• Announcements

    • iacas

      Visit FlagstickRule.com   03/13/2017

      Visit the site flagstickrule.com to read about and sign a petition for the USGA/R&A regarding the one terrible rule in the proposed "modernized" rules for 2019.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
colin007

Schwartzel...

21 posts in this topic

So Chucky Schwartzel wins his last 2 tournaments by 11 and 12 strokes...are you kidding me?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sign up (or log in) today! It's free (and you won't see this ad anymore)!

Sign up (or log in) today! It's free (and you won't see this ad anymore)!

Originally Posted by colin007

So Chucky Schwartzel wins his last 2 tournaments by 11 and 12 strokes...are you kidding me?

Against whom?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by iacas

Against whom?

i dont think it matters does it, he still won. yeah obviously the better the field then theres more great players able to win but he won against people that are professionals.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by garush34

i dont think it matters does it, he still won. yeah obviously the better the field then theres more great players able to win but he won against people that are professionals.

I think both the quantity and quality of his competition matters.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by iacas

I think both the quantity and quality of his competition matters.

This is true, yes, but he has been playing really, REALLY well lately.  Prior to the last 2 wins, he has a 3rd and 5th place finish, and in the last 16 or so rounds, it looks like he's averaging something like 67!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

He did what he was expected to do this past weekend against inferior competition (other than Oosthuizen who withdrew), and it really didn't move the needle much for me.  The fact he won the past two weeks and only moved from 29th to 14th in the World Rankings tells the story, but congrats to Schwartzel nonetheless.  A win is a win, and I'm sure it was satisfying to him all the same.  I'm interested to see how he does in the big events in 2013.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by iacas

Against whom?

Bubba, Sergio, Westwood, Colsaerts, Oosthuizen, Mahan, Grace, Rock, Ishikawa etc etc etc

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by JBradshaw

Bubba, Sergio, Westwood, Colsaerts, Oosthuizen, Mahan, Grace, Rock, Ishikawa etc etc etc


An impressive win in Thailand. The Dunhill tournament, impressive margin of victory, terrible field.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by MSchott

An impressive win in Thailand. The Dunhill tournament, impressive margin of victory, terrible field.

I'd be curious to see how you and I would get on against this supposedly "terrible field"

Dozens upon dozens of recognisable names in that field for me. Stronger field than 3 of the Fall series events if you look at the stats.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think both the quantity and quality of his competition matters.

He's a pro, he entered a tournament and did what he set out to do. And that was winning. By ur logic any tournament that is won means nothing unless all the greats play. It means just as much to the guy who just kept his tour card for the next two years or the guy who's won 50 times. I'm sure if you asked tiger if he'd take that win to pass sam snead in all time wins I'm sure he'd take it. So I don't really think it matters a wins a win.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by garush34

He's a pro, he entered a tournament and did what he set out to do. And that was winning. By ur logic any tournament that is won means nothing unless all the greats play. It means just as much to the guy who just kept his tour card for the next two years or the guy who's won 50 times. I'm sure if you asked tiger if he'd take that win to pass sam snead in all time wins I'm sure he'd take it.

So I don't really think it matters a wins a win.

I think you're in the minority on that one.

You can find threads everywhere downplaying, for example, Tiger's wins or Lee Westwood's wins in things like the World Challenge or that Sun City event (small fields) or the wins of players in lower-tier events or Fall Series events or alternate-field events.

In fact, Augusta National places importance on these types of things in choosing who they will send an invitation to for The Masters.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by garush34

He's a pro, he entered a tournament and did what he set out to do. And that was winning. By ur logic any tournament that is won means nothing unless all the greats play. It means just as much to the guy who just kept his tour card for the next two years or the guy who's won 50 times. I'm sure if you asked tiger if he'd take that win to pass sam snead in all time wins I'm sure he'd take it.

So I don't really think it matters a wins a win.

If a win is a win, than his win this week or last means just as much as his victory at Augusta? I don't think so. There is something to be said for what tournament it is and who is playing. That is why a major means more than a regular tour event and why a regular tour event means more than something in the "silly season." It's great that he won and all but keep it in perspective.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

My .02...

I agree that these wins aren't as meaningful or important as regular PGA tour wins. The fields are not as strong. Though I would also say that they aren't 'terrible', either.

And shooting 67's on a regular basis will have you winning or contending in strong fields as well.

However, Charl has shown that he can win 'regular' events, (and a major, to boot).

I think this recent run of performance is obviously most important to Charl himself, and to his confidence, specifically. I see him contending often early on in this season due in part to this momentum and confidence he has built. Be damned what we think of it.

The true tests will indeed be seen when the top pros all go compete 'for real'. But I won't be surprised to see him contending a lot early.


Also, speaking of South African golfers...  Watch out for Louis Oosthuizen next year!  He's one of my favorite players to watch, and he may have a true breakout year next year.

He has quite quietly climbed to #4 in the OWGR and I think his game is deserving of top-5 status, and wouldn't be surprised to see him prove it this year. He probably won't have a Rory or Tiger year, but I wouldn't be completely shocked to see him have a multi-win season, and at least contend for another Major himself. When he's on, he's scary good.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just glad he's healthy again and playing good golf. Can we at least agree that 3-2-1-1 and 73 under in his last four tournaments constitutes good golf?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I'm just glad he's healthy again and playing good golf. Can we at least agree that 3-2-1-1 and 73 under in his last four tournaments constitutes good golf? ;-)

I'll agree with that.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by JBradshaw

I'd be curious to see how you and I would get on against this supposedly "terrible field"

Dozens upon dozens of recognisable names in that field for me. Stronger field than 3 of the Fall series events if you look at the stats.


I don't see what this has to do with this thread. Terrible in relation to the PGA Tour talent he normally competes with. They were all second class players on even the European Tour. I thought I saw a familiar name in Peter Lawrie then I remembered the famous Lawrie is Paul

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people are trying to take away the value of the win to him tho. Yeah a major is worth more over all but thats beacuse only select people can get into them. Its not his fault that it is a weaker field. Should he just not enter for that reason, no. he's entitled to enter whatever tournament he wants regardless of the field.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 top 50 players in the last tournament. Still, a weak event, he has a very good record of bashing up poor fields at home in SA. He needs more wins outside SA to consolidate the Masters - I think he and Oosthuizen have some big years coming.

The "i'd like to see you do better" argument is something that really gets my goat. I haven't and will never get to run a country does this mean I'm disqualified from complaining about my taxes?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2017 TST Partners

    PING Golf
    Leupold Golf
    Snell Golf
    Talamore Golf Resort
    Lowest Score Wins
  • Posts

    • There are several statements that I disagree with which I feel are important to discuss: All golf balls do not go about the same distance.  A low compression, 2-piece Surlyn covered model will launch higher and with less spin than a 5-piece, high compression urethane covered model which will result in a noticeable difference in distance off the tee.  Dean even stated in another answer "The soft golf ball market has taken off due to the lower spinning balls means players can be longer in distance." Regarding balls for different swing speeds and compression:  3) Bridgestone (and I think Callaway) has come out with tour caliber balls for players who swing under 105mph. Is it possible to design a tour caliber ball for a specific segment of swing speed or is this just mostly a marketing thing?  DEAN: The whole swing speed story to me is one of the most over-rated stories in golf. Companies force or teach golfers to play low compression balls so their low swing speed can compress the ball. The problem with this is that low compression balls have the lowest spin in all shots, so they are pushing players to play a ball with no performance at all… and when you need that spin around the green, it's not there…            I almost don't know where to start on this one.  The concept of designing golf balls based on swing speeds doesn't teach or force players to use a low compression ball...it's about using a ball that has the appropriate compression for your swing speed.  Some players will have better results with a higher compression ball, others will have better results with a lower compression.  Keep in mind, there is a difference between "lower compression" and "low compression".  Most of the urethane tour balls have a compression rating somewhere between the mid 70s to mid 90s.  Tour models like the Chrome Soft, B330-RX and B330-RXS are in the mid 60s, which is lower.  Balls like the Supersoft and e6 are in the upper 30s and 40s, which is considered low.  Dean's statement that "low compression balls have the lowest spin on all shots" is somewhere between a little misleading and flat-out wrong.  It's true that a lower compression ball will spin less (and launch higher) than a firmer ball on full shots.  But on short game shots around the green, the ball is not compressed.  On pitch shots, chip shots, and greenside bunker shots for example,    the only part of the ball that is being activated is the cover. Notice on this chart that the lowest compression ball is very close to the highest spinning, and the lowest spinning ball has almost the same compression rating!  The point is, compression has little to no affect on short game shots...the cover is the main factor.  All 4 of these models have a urethane cover, but the two that provide the most spin have softer covers.  To put this in context, the chart below was a test Golf Digest did in 2015 which shows the performance on a partial wedge shot (I think it was 40 yds) with most of the balls on the market at the time The different colors represented the price point.  These results don't match the first chart I posted exactly which can happen when player testing (this one shows the B330 has higher spin than the RXS). Is there a difference between the lower spinning "red dots" and the highest spinning?  Sure.  There should be though.  Golf balls are designed to have different types of performance for different types of players.  The B330-RX has the lowest spin among the red dot models, but that doesn't mean it's lacking in performance...it spins exactly how the ball designers intended it to, because not everyone wants/needs maximum spin.  Notice the e7...this is a high compression ball very comparable to the B330, but has very different spin characteristics. So again, higher compression doesn't mean higher spin around the green and lower compression doesn't necessarily mean low spin.  About the only thing that I could agree with Dean's comment on would be that all the ultra-low compression balls are Surlyn covered models designed for distance, so it's true that these balls have low spin on all shots and will not offer the same level of performance around the greens, but again, that has more to do with the cover than the compression.  The fact is, there are lower compression balls that perform at the highest level. The B330-RXS is the same type of ball as the Pro V1 in many respects, and performs just as well as, or even better for many players, so I'm surprised by his comments that fitting for swing speed is over-rated and lower compression balls have no performance.  That's like saying getting fit for the correct shaft flex is over-rated, and softer flex shafts don't perform as well as stiffer shafts!  Does anyone consider the Dynamic Gold S-300 to be a lower performing shaft than the Dynamic Gold X-100?  No, of course not. They are designed to do the same thing, but because some players don't swing as fast as others the softer flex will give them better results, just like the B330-RXS is the equal to the B330-S, but will fit players who don't swing as hard better. I'm also not on-board with the opinion that fitting with a driver is a "mistake" and when testing to choose a ball based on 100 yds and in.  I'm not saying that short game performance isn't important, but wow...to claim that testing with a driver is a mistake is ridiculous.  I'll make a simple point on this...anyone can hit good wedge shots with a Pro V1 or B330 or Z-Star.  Fast swingers, slower swingers, high handicappers, low handicappers...it doesn't matter, they can all get good results on wedge shots.  Does that mean that's the ball they should play, and it will work equally as well for the other aspects too?  No.  A wedge can mask any issues in performance because of the loft and backspin, but the driver exaggerates issues.  The same players who hit respectable wedge shots with various tour balls might struggle to keep shots in play or lose potential distance. And before anyone tries to use the old "the driver is used 14 times a round, but half of the shots are inside of 100 yds" argument...save it.  If you play a high spin ball and you're struggling to hit the fairway with your tee shots, that ball will not help you save shots around the green.  Too much spin for players who can't control it is worse than a lower spinning model. Sorry Dean...not trying to blast you or anything, just putting in my two cents.  Ok, maybe more like four cents!
    • So......Is this your point @Jack Watson?
    • https://thesandtrap.com/b/clubs/titleist_716_ap1_review My review for the site is above. I've been using them since writing this review. Excellent clubs. One watch out is with short game shots with the PW and GW. They will go a bit farther than a corresponding chip or pitch with the equivalent wedge. The ball feels like it jumps off the face with good contact. So be careful with that.
    • Thanks for all the comments. I realize change is always hard but single length, lie and weight make so much sense to me. I am going to build a set of Value Golf clubs and see what happens. As improve I may go back to normal but who knows.  I think it will be better for learning the overall game. Which in my opinion and observance needs a lot of help. In my other hobbies that required learned skills it was easy to find groups to help you with the skills and drills to improve them. Businesses that the hobby supported held seminars and workshops covering all aspects. Trying to find help, other than paid lessons, is impossible, at least in my area. 
  • TST Blog Entries

  • Blog Entries

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Golfgirl10543
      Golfgirl10543
      (43 years old)
    2. jkettman
      jkettman
      (28 years old)
    3. old man1953
      old man1953
      (64 years old)
  • Get Great Gear with Amazon