Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/18/2019 in all areas

  1. I just wanted to add that the data you have for Nicklaus is a little off as far as I know. You forgot to remove the majors from his regular event total. Also the tour's website doesn't include the Open in their total starts stat up until 1995 the date it became an official event. I'm not trying to be rude, I just spent a lot of time on gathering the stats myself a while back. Here's Jack from his first pro event in 1962 to the end of 1978: Won 53 of the 285 regular events, or 18.6%. Won 15 of the 68 majors, or 22.1%. Total win percentage: 19.26% And Tiger from 1996-2009 Won 57 of the 189 regular events, or 30.2%. Won 14 of the 50 majors, or 28%. Total win percentage: 29.71% Even after a brutal next decade Tiger's numbers are absurd. Jack's are as well, they just seem to pale in comparison. Tiger up to the 2019 Masters (age 43) Won 66 of the 263 regular events, or 25.1%. Won 15 of the 75 majors, or 20%. Total win percentage: 24% Jack up to 1983, age 43 Won 54 of the 341 regular events, or 15.8%. Won 17 of the 88 majors, or 19.3%. Total win percentage: 16.6%
  2. Your quote highlights something that Tiger is seldom given credit for, which is that he has never (to my knowledge) tried to lobby for himself the way Jack did. Tiger is pursuing the two biggest records in golf, namely Sam's 82 wins, and Jack's 18 majors. Tiger is a student of the game. He knows golf history. He knows that Snead (and Jack, for that matter) have gotten credit for official wins in team events, very short field events, etc. that would not compare favorably with the Tiger Challenge, let alone the weakest official event Tiger has won. There have even been articles by reputable writers detailing some of the very questionable events included in Snead's win total. And yet, Tiger has never mentioned them, never even hinted that he's already passed Sam. He has always accepted the number the PGA has posted, and has tried to surpass it under the much tougher conditions of the modern tour. Same with the majors. Tiger knows that Jack won majors against fields with only half a dozen American touring pros in the field, or with over 100 club pros in the field, but he's never pointed out how weak those fields were. When Tiger was compiling his cut streak, or winning 8 and 9 times a year, or winning six or seven consecutive events, and being compared with Nelson, Tiger never mentioned how weak the Tour was during WWII, when Nelson was setting all his records. He knew very well that Nelson's win streak was set against very depleted fields, but all he said about it was that it was a record that would never be broken. Since Tiger passed Jack in career wins years ago, major wins is the ONLY significant stat where he hasn't blown away Jack's record. Tiger has over twice as many POTYs, infinitely more (can't divide by zero) Vardons, more money titles, more of just about everything that shows more dominance over stronger fields than Jack ever faced, and yet he's never suggested that "most majors" shouldn't be the standard. He just keeps trying to surpass Jack's record. That is in marked contrast to Jack, who switched his criterion for GOAT every time it looked like he couldn't reach the old one, and lobbied vigorously for "most majors" once he had that record. So at least in this area, it seems to me that Tiger has far more integrity than Jack.
  3. That's very unfair to Jack, since he played events well into his 60's. It also distorts Tiger's record, since he played injured for several years. It would be more fair to look at the the periods when Tiger and Jack were in their primes --- 1996 through 2009 for Tiger, and 1962 through 1978 for Jack. For both men, those are the years from their rookie season to the year before they first went winless, and fell out of the top 50 in the money list. Tiger played 239 official PGA events from turning pro through 2009, including 50 majors and 30 WGCs, leaving 159 "regular" events. He won 41 of the 159 regular events, or 25.8%. He won 14 of the 50 majors, or 28.0 %. He won 16 of the 30 WGCs, or 53.3%. Jack played 345 official PGA events from 1962-1978 inclusive, including 68 majors (and obviously this was before WGC's were established), leaving 277 "regular" events. He won 67 of the 277 regular events, or 24.2%. He won 15 of the 68 majors, or 22.1%. It's interesting that Jack won nearly the same percentage of majors as regular events, and Tiger won a higher percentage of majors than regular events. There could be several explanations for it, but it certainly seems to show that for the top golfers, winning a major is not a lot harder than winning a regular event. Many of the young pros today continue that trend. Yet another reason why "most majors" should not be the sole determinant of GOAT. And one more thing I always have to add when discussing Tiger's winning percentage: the WGC stat above includes the WGC match play. Single-elimination, 18-hole match play (which it was during those years) is always a crap shoot, and not nearly as accurate as a 72-hole stroke play event in determining the best golfer. The WGC stroke play events typically had the top 70 or 80 players in the world, with no amateurs, no Asian Tour affirmative action players, no legacy champs who hadn't won in decades, and no club pros. When Tiger was making his comeback last year after several years of dismal results, he still qualified for the Players, and all four majors, but he didn't qualify for the WGCs. I think it's fair to say that almost all of the WGCs Tiger won had stronger fields than almost all of the majors Jack won. Of the stroke play WGC events of Tiger's 14-year prime, he won 13 out of 20, an unbelievable 65% winning percentage. That, my friends, is sustained dominance, the like of which we have never seen before and will never see again.
  4. That is a key point. Jack shouldn't get to decide what the criteria for GOAT is, yet he did. Several times. With changing definitions, tailored to what he could achieve or thought he could achieve. From winning a 'Bobby Jones' type slam as a career amateur, to winning a professional grand slam (which Tiger arguably has done, with the only argument on the meaning of grand), to beating Snead's PGA victory career total (which Tiger is about to do but which, with any set of consistent criteria on what counts and what doesn't was surpassed long ago). He couldn't do any of them. So except for that quixotic notion of being a career amateur, Tiger has actually met Jack's first couple of drafts of GOAT criteria a lot better than Jack ever did. And then someone pointed out his number of majors was closing in on Jones' total (of different majors) and virtually out of the blue, majors became the sine qua non for judging greatness. Before the early 70s majors were significant events, but nothing like what the have become. Now it is unheard of for a healthy player to skip any major he is eligible for. Not so for the 60s and before. In fact, no player before Jack was ever considered the GOAT based on number of majors. But it led to one of the most intellectually dishonest self-serving statements of all time, when Jack said the since money, equipment, and playing conditions change so much, the fairest way of comparing players of different eras was number of majors won. Totally ignoring the fact that when he said it he knew that he had WAY more opportunities to *play* in majors than anyone before him. When he said it his competition for GOAT would have been maybe Arnie, except Arnie had already stopped winning so Jack had him covered. The other guys, Hogan, Snead, maybe Hagen, were all covered because none of them had anywhere near the number of opportunities as Jack. Fairest way, indeed. But as Brocks has pointed out, Tiger did NONE of this kind of conniving to puff his record. The accepted standard was majors, and although he is a smart enough guy to understand what a bad standard that is, never tried to change it. Jack's 'fairest way' statement is why I said, in one of these threads, that if Tiger behaved like Jack he could have made the same statement about number of premium world class events - majjors, WGCs, and Players. At first blush we would all look at a statement like that as ludicrous. But that is exactly how we got that lame majors standard in the first place. And lest you think I'm spinning tales, this has all been verified upthread, down to citations and direct quotes. It was put together years ago by Brocks. These wars are old, and Brocks and I, among others, are seasoned campaigners, LOL.
  5. I don't believe that first bit is true. Based on this study, with data collected by TheGrint, 2016 REPORT: Overall Golfer Performance By Handicap YOU (vs) OTHER GOLFERS How do you compare to other golfers in the US? even 25 handicappers average less than 39 putts. For a 25 handicapper to get to the point where he breaks 80 regularly, we're talking about close to 20 strokes of improvement. The fewest putts a player is likely to average is 30 to 32, so he can gain maybe 7 or 8 per round by putting better. To get into the 70s with regularity, he has to improve everything he does, with most of his improvement coming before he gets to the green.
  6. Thanks for the correction. I don't know how I managed to forget to subtract the majors, but in my defense, I'm a moron. The British Open's unofficial status is a more subtle error, so congrats for spotting it. I actually got my stats from a saved copy of a post I made several years ago to the old Golf Channel board, so I'm not sure what herb or beverage might have influenced me at the time I did the original calculation, but henceforth I'll double-check when I copy from an old post. Thanks again for your very polite correction.
  7. Remember when Tiger was doomed with the chip yips?
  8. Some people say Steve is abrasive, but I've met Steve and played golf with him and he is a kind, intelligent, and amiable person dedicated to his player. Steve has caddied for Peter Thompson, Greg Norman, Ray Floyd, Tiger, Adam Scott and has 150 wins on the tour almost double what any other caddy has done and is in the Caddy Hall of Fame. A so-called "abrasive person" could not accomplish what Steve has accomplished. Like Tiger, Steve has achieved the height of his profession and is arguably the greatest caddy in the history of golf. Tiger or any other golfer would have the advantage to have Steve as his caddy but Steve is retired now and playing golf well in New Zealand with his mates for the Southhead GC Pennants Team. Steve recently wrote an article for "Players Voice" about Tiger's Victory which everyone who is amazed at Tiger's comeback should read here > 'The rule I broke for Tiger' by Steve Williams Steve Williams wanted to see if Tiger Woods could make history at The Masters. So Tiger's former caddie broke the rule of a lifetime.
  9. Sadly, I'm sure I chose McIlroy. Me of little faith. So happy to be wrong.
  10. How good is this no-name Koepka guy? If he keeps this up in majors he might make a name for himself one day.
  11. You're right it's cyclical, when my wife and I were dating she would say "Sure, go to the golf course, have fun." She didn't want to be too pushy. We got married and had kids and she would say, "There are things around the house that need to be done and YOU'RE going to the golf course!" Many a fight began as I tried to get to my car with my clubs. Now we've been married for 20 years it's, "Aren't you supposed to tee off at 7:30? Hurry, you'll be late!" She just wants me gone so she can do what she wants to do.
  12. Reason's why Jack and golfers in and before his era wouldn't win more majors than Tiger. 1. Equipment helps out less skilled golfers. There is a reason why ball speeds on centered strikes has not changed. If you have a golfer who hits the center of the clubface 99/100 times versus a guy who hits it 80/100 times, which do you think equipment benefits more? This is why Tiger has not seen the gains in distance versus the field, which has caught up to him. 2. Tiger's ceiling is higher. He proved it against tougher competition than Jack did. He didn't just beat golfers he dominated the game. He got to Jack's PGA Tour win count 8 years sooner! Against tougher fields! 3. The depth of field just bolsters these facts Tiger made 142 cuts in a row compared to Jack's 105. He has more PGA tour wins than Jack. Here is a graph of Jack's and Tiger's PGA Tour cumulative winning percentage. Even with Tiger being inactive, he still is 7.6% better than Jack was at the same time in his career! Tiger had one dip down, when he made the swing change with Harmon. Here is their winning percentage by year, ranked from largest to smallest. Tiger's highest 15 winning percentages are larger than Jack's. Here is just number of wins per season ranked form largest to smallest. In the first 15 instances, Jack tied Tiger twice and beat him twice. People are talking about peak, Tiger was dominate for a giant stretch of time. If you consider that Jack won his last tournament in year 25, 60% of Jack's career doesn't compare to Tiger's.
  13. To follow up, this link takes you to a searchable database of all courses with USGA ratings National Course Rating Database
  14. This is a cool one to watch. And this quote: Reporter: "He loves the game?" Earl Woods: "No... it transcends love. He's addicted to greatness. He's addicted to being the best that has ever played the game"
  15. This is going to sound dumb, but the ball should finish where you want it to finish. That might be in line with your feet, it might be left of your feet, or it might be right of your feet. Your feet can influence club path, but your feet alone don't dictate shot shape. It's possible to draw the ball with a stance that is closed to your target, and its possible to draw the ball with a stance that's open to your target. This might help you understand ball flights a bit more https://thesandtrap.com/b/playing_tips/ball_flight_laws
  16. Don't forget Tom Watson could just never win a PGA, Ray Floyd couldn't figure out the Open Championship, Trevino never won a Masters. I'm going to go out on a limb here... I think Tiger might get his 16th major before Rory completes the career slam. Especially now that Tiger knows he doesn't have to have the lead going into Sunday to win a major. He finally figured out how to win it from a couple strokes back. Simply put... Play your own game. In my head I think this will be more like Jack's 1980, than 1986. Tiger isn't done winning or winning majors. Rory will complete the career Grand Slam in the near future. Within three years I would guess. I think our friend Rory (whom I've always liked by the way), learned a lot on Sunday about how Augusta National plays on Sunday when he was out of contention, however Rory shot 68.
  17. And both are back in play. Getting four more majors is still a long shot; that's a Hall of Fame career by itself. But Tiger is now only one year behind Jack in longevity. His winning span is now 24 years, to Jack's 25. If you're interested, the longest PGA Tour winning span is 30 years, held jointly by Sam Snead and Ray Floyd. The only other two golfers with more than 25 years are DLIII and Phil, both at 29.
  18. You didnt answer my question. You said this argument is just conjecture regardless of how much data is presented, so that must mean you feel that there are incomplete pieces of information that are not allowing you to make a decision. What pieces of information about their careers are incomplete? But number of wins, winning percentage, consecutive cuts made, and average wins per season are all quantifiable and point to Tiger, which is enough, IMO to show Tiger had a better career and is the greatest golfer.
  19. Just input your e-mail address here: https://mailchi.mp/practical-golf/snell-giveaway
  20. This was GREAT - he'd walk up and check out some part his putt when someone was prepping their approach. Then walk back out of the way for the shots......just to make sure they saw him up there. He's wiley.
  21. I see him winning quite a few more majors. Maybe a lot more. He's just stone cold... cold. Doesn't approach it like most.
  22. More Majors as the criteria of GOAT was Jack’s idea. He decided that once he knew he wasn’t gonna top Snead in total wins. Jack also said ‘Not winning means nothing. Nobody remembers who finished second.’
  23. If you truly believe it is all just conjecture now, how would winning 3 more majors make it any less of a conjecture? I think you just revealed yourself.
  24. All the data in the world can't make this argument anything more than conjecture. I hope TW just wraps up 3 more majors and puts the matter to bed.
  25. Fact: competition is stronger/deeper now, as more golfers are playing golf (including and especially from outside the country). So no, I stand by what I said.
  26. No. My daughter had a bad round putting the other day. 40 putts. Broke 90. Larry, you should buy and read Lowest Score Wins, if you haven't already (you don't have any achievements, so I don't know…). Yes, the quickest way to lower your score by a few shots is to learn to chip and putt better, but that's also low-hanging fruit, and it's also not very big. A guy shooting 95 that wants to shoot 75 is losing about 15 of those shots to the full swing, and only five shots from putting and short game. It's also highly unlikely that a guy shooting 95 has eight shots to lose just from his putting. He'd be a statistical outlier, big time. Your assumption is faulty. If they can do those things and they're losing 8 shots a round to putting, they're a statistical oddity. An outlier. Putting is a clear "glaring weakness." Unless you're also a statistical outlier, you're probably wrong about that. You're probably a much better putter than you realize. I virtually never practice my putting. Ballstriking (off the tee, approach shots) account for the vast majority of the "Separation Value®" to be had in golf. That's not accurate at all.
  27. Story? I'm a fan of the Dark Tower series, also Feist's Magician series (the entire thing), and Julian May's extended Pliocene Exile series. (Frankly, it's not birdies for me, those come one or two maybe a round, but some of the best rounds are just regulation golf - that GIR approach shot is a big deal - I'd rather be 2 putting for par (with chance of birdie) every day rather than scrambling for par - if you can hit that approach shot well, then suddenly being good vs great at putting matters a lot less in just keeping the score from blowing up - which is a good thing, frankly I'm medicore at putting at best).
  28. Had yesterday off from work and the kid, so I went to play somewhere nice and expensive (relatively), Chambers Bay. As most know, they finished re-sodding their greens to Poa this winter. They didn't roll too fast, but they were completely smooth. I shot a 76 from the tips. Wasn't my best round. Off the tee was decent, it was mostly around the greens that screwed me up. I hit 11/18 greens with 33 putts. I had two terrible pitch shots. It's very rare that I play courses with such tight fairway lies and I couldn't make it work. One was from 45yds when near green in two shots on the par 5 4th. I skulled it past the pin into a collection area of green and 3 putted... stupid. Overall, I had two birdies and 6 bogies. One thing that I'm sure took away a couple shots on the back was that my range finder died on the 10th hole. Hole 11, I had no idea what line I could take to stay away from bunkers but clear the big sand dunes, I chose wrong and didn't have much of a chance to recover. Regarding my putting, I need to practice more overall. It's weird, inside 8ft, I'll make nearly everything. But, give me a reasonable 15ft and I'll never make it. I know my reads are good because in recent scrambles they'll hit the exact line I saw and make them, but when I putt, I don't. I know what the percentage makes are and I'm pretty sure I'm far below outside of 10ft. I had a lot of reasonable putts around 15ft for birdies and a few pars that I missed yesterday. I know I won't make all of them, but even if a few dropped, it would have made quite the difference. Once again chipping/pitching. It's funny, I found that I was getting too handsy and not turning my chest enough with the shot, and so I've been practicing that recently. But, yesterday, I must've completely forgot about it, because thinking back on it, I never thought about moving the chest more with the shot. Positives from yesterday, driver, 2 iron, full wedges and short irons. I did have a few shots that I fudged on because I rushed the routine and forgot to swing at my target (I'll turn over too much/flip). But for the most part, those clubs were solid. I'll need to practice a bit more short game and keep with the full swing.
  29. Another way to say this, once you have completed taking relief within the rules, you're basically starting over. You make your decisions based only on the current position of the ball, not on the (completely legal) drop that brought you to that position.
  30. I worked with @iacas last year and he had me open my club face to align more with my path and open my stance a bit too. So my foot line is a bit left and my face is aimed a bit right. The resulting ball flight is a higher push draw or push that does not end up on the line my feet were aimed at. If you watch the PGA pros off the tee, the ball doesn't always end up where their feet are aimed. Tiger's feet often are aimed at the left rough and he'll hit a high fade that ends up right of where his feet aim. Fred Couples is like that too, but does more of a push draw I think. Pat Reed's feet are always aimed right and he draws it back left of where his feet aim. It has taken me a while to work out that the ball is generally going where my face is aimed because I used to hook it too much. I have been working on how I take my stance at the range so I can do it on the course. You have to learn to trust it once the changes become more consistent. I still fight it a bit and aim the face too far right, then just push it there. I really just need to aim it slightly right of where I want it to end up and just swing.
  31. I finally got to see the second Butler Cabin interview with just Tiger, Nick, and Nance. I think his answer was interesting when he was asked about Joey - he said that LaCava was the most loyal person you'd ever want to meet. Maybe THAT is what he needs. I'm sure that over his travails and even in the good years he had a lot of people show unfortunate true colors. I would imagine that after all that, loyalty would be a highly valued quality in someone so deep in the inner circle.
  32. It's really great to see these threads back on top of the first page, I haven't posted much as of late but I do believe Tiger woods is the greatest player of all time. When and if he simply ties Jack's professional majors record should settle it for everyone. Tiger will at least have 84 PGA tour victories at that time which will be the most passing Sam Snead at 82 also Tigers 3 US amateur titles gives him the edge over Jack.
  33. I am a 26 handicap and today I hit every fairway and green shot 40 on front and 43 on back. For an 83. Beating my handicap by 14 strokes. I had 7 pars on front and 2 double bogeys. For a 4 over.
  34. @iacas shared this with me a few years go when I was having trouble with balance and shanks. With your hands crowded into your body it could get very tough to return your club to the ball.
  35. We do not penalize Jack for the level of his competition. We merely note that despite facing weaker competition his record is nowhere near as dominant as Tigers in 25 different areas, and the only area he leads in is 18>15. As I have maintained for years 18>14(now 15) is the only argument the Jack supporters have - and stop the second place nonsense - no one achieves greatness by losing. @iacas used to argue with me about this, but I think it is fair to say he has come around. If you were to read back through the thread you will see that other than noting Jack's comments that tour cardholders in 1996 are the equivalent to the top players of his era, and top players in 1996 were the equivalent of superstars of his era, I have made my arguments independently of the the field issue. Partly because @iacas deals with that issue better than me but mostly because I DON'T NEED IT. If I stipulate, for the sake of argument, that they faced equally strong fields the Jack folks STLL have nothing besides 18>14/5. In any other measure of dominance Tiger is not only ahead of Jack, he is miles ahead. Whether we are talking cut streak, winning margin, winning percentage, consecutive wins - everything. I've made this challenge before - list Jack's seasons in order from best to worst. I'll so the same for Tiger. Then we can have a little match play, comparing their best seasons, second best seasons, third best season, etc. Don't bother, Tiger wins that 10 & 8. You are setting up a silly situation of transplanting them into each other's era and then claiming that because of the silly situation we really don't know anything. No one is dreaming anything about Tiger in the 60s or Jack in the 21st century. Maybe if Jack's record was remotely comparable to Tigers it might make sense, but the inescapable fact is that except for 18>14/5, Tigers record dwarfs Jacks. It is like comparing 2 basketball players at free throws. A shoots from 15 feet at a standard sizes basket. B shoots from 20 feet at a basket that is 10% smaller in size. B sinks a significantly higher percentage of baskets. Now you can apply your logic and claim that we can't say B is better than A because we don't know how they would each shoot under the other's condition. And it would be nonsense, just as it is when comparing Jack and Tiger's records.
  36. There are obviously meaning things that could cause this, but I sometimes find myself dipping the right shoulder in an attempt to help the ball into the air. The dipping of shoulder causes the club face to open. One man's issue, yours could be way different.
  37. Here’s the formula with explanations (assuming you’re in the US): http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14389 Most of what you’re looking for is in sections 10-1 and 10-2 of that page. With 7 rounds, only your two rounds with lowest differentials are used to calculate your handicap index.
  38. Look at Rules 6.2b(5) and (6): I'm assuming the ball remained in the teeing area (i.e., the area two club lengths behind the tee markers). It sounds like it likely did. Assuming the player meant to hit the ball, he gets a stroke for making that stroke. Then, he can tee it back up or play it as it lies. No penalty. Once he hits that shot, he has now made 2 strokes. The rules @Pretzel quoted are for when a ball is moved when you're not making a stroke at it.
  39. Two rules apply here, which I'll go into depth later. I can briefly answer your questions up front though. 1) One stroke penalty, and the ball must be replaced (under Rule 9.4) 2) Disqualification (under Rules 1.3.b.1 and 3.3.b.3) For the first question, Rule 9.4 states the following: Obviously none of the exceptions for Rule 9.4 apply here, and the player should be penalized 1 stroke and is required to replace the ball on the ground where it fell from the tee originally. The primary concern of the second question is rule 1.3.b.1, which states: The second question's second concern is Rule 3.3.b.3, which states: The only exception to this rule is for a failure to include an unknown penalty, which does not apply to this scenario. The player should be disqualified if he/she returns a scorecard without adding the penalty.
  40. Check out interpretation 9.4a/1 – Procedure When Player’s Ball Is Dislodged From Tree
  41. I like playing alone. It is what you make of it.
  42. Yeah, I experienced some fatigue and in talking with a friend he was like, "when did you last do a deload?" And it had been over two months so I've only gone to the three times this week and only lifting 50% of my working weight. Back to regular training on Saturday, though!
  43. The whole "majors are the measure of a career" is, to me, a false argument. The fact that both Jack and Tiger are credited with agreeing with the statement does not lend it additional weight, as I believe they both "hid" behind it as a way to justify playing a very limited schedule. I have not doubt that Tiger is the GOAT, and that Jack is in 2nd place - but 3rd place really starts to bring in a number of factors. Things for players like Hagen & Sarazen who missed opportunities for more majors (and tournament wins) due to canceled events due to the Wars. Hagen would, again IMO, have more than 14 majors, arguably more than 18 if the Masters had existed, and the wars hadn't cancelled 9 events during the prime of his career, though competition was a much different thing then. And different eras when travel was much more difficult, as we include The Open Championship, and before the Masters was an event, when the Western Open and North/South Open were considered almost majors (like The Players is today). I will choose to abstain - because Phil's career isn't over, he could likely still win some more events, perhaps even a major (or dare I say a US Open ... PB 2019?), too many players from different eras to get a "fair" comparison. Today I would have to choose between Hogan and Player .... who knows maybe in 5 year Spieth or Rory are in this conversation, or that new kid on the scene maybe a Cole Hammer .....
  44. The leaderboard was pathetic but you're not saying the field was weak. Really? But take a look at the field in one of Jack's early majors, the 1966 British Open. Of the EIGHT Americans in the field (at a time when American golf was so dominant that they were in the midst of administering some of the worst beatings in the Ryder Cup that Britain ever suffered - and the vast majority of that field was made up of Brits) only one failed to make the cut, Fred Haas. The other 7 Americans all finished in the top 15. The 7 were Jack*, Doug Sanders*, Dave Marr, Phil Rodgers*, Arnie*, Dick Sikes*, and Julius Boros. This included only half of the top ten money winners on the PGA (the *s). The leading money winner for 1966, Billy Casper wasn't in the field - neither were the 5th, 7th, 9th or 10th. I wonder in how many of Tiger's majors the leading money winner wasn't in the field. Oops, probably none or almost none of them, since that was usually him. But I'd bet anything that the vast majority of the top FIFTY money winners were in each of the fields for his majors. Would you care to compare this field with that pathetic field that Tiger CRUSHED in 1997? A field that by the very eligibility criteria of the 1997 Masters included the top 30 money winners? As compared to the 5 top 10 money winners in the 1966 field? And by 1997 the Masters had the WEAKEST field of the majors. Every single major Tiger ever won had in its field substantially all of the best players in the world. And prior to the later part of Jack's career a tournament that included substantially all of the best players in the world was fairly rare - mainly due to the high cost of travel and the low purses (Jack got 2,100 pounds for his win - small wonder so few Americans, i.e., the best players in the world at the time, went over). And foreign players, while not banned, were certainly not made to feel all that welcome here. This is why I say that we make a mistake when we assume that majors always had the same value and cachet as they do today. Could you even begin to imagine top players today just skipping majors despite being healthy and eligible? Of course not, because of the importance they have assumed. An importance largely enhanced by the Nicklaus sales job as majors being THE metric for determining the GOAT. See, so when you try to criticize the field or leaderboard of the 1997 Masters vis a vis those steely hero's Jack had to overcome I have a very sound basis for calling that reason nonsense. I was not saying your opinion is nonsense, I am saying that using this as a reason us nonsense. There is literally no way that the 1997 field was not tougher than that 1966 field of Jack's. Since someone voiced concerns about disparaging opinions, it seemed like my nonsense remark may have been what they meant. So I thought I should explain myself.
  45. Ken : I used to do weight training. In fact I trained for 30 years, then my body started to break down. I had a pinched nerve, a herniated disk and pains up my calves when I did aerobics. I started doing all kinds of styles of Yoga to relieve the tightness in my muscles that I was getting from the heavy lifting. I continued to do the weights, aerobics, and swimming .I also started to work with an inversion table almost every day. After about 5 years of this routine, I discovered Baptist Power Yoga, a Yoga that includes arm balances and inversions. This practice challenged my muscles in such a way that I no longer needed to lift weights and stoped lifting. That was about 15 years ago. After about 8 years of Baptist Power Yoga, I decided it was no longer serving me. It was too fast and I just could not breath, so I fell back on a weight lifting routine I experimented with in the 80s. that is slow controlled movements. Today it is known as "Super Slow". I began to create my own routine. I took the Baptist style and took the momentum out of it. The moves were slow, controlled movements and here is what I learned. I could breath long deep, slow breaths which gave me the cardio I was trying to get out of the aerobics. My resting heart rate gets down to 38 sometimes ( I give plasma and get rejected under 40.) The pains in my legs were from tight calf and hamstring muscles and were aggravated by spending so much time on hard surfaces, such as cement floors. My hips were tight from years of toilets, car seats, and chairs. ( I always thought the people of India were primitive because they squatted around a hole to eliminate. Now I think it is us who are primitive. ( they do not have tight hips ) I do what is referred to as transition poses which is taking some static Yoga poses and moving from one pose to another.dynamically, without momentum. (not so easy) I found this builds lots of strength in the body because it forces all the muscle fibers to fire and connects the muscle groups together so they operate as a unit instead of separate muscle groups.This differs greatly from when I lifted weights because back then I was training the muscles to work independently. Back when I lifted weights I was building muscles, but now I found I am building strength, that is, functional strength. By stretching the muscles consistently over a period of time and paying attention to make sure I was stretching them to their max. I created length in my muscles that now I just have to maintain for mobility. I spend about 3-4 hours a week doing this routine. I also throw in a few poses when I teach which is about 15 hours a week. How does it affect my golf game ? Because I have spent so much time doing routines that create balance in my body ( transitions on one leg at a time ) I easily move in my golf swing from back to front. Because my routine has taught me to use my entire core when I bend over, I do not have back issues I golf with an unrestricted back-swing because I have lengthened the muscles around my spine. Because I have trained myself to deep breath I am much more relaxed when I play. Because of the awareness training I more quickly realize when I am becoming tense and take deep breaths to release the tension. At the end of the round I do not feel any stiffness then or the next day. So the question is : does this make me a better golfer ? The answer is : not necessarily a better golfer but it certainly adds to the enjoyment of the game I am 68 years old and so far I can play volleyball with 30 year olds, , and in general enjoy excellent health. So to answer your question : No I do not lift weights LOL
  46. I played in high school and shot consistently in the 90's and then when I graduated I stopped playing due to college. Pretty much 10 years later I started getting into it again and a situation came up and I was asked if I would be willing to coach our varsity golf team which I jumped at. This was 5 years ago and I said, well, if I'm gonna be the coach I better be able to play well and know what I'm doing. My first year back I was shooting what I did in high school by the end of the season. The second year I got myself shooting in the mid 80's. The last two years I was shooting upper 70's to low 80's. This year I am now shooting low 70's consistently. I am not a long ball hitter at all, average drive is between 230-250. I have spent a lot of time on my putting, I rarely have worse then a 2 putt and average around mid to low 20's for my putts per round. The biggest key for me was being able to hit the ball where I want with the driver. I struggled for the past four years with a serious slice with my driver, I would hit 180 yards and it would be way, way right. This past winter I worked hard on learning to work the ball. This year I can now play a fade, slice, hook, and draw when I want and put it where I want. Still have mis-hits like we all do but they are not mis-hits that can't be recovered from. Also my mis-hits tend to be the ball doesn't turn and goes straight, can't complain..lol. The other big key was the short game, if you want to be in the 70's you can be okay with the driver and irons but if you can't guarantee more often then not you will get up and down you won't stay int he 70's. So what are my keys, not to be to serious, laugh off the bad shots and have short term memory, I get frustrated with a bad shot but the minute I am pulling or walking up to the next ball that is where my focus is no matter where I am. I have never had a formal lesson and take bit and pieces from watching good golfers, our local pro that offers me tips, teaching the kids, and watching the golf shows and reading books. For me was having a consistently repeatable swing, might not be the best or most efficient but I can repeat it. The final piece is confidence, when I step up to a shot I am confident in what I am going to hit and where and I hit it. If I am putting it's always a one putt, every putt is going in. Anyway, just a few of my own journey ramblings..lol.
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Affiliates

    SuperSpeed
    TourStriker PlaneMate
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo
  • Posts

    • Is this a reversal by the Provincial Health Minister for all of B.C.?  I wish they would do that down here in Washington State.  I'm for all restrictions that need to apply, no problem.  I'd even add a few of my own.
    • Thanks.  For better or worse, I have the time now.  I'll run through it over the coming days.  Is that something I can check back in through my "my swing" thread?
    • Got caught up on my drills and finished day 5.  Day 5 was really good for me and is what my last lesson was working on too, so that was a bonus.  Watching it back on my phone has been the best thing ever for me and I have the videos on my computer now so getting there.  I hit over 200 balls into the net today and only about 1/2 dozen weren't solid strikes.  Getting out for 9 holes in the morning so will be focusing on what we have been doing. 
    • Just got an email that my course is re-opening tomorrow with lots of restrictions and 9 hole rounds only. I appreciate the precautions and am booked with some of my regular group to play. The last two weeks has sure been dragging but I will be very cautious for sure.
    • Yes. And time past, this was the only way to gather valuable information about a course before a hit off that mattered. Some of us recall those times of no course marking of distances other than the score card, no course booklets mapping holes and greens, no lasers, GPS devices etc, and many relied on the caddie or a practice round to identify the gremlins and to step out and note all the approach distances from an identifiable spot in or alongside the fairway. The skill challenges were different from today. And while commercial interests have driven absolutely everything about the game to continuously change and evolve - course prep and maintenance, equipment (manufacturers tell you the drivers, wedges and putters are better every year; relax about the irons, change every second year is okay there), a large cast of teachers, trainers, physios, psychologists and equipment preparation specialists with their 400+ shafts, there is virtually no change whatsoever in the scores we all record out there on the course. But I still love it. At least the rules are easier today. And less impacted by my increasingly creaky physical assets.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...