Note: This thread is 5741 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!
-
Topics Being Discussed Right Now on The Sand Trap
-
- 7,105 replies
- 764,198 views
-
- 22 replies
- 11,424 views
-
- 21 replies
- 3,979 views
-
- 122 replies
- 16,813 views
-
- 6,822 replies
- 273,227 views
-
-
TST Partners
Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.
Coupon Codes (save 10-15%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. -
Popular Now
-
-
Posts
-
By saevel25 ·
It is easily seen in high school football. You have some kid from the middle of nowhere, and the kid doesn't get an offer from a big school. There might be 1000 better players down in Texas, California, Florida, Georgia, etc. I was listening to a podcast where they read an article about the 1974 PGA championship. The intro to the podcast, they played an advertisement from the era. They were advertising the best in the game going up against the Club Pro's. Like, they were using that a selling point. I am of the opinion that Jack probably would have had half as many majors if he played during Tiger's era. I would say he would have 10 majors. -
By ChetlovesMer ·
Here's something I heard. I'm not sure if its true. When Tiger first switched from Titleist to Nike Golf. For a year or two his equipment was actually inferior to the rest of the field. I remember when this happened there were a lot of talking heads saying it would take Nike at least 3 years to catch up to the rest of the manufacturers. I don't know if that's true or just an example of the Mandela Effect. -
By Ty_Webb ·
I think a lot of the argument here stems from the whole "Jack had more all-time greats around him". You can view that in one of two ways. The first way is to recognize that it's much harder to win lots of majors when there are lots more people capable of winning them, so it makes perfect sense that the number of multiple major winners has dropped as the game has grown. The second way is to ignore that and just assume that more majors means better regardless of field strength. I liken it to if you had two towns near each other. Both have one golf club. Each golf club has 4 big events a year and a bunch of smaller ones. Town A has 1000 people in it. 50 of them are golfers. One of them has won 18 of the big events and another 54 smaller ones over the past 20 years. One of them has won 9 big ones, one won 8 big ones and a few others won 7, 6, 5 etc. Town B has 100,000 people in it. 5,000 of them are golfers. You have to be of a certain standard to even play in the big events. One guy in this town has won 15 of the big events and 67 of the smaller ones. Beyond him, no one else has won more than 5 of the big events. Is the 18 winner in Town A better than the 15 winner in Town B? There's no way to be certain, but it's highly likely that the better player is in Town B (there is a 1%-ish chance that the best player is in the smaller town). Also, Jack finished 2nd more than he finished 1st, so he must not have been a very good finisher. 🙂 -
By mdl ·
Yeah this is exactly. Lots of par 5s in men's club type tourney rounds where I'm carrying the fairway bunker(s) on many par 5s that most of the field, even many those that I get strokes on, can't. -
By 11bravoveteran ·
Yeah I’m sure 90% of the data will be interesting stuff from watching YouTube videos. I bet it’s cool to manipulate changes in real time. The only other thing I need to figure out is a good place for dinner in the area one night
-
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now