backwards from 1970 to 1960, the trend will continue.  That's a pretty logical conclusion if you ask me.
Awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! P.S.  Jamo is going to be the next Bill Simmons.
If by "states as a given," you mean "spends 1000 words explaining in detail using advanced statistics and charts and graphs to make the case," then yes, I agree with you. And, just to clarify ... one of your counter-arguments is that the players of today aren't as good as the players of the past because you believe IN THE FUTURE they won't be able to do what Tom Watson's doing now??  You'll forgive me if I give more credit to the argument that makes a case with math and...
A couple of things here.  I don't believe that you're giving Erik nearly enough credit in regards to "owning it."  In your first post, you played the "go ahead, trash me" card, which is frustrating in itself, because that never happens, so why that card gets played so often, I have no idea.  And on top of that, instead of trashing you, not only did he respond by admitting that he could stand to be less blunt with people, he started a new thread that is basically a green...
  (I wish they also had a dancing banana that was facing into the computer showing you his ass) 
New Posts  All Forums: