or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by RH31

OK. I assume we're talking about strength of field in the majors? What evidence has been posted in this thread that states or measures the strength of fieldin both eras?  It's just being assumed that since there are more "better" players now than there were then, so that must be why it's harder to win multiple majors?Getting back to the depth of the field. I grant that an overall deeper field makes it harder to make the cut, or make the top 10 or whatever. I don't agree it...
No. Scenario A. I need to proof read...
No. I didn't say he said that only to avoid being called a " bitter old man", I said he'd be labeled that way if he did. You do understand that Nicklaus, Palmer etc.,have a financial interest in today's game. They have more to lose and nothing to gain by comparing their era as being better. Again, I'm not saying money or negative media attention is the only reason, just that those things could be factors.  I'm not missing the point at all. I just believe that the smaller...
 I didn't read the other thread or Jack's book. What would Jack, or any other old timer, have to gain by saying it was harder or a greater achievement to win in their day? They would get lambasted as just another bitter old man. It's in all their best interest to say the game today is better, harder, more competitive etc.  I have no idea how well Trevino would do. Maybe he would benefit from better equipment, video, course conditions. How well would Mickelson do if his...
I'm not tired of it. I wish the "pace of play" issue was talked about more. I'd like to see more emphasis on educating players about how to speed up. I'd really like to see players on the tour held accountable.   I agree with what you say about tee times and course setup. A local links style course is always setup too hard, especially from the tee. It's a great layout, just too difficult. Players spend a lot of time looking for balls in the heather.
  No. I picked option 1 because I think Jack’s major wins were more impressive than Tiger’s. I think the overall field strength is stronger today than it was back then. I just don’t think the whole field matters that much. In any major tournament, X number miss the cut. How strong they were on paper didn’t matter. Jack or Tiger didn’t beat them, they played themselves out of the tournament in 2014 just like they did in 1966. Of the remaining players that make the cut, how...
I picked the first one and don't think it's really close......
I make a lot more putts on fast greens than I do on slow ones.   I once belonged to a club that had super slow greens all year until October. You literally had to slam 3+ footers or they weren't holding the line or getting there. It was awful!!!
I'd take them out for 9 holes(or less) on the least busy tee time I could find. I'd probably do this multiple times before attempting 18 holes. I surely wouldn't even bother with keeping score. I would make sure that they learned about keeping up the pace and all other aspects of golf etiquette right from the start.
I used to keep track of GIR when I played all the time. 16 was my top and that was probably one of the times I shot 70. I'd guess I used to average 11-12 on good rounds, 5-6 on poor rounds.   Nowadays, I probably average 8 GIR's. My top last year couldn't have been more than 11 or 12.
New Posts  All Forums: