or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by jerryleal

i know..but given his issues with 'staying focused on each shot'..i would think that competitive playing would be the best prep for The US Open. I feel like I'm missing something. 
I'm an avid golfer. I love the game and love to watch it. I'm sure that there are more devoted fans than myself in the Sand Trap group, but it would be hard to imagine that the average golf viewer is more dedicated than myself. I'm saying this because I have a confession. When Phil is playing I'm glued to every shot and when he isn't I tune in and out. I'd like to see him play more, and given how rusty he is I don't understand why he doesn't- unless he's hurt- and that...
"We"....the voice of sand trap?-funny.
and you're saying that they are better over and over doesn't make it so- it is your opinion. You want to call your opinion a fact? You can measure the time of a runner and prove that todays are faster, they're running the same tracks. Not so with golfers. The competitive edge that makes a winner rise above the competition is the piece that makes greatness-sinking the 25 foot putt-when it counts- and that doesn't happen in the middle of the pack. My heroes are my heroes...
That is exactly the part that you take as  fact and I am stating is an opinion that cannot be proven. I know that many people believe it , I know that many call it heresy that I call it an opinion. Of course you can argue that more players means more hurdles to pass, or more guys that might get a hot hand and shoot a 62. But if you took the top 20% of the players from every tournament --you see the same names 80% of the time. The vast majority of the time the winners are...
Of course there's closer grouping of scores-there's more players in a tournament-no one denies this. The point is that on any given tournament the winner isn't playing against the densely packed averages, he's playing Sunday afternoon, for the few holes that count against the two or three that have risen to the top. I'm saying that there's no way to quantify if those few have risen higher than days of old-I'm not denying there are more in the middle.Of course there are.
graphite was introduced in 1973-all I'm saying is that you can't point to small differences in scoring averages and say "THERE IT IS-PROOF THAT TODAY'S PLAYERS ARE BETTER!!!"- different era used different balls and different equipment making comparisons fun to talk about but impossible to quantify
 Tom Watson has my unequivocal support on this. I do wonder if Tiger takes this as motivation or as insult. After passing on the Players, would he rush to prove himself Ryder worthy or adopt a 'screw them if they don't want me attitude'? It's always been such a mystery to guess at what goes on in his mind. His place in history is assured, money isn't an issue, passing Sneed or even winning 100 seems like a lock, and chasing Jack's 18 has been put on hold for another...
NONSENSE!!!  The scoring data validates nothing since the courses are played with different balls and different clubs. What does Tiger shoot with ballata and hickory? It sure isn't a 62- and of course he hasn't spent a lifetime practicing with it-which is my point - the comparisons are flight of fancy that are fun- but to confuse them with physics or topics that can be proven is and remains NONSENSE!! 
there are none so blind as those who will not see......a 5 time winner from another generation-WHO WAS 59 years old at the time !!! and who beat all the top players except for one guy playing over his head. what does it mean to say-"he's experienced in that type of course"- a tough course on a windy day that tests every conceivable aspect of your game! You speak of strategy and experience-like they're minor things that don't really count. By the way, an 'outlier' is a...
New Posts  All Forums: