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
    4 points
  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 reput
    4 points
  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.
    4 points
  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
    3 points
  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
    3 points
  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.
    3 points
  7. Remember when Tiger was doomed with the chip yips?
    3 points
  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 h
    3 points
  9. Sadly, I'm sure I chose McIlroy. Me of little faith. So happy to be wrong.
    2 points
  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.
    2 points
  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.
    2 points
  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 ga
    2 points
  13. To follow up, this link takes you to a searchable database of all courses with USGA ratings National Course Rating Database
    2 points
  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"
    2 points
  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
    2 points
  16. I'm not entirely sure what you're disagreeing with. If your ball is unplayable then being embedded is irrelevant so you get no free relief for the embedded ball. If the only reason you can't play the ball, even if it's sideways or backwards, is because your ball is embedded, you get relief.
    1 point
  17. Great article, and I liked your annotations. There is one I would add, though. I don't often indulge in woulda coulda shouldas, because they prove absolutely nothing, but I like this one. From the article: " 32. During the 2000 PGA Tour season, Woods recorded one round higher than 73. It came in the first round of the Masters. He shot 75, on a day when the field averaged 75.59." That one off day resulted in a solo 5th at that Masters. According to the PGA website, Tiger's scoring average that year was 67.794 adjusted, 68.17 raw. So it's not much of a stretch to say he co
    1 point
  18. So the female GOAT tennis player is still Margaret Court? Serena will be devestated, LOL.
    1 point
  19. I'm not predicting it or anything, but would anyone really be shocked if Tiger chalked up a 'second career' career grand slam before any of the young guns complete whatever they have left? And by 'second career' career grand slam I mean where the three remaining pieces are after this Masters. Phil - US Open Arnie - PGA Snead - US Open If a career grand slam were easy, everyone would have one.
    1 point
  20. At the risk of tarnishing my fanboy image, I have to point out that this distorts rather than illuminates. You can see this very quickly if you look at DJ's average, recalculated on HIS last 26 events with a denominator of 26. I've done that and it turns out to be around 15. Is it because he has played so much better than in the prior events? No, it is because those prior events get aged down. Tiger's 26 events have not been NEARLY as significantly aged as DJ's 47 events. I've made that same denominator argument myself, in the past, but once I realized the reality I had to abandon it.
    1 point
  21. Uhmmmm (scratches head)..... yeah, of course. I said "it might seem". As if to say: It might seem like __________, but actually ________________. Exactly.
    1 point
  22. It's not about completeness. That's why it's not quantifiable. Completeness is easy. Valuation is hard, subjective, and forever thus unquantifiable.
    1 point
  23. 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.
    1 point
  24. If Tiger was Jack he would have lobbied for the goalpost to have been shifted long ago to most premium events, defined as majors, WGCs, and Players.
    1 point
  25. and, he hasn't done a true season Slam yet - that's the last domino to fall (so very unlikely, but so incredibly satisfying if it happened)
    1 point
  26. There's no question that luck has some effect. But luck works in both directions, sometimes a good shot gets a bad bounce. Sometimes you get a gust of wind at just the wrong time. Sometimes your ball on the green will stop your brother's ball from going into the hole. On a particular day, luck might save you a few strokes, like it did for your brother, or it might cost you a few. On balance, I believe it all evens out.
    1 point
  27. A lot more can go wrong to compound your score or give you more opportunities to score before you get to the green. Go read "Lowest Score Wins" and look at strokes gained data. I'll take a premium ballstriker with suboptimal putting over a premium putter with suboptimal ballstriking any day of the week.
    1 point
  28. I'm not saying that Jack didn't want to win, but he sure didn't [if what has been written is to be believed] commit himself to the game to the degree that Tiger did. What Woods accomplished from 1997 - 2008 will most probably never be equaled. The degree of dominance is staggering. Jack reportedly took time off and when his dominance wained, would go back to work. We might only imagine what he could have done. Regardless, history will/should always have him on golf's Mt. Rushmore. As much as the sentimental side of me wants Jack, the analytical side knows that Wood's work is hard to deny.
    1 point
  29. It’s also worth noting that a hole caused by any animal is now considered an ACC. Previously only that caused by a burrowing animal so qualified. A significant change...
    1 point
  30. There's always the possibility for anything. In general, 40+ is an indicator of an average or less golfer and in general, people are far less able to execute a full swing than a putt.
    1 point
  31. I agree with this, except that I'd even go so far as to even include other statistics. They are all subject to variables that cannot be quantified for the different generations imo. And what proof is there that Snead, or Hogan, or Jones would not have been better than both? There is none, other than speculation. My view is that the best we can do is to say that each was the best of their time. We can speculate as to who would have been the most dominant, but there is no proof.
    1 point
  32. Smylie Kaufman. Soon. Mark it.
    1 point
  33. Even if you consider that the fields are 20% stronger from Tiger's era, which is probably an understatement, Tiger's achievements match Jacks in Majors. This line makes no sense. This is about greatest golfer not greatest person. Still, some of the greatest athletes of all time were jerks. Golfers do not have to be good guys. Keep to the topic please. So you will not say Usain Bolt isn't the sprinter runner of all time? It's easy to tell he is. That one fact takes out your claim about not claiming athletes as great. It's not difficult. People just don't want t
    1 point
  34. Got my second 70's score the other day with a 79 (45/34) now with 191 carded rounds ...it seems after getting 83 (around 80 games ago 6yrs+ it's been so hard to beat that score) with many 83's at best but just as many low 90's .... then after a 5-month break with zero golf .... I just took a different mindset to really think about my game and not focus on my score so much ...got a net out the back yard work on the swing path contact ...much more chipping practice .. and it been 40 days where outside a couple of days I haven't held a club ...played doz or so rounds and I go from 15.1
    1 point
  35. Just to reinforce iacas's point. If a chip sideways is the reasonable shot you would have played if the ball had not been embedded and you drop in the relief area, you do not have to play a chip. If you now have a good lie and view, you may play a wood to the green if you wish.
    1 point
  36. Here's an interesting scenario I've been thinking about. Let's say he wins a U.S. Open and British Open but stops at 17 majors. This actually gives him more Career Grand Slams (4) than Jack's 3 Career Grand Slams. And then there is issue of total wins. A hypothetical 90 and 17 is better than 73 and 18. I don't think anyone believes a 1-major guy is better than a 17 time winner on Tour (without a major). Just throwing that out there because it would make the debate pretty awkward to say the least, haha
    1 point
  37. The lead hand has the most contact with the grip. I don't usually wear a glove, but after three straight days of continuous practice and play, I needed to wear one today (and probably tomorrow). My fingers are kind of tender where the callouses will form, but for now it is uncomfortable to hold a club without a glove. It doesn't help that my grip of choice is Pure DTX which is similar to a corded grip in feel. Had I started the week with a glove, I probably could have avoided this, so I can see why anyone who hits a lot of balls would use one.
    1 point
  38. The Rule says, as you seem to know: Exceptions – When Relief Not Allowed for Ball Embedded in General Area: Relief under Rule 16.3b is not allowed: When interference by anything other than the ball being embedded makes the stroke clearly unreasonable (for example, when a player is unable to make a stroke because of where the ball lies in a bush). This is a common bit of fine print with many free relief situations.
    1 point
  39. If your ball is embedded in the general area you're entitled to relief (assuming the Local Rule isn't in effect limiting it to fairway height or lower). If you can chip out sideways, then the ball is still embedded. If it's possible to reasonably play a stroke in some direction, you are entitled to relief, and then after relief is taken, can play in any direction. But why would you want to just chip out if you get relief? You could… but why?
    1 point
  40. Golftec has some good videos https://www.golftec.com/blog/2017/01/solve-shank-staying-your-lane/
    1 point
  41. Whenever tiger is finally done playing, that putter he uses is probably going to be the most sought after sports item in American history. Its practically a priceless artifact already. In all of tigers memorable moments captured on camera, he has that putter in his hand in nearly all of them.
    1 point
  42. Masters.com is just the best. I got 700mbs downloading the broadcast. Six hours of HD video, almost 10GB, downloaded in a couple of minutes. The coverage starts about 20 minutes before the leaders tee off, so you get all of Tiger's shots. For those who can't or don't want to download the whole thing, note that the tracking feature on Masters.com doesn't just show diagrams of the shots in a very cool 3d viewer that is to the PGA Tour's shot tracker what Skyrim is to Pong, but it shows video of every shot. Just click on the shot number on the diagram to get a 5-10 second clip of that sh
    1 point
  43. This is true. But I’d add, imo, that many instructors ‘do’ and do quite well as far as golf in general. PGA TOUR players are in an elite class by themselves. Being an excellent golfer isn’t limited to a PGA TOUR level of play.
    1 point
  44. Me too. Doesn't bother me a bit. Nor does playing with strangers, as long as they're not slow or weird. Of course, playing with friends/family is ideal.
    1 point
  45. Just back in the gym today after a long layoff. Did 2 sets of 12 reps of squats, dumbbell bench presses, upright rows, triceps push downs, and barbell curls. Just used today to get back into being in the gym. Felt good and am so happy my wife signed us up at the Y.
    1 point
  46. I force myself to go to bed at around 9:30 so I can wake up and be at the gym sometime between 5AM and 6AM. Deload week this week, btw, so light on the weights and only 3 gym days this week.
    1 point
  47. 1 point
  48. The way I chose to answer this question was to look at each players individual accomplishments and ask myself: Which would I be most satisfied with? Hogan and Player both won modern Grand Slams, in addition to a ton of other tournaments, which I consider to be a very fulfilling set of accomplishments. However, Hogan had about 3x as many PGA Tour wins as Player, since Gary chose to play internationally more often. Both are very impressive, but Hogan simply beat better players more often. Phil and Snead each have the U.S. Open monkey on their backs, though Phil may still do it. I hop
    1 point
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-05:00


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • Support TST Affiliates

    TourStriker PlaneMate
    Golfer's Journal
    Whoop
    SuperSpeed
    FlightScope Mevo
    Use the code "iacas" for 10% off Mevo and the code "iacasjan21" for 10% off SuperSpeed.
  • Posts

    • Yeah, I mean it's no big deal - many of us have them simply because they came with the clubs lol.  My thought was that if we cared about the club getting scratches at all, it seems that during a round they're bouncing around a lot more than at any other time in their lifetime, including sitting in the car trunk. But you're right that they're just like any other expensive item, including cars; you're extra worried about them like they're newborn babies up until that first scratch or ding.  After that?  Meh, who cares haha!
    • Please do.  I can see that being a fascinating discussion. As to your question: I expect to, eventually.  So far I've been using mine just for putting.
    • ‘That there is an RRRVVV’ Eddie- Christmas Vacation.
    • I'm sure it isn't across the country. Just telling you how it is here (in this particular environment). You are absolutely right that it is not helping us move forward. I'm only speaking about what I hear/see daily. It's different in this environment. As a matter of fact, you can drive south of the school where I teach (about 5 miles) and get a completely different environment.  
    • Doesn't look like a camera to me, looks more like a radar device, but could be wrong.
×
×
  • 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...