or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by rb72

Actually, no the definition of "deeper fields" is not grouped closely together, but better from top to bottom as opposed to top heavy, as the writer is suggesting without actually proving. On your second point, you can replace the word talent with competitiveness and I think that is what we're talking about. Let me try to illustrate. In a case where you have three great players and for the sake of argument four "not great" players hitting there drives off of the first tee...
 The graphs only conclude that players today (or 1997-2008) are more closely grouped together. That in itself does not prove superiority of talent. He even mentions two factors that would, in fact skew those numbers in that direction, those being equipment forgiveness and course condition. I would add to that, if what I have suggested is true, a handfull of great players among the masses of good players would have a higher standard deviation than one great player among all...
 If you think I need tarot cards to predict that 75 golfers from 1997-2008 will not be playing at that level 25 years from now then you have proven that common sense IS the least common sense. Show me where his math and reason prove that players between 1962 and 1986 were better than players between 1997 and 2008. You'll read into his numbers whatever you want to. Numbers don't always tell the whole story. I guarentee their are more soccer players in the US than their are...
 Not so fast. the article points out several times how difficult it is to compare eras yet states as a given that the depth of field is greater now than it was then. I think this is purely subjective and not a given at all. First we’re not really talking about now. Most would agree that Tiger’s peak was in 2000. In 2000 Justin Rose was a 20 year old rookie, Adam Scott and Bubba Watson were amateurs, Dustin Johnson and Martin Kaymer were 16 years old, Keegan Bradley was 14...
 It's Stupples, actually. Yeah, I like her too (I also like Holly , but for different reasons). Stupples won the Ladies British Open in 2004 by starting her final round with eagle, double eagle on the first two holes.
 If you hit your first drive right down the middle 260 yds.and have a 8 iron to the hole, and you slice you second into the trees and have a 4 iron in after you bump out and duff your third drive so that you can't reach with anything less that a 3w, you DID NOT average an 8 iron in.
 Oh, I agree with everything you've said. My only point was that regardless of the reason your spending so much time looking for your ball it is a choice. Coincidentilly, and more on topic, a freind from work and I were paired up with a couple yesterday afternoon on a local 9 hole course. I could tell immediately by their swings that neither one of them was very good, but that's okay with me, neither are the guys I play with at work and I'm no pro myself (17HC). I didn't...
 That makes it sound like the high handicapper has no choice but to be slow. I disagree. I'm a 17 HC now and I can play in under 3 hrs easily when I'm by myself, but when I first started playing and was much worse, Ibought the cheapest balls I could find and when I hit one into the woods or somewhere that i couldn't immediately find it, I just dropped one and played on. It may get a little costly that way but i figured between me and the people behind me, who SHOULD pay...
I feel the same way as you on several of these issues but i'm not sure if you've answered my question. I'm not asking if you would do theses things but if you would be offended if someone else did them. For example, if we're at the teebox and its bordered by thick woods on two sides and I went about 10 feet deep behind the first tree and relieved myself, would that be cause for you to never want to play golf with me again? If it would, I would be surprised because I would...
 With Mr. iacas' permission I would like to repond to this. First of all I never said I do any of those things (I do some, I don't do some). As several posters indicated, I believe you are in the minority when you say you do and say nothing different in the company of men than in mixed company I think the very existance of the term "mixed company" is evidence of that. I don't profess to know what would or would not offend any given woman, but like most of us I have certain...
New Posts  All Forums: