or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by stephenf

 Ah, so I see you don't understand the meaning of "not hostile, just direct," so you just do that internet-commenter thing where you accuse the other person of being out of control, sort of ("foam or spittle"). If you have no substantive response, what is the point of your effort to control how and when somebody else posts?  And if you don't think it's possible to answer the question, what's your interest in reading the posts at all?
Thanks to both of you, very much.  Much appreciated.
Like you, maybe? If you have any substantive response whatsoever, feel free to post it.  Otherwise, I'm going to post responses as and when I see the need for it, and you're not going to control that.  I mean this not as hostile in the least, just direct.
 Looking back at your argument once again, it's even weaker than I thought.  Where is your "I'm just making this up" rationale coming from, anyway?  You're committing the logical fallacy of "begging the question" (a term almost universally misused now), or petitio principii -- essentially just restating a premise as if it were a proven conclusion. Let me try to simplify this:  There is a limited number of players on the PGA Tour, and a limited number of players in the...
Re Jack's second-place finishes, what is the evidence that the field is "stronger" today in the sense of having so many more people who actually threaten to win majors? My own somewhat educated and pretty well-researched belief is that you might see some minor reduction, but not as much as nearly everybody thinks.  Sheer numbers might result in the occasional freak result -- they usually in this game, given enough opportunity -- but by and large, it's not going to matter...
Also also:  Just because you haven't heard the proof doesn't mean there are no "people" who have proved it.
Incidentally, speaking of Merion, you may know that four previous U.S. Opens were played there, before Justin Rose won it this year with a one-over total.  One of those could be said to be in Nicklaus's prime -- the 1971 Open, where he and Trevino tied for the 72-hole lead at even par, with Trevino posting a 69 to catch Jack, who -- after a double-bogey at #5 to drop him to even par -- reeled off 13 straight pars to get into the playoff. Among the top six pro finishers in...
Yeah, because Phil and the other top pros of today are just so much better than Palmer, Player, Casper, Trevino, Miller (at his best), Watson, et al.  Right?
  What a glurge.  "A" for effort, certainly, but the logic...man. Let's work up from the bottom:    1.  "Far fewer people played golf at a high level in the 1960s and 1970s."  Even assuming that's true, so what?  You're simply restating the premise when you say "there are just so many of them [better players, that is], that alone raises the bar, undeniably."  So if you add an "undeniably," it makes the argument?  The very question at hand is whether "more good players"...
Shockingly, I didn't read all two-hundred-plus pages of the thread, no.  And I didn't have to, to know what Jack has said about the fields -- which anybody who has been around the game (as I have, as a lower-level playing pro, a teaching pro, and a sportswriter) knows is completely promotional.  Jack is just not the kind of guy who's going to tell you "Yeah, the top competition was way better when I played, so this thing you're seeing today is substandard product, nobody...
New Posts  All Forums: