Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 04/12/2019 in all areas

  1. I'm gonna give my wife the best 90 seconds of her life tonight...
  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. Come to think of it, yeah, there should be! All those players who took a divot should add a stroke per divot to their score! What a ridiculous question. I'd welcome you to TST, @Tusher, but c'mon. Your troll attempt was ridiculous. P.S. I renamed the topic. The original title was "2019 Masters Question."
  5. Pretzel

    2019 Newport Cup

    For reference, this is the view from the tee on the hole @Golfingdad is talking about: I added the giant red arrow that shows where the green was when you were standing on the tee. You had to hit it directly over the house there, and when @DeadMan and I were on the tee in this photo there were people sitting out on the patio of that house watching us - talk about pressure to not screw up the shot over the house! It was definitely high-risk, but was fun to make a run at it for sure. The greenside pitch I remember the most was when we were playing together and your approach for the alternate shot went long over the green on #13 from that awkward mound I put the tee shot into (photo below). Just a crazy flier from what looked like a buried lie, neither of us expected it to go long like that. Then I got lucky and holed out the pitch shot, but we couldn't even catch a break since @NCGolfer sank the East team's birdie putt anyways! These photos were taken by @RandallT who provided excellent photography of the entire event. I strongly encourage everyone who's even remotely interested in playing (and even those who aren't!) to check out the full album of his photos here to see some of the fun!
  6. Tiger didn't back into the win, and it strikes me as ridiculous to say it: He was in the final group. He was T2 going into the last round. He played every nine holes under par for the week - eight times. He shot 70 on a day when the field averaged 71.5. The low score for the day was only 67. He passed ONE player, and did so by making birdies. Backing into a major is what Rickie Fowler does for his top five finishes. He's never near the lead, but plays well on Sunday from far enough back that he has no real pressure and thus does "okay." Even in his prime when he wanted things the most he didn't win other majors, and the players now are slightly better than even in 2000-01. It's not entirely dependent on "if he wants it bad enough." It's not even mostly dependent on that.
  7. Here's a by-the-numbers look at Tiger Woods' fifth Masters victory on Sunday at Augusta National, courtesy of the Golf Channel Editorial Research Unit. Woods' win marks his fifth Masters title, one shy of Jack Nicklaus' record, and 15th major win, three behind Nicklaus. Woods joins Nicklaus as the only player to win a Masters in three different decades. There were 3,954 days between Woods' win Sunday and his previous major victory, at the 2008 U.S. Open. That's the fifth longest span between major titles. Woods' 14 years between Masters victories is a tournament record. Woods won his first major championship when trailing after 54 holes. At age 43, Woods is the second oldest Masters champion, behind only Nicklaus, who won in 1986 at age 46. Woods made 22 birdies and nine bogeys en route to finishing 13 under. He played the par 5s in 8 under and the par 3s in 4 under. He bogeyed the fifth hole in each round, the first time he's done that in any of his Masters starts. Woods led the field in greens in regulation (58/72, 81 percent). Seven of those missed greens came in Round 1. Woods was playing in final group of a major championship for the first time since the 2009 PGA Championship. Woods is a combined 32 under in his last three majors. He was a combined 37 over in the five major starts before that. Tiger Woods' fifth Masters victory, by the numbers | Golf Channel Here's a by-the-numbers look at Tiger Woods' fifth Masters victory on Sunday at Augusta National. I mean, he's not 20, but that's a bit much.
  9. 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%
  10. Remember when Tiger was doomed with the chip yips?
  11. 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.
  12. Assuming no lip issues, I just put the ball back in my stance an inch or two and really try and hit down on it. It's the same thing I do if my ball happens to be in a divot hole, or a muddy lie ... any situation where too much ground too soon is gonna really screw the shot up I focus on only hitting ball. If there are lip issues, then it's still the same shot, but you have to choose the club that you know is going to clear it first.
  13. Needed some coaching and a borrowed wedge, but I did it.
  14. 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 shot. It defaults to a small video, but you can expand it to full screen with a click.
  15. Tiger Woods has a 2 shot lead in the fairway on the 72nd hole of a major championship. Soak that in for a moment.
  16. Of all the majors, to win The Masters... 11 years since the last major. With all that's happened. A few years ago he didn't know if he's play golf again. This can't be expressed. You must have followed Tiger and the Tour all these years to get a feeling for what this would mean. Seen the interviews, the mugshots, the limps after another back strain, the withdraws. It's unprecedented.
  17. I shot a hole in one on the first hole a couple of weeks ago. It didn’t matter what I did afterward. I was set for the day!
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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"
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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
  25. Things to be thankful for: He didn't have that terrible goatee for his first majors in over a decade.
  26. Maybe, but the whole "challenge Tiger" just seems silly. I will, however, concede that perhaps I don't understand what is meant by that or perhaps he's unclear on this point. To me, you just need someone someone that you click with--whatever that means. Maybe that means someone to "challenge" you. Golf is hard enough by itself; just get someone who you get along with and can carry a professional relationship with that you can trust. I don't think caddies are required to challenge the player's ego. Tiger knows what he wants and he has the whole lot to pick from. Again, that's your perception. Easy to armchair quarterback watching CBS or even going to an event and watching. That's still judging from afar. We're not there with them with any firsthand knowledge. Even if what you say is true, maybe that's what Tiger wants. At the end of the day, Tiger will do what's best for him. You think if he thought Joe was slacking he would keep him?
  27. Played 9 holes today in probably the worst weather I ever golfed in...38 degrees, windy, and sleeting for a few holes. And...it was awesome. So much fun to play again.
  28. I would have nicely asked if he minded if I chipped/pitched to one of the pins. Assuming he said he didn't mind, then I would have cleared the balls between that pin and the area I intended to pitch/chip from and proceeded to chip and pitch like usual. I usually only chip with 3-4 balls and they're usually my gamers so if one did happen to go too far and got mixed with his, I would just walk up and pick it up as soon as I hit it so there wouldn't be any confusion. Now if he said that he did mind or had issue sharing the green/area with me, I just would have gone and talked to a staff member and let them handle it from there.
  29. Sparky Anderson was probably one of the best baseball managers but he couldn't cut it as a major league player. Playing and knowing how to play are completely different. John Wooden was arguably one of the best basketball coaches but you won't see his name as one of the basketball player greats.
  30. New Nike commercial. This doesn't get old.
  31. IMO it’s hard to overstate how important today is for Tiger’s legacy. Yes people will say he was the GOAT before today and all of this is just gravy- and that’s fine- but I think without today, in 30+ years, he would have been remembered as much for what he didn’t accomplish as for what he did. For those who didn’t get a chance to witness his greatness first hand, I think the history books would have partially remembered his fall from grace, injuries, etc over his incredible talent and accomplishments. Well I think all of that noise gets thrown out with today. Peak Tiger has always been the greatest the game has ever seen. That has never been a highly debatable topic IMO. The debate in my mind at least has always been whether Tiger’s career was better than Jack’s. I’ve always been split on that question (and never voted on this thread) but after today, Tiger has answered that IMO.
  32. For the Nantz haters, note that he didn't say anything for over 2:00 there. Just let what was being seen and heard told the story.
  33. Tiger played each 9 on all four days under par. Talk about consistent!
  34. And if I played a PGA Tour event against 5 current PGA Tour players and a 140 or so other twelve year olds, I'd rack up the top ten finishes, too. Pure speculation. Uhhhhhhh… This is where you're just stating your opinion as if it's a fact. I think you could more easily support the idea that they're actually better. Lee, like Jack, didn't have to beat that many people. Less than your Jack humping, in part because the facts are on our side… 🙂 So now you're citing someone else's opinion? Uhm, I could do the same thing: Jack Nicklaus, in 1996 (paraphrased): "Modern tour players would have been superstars in my day. The modern tour is so much more competitive, so much deeper." We don't really care one way or the other about that… because it's off topic here.
  35. Jack Nicklaus truly was great at losing.
  37. I think we need to start talking about Grand Slam Tiger 2019
  39. And the pars at 17...and 18. To be fair, I saw a terribly high number of putts from all manner of players where putts rolled right over painted holes. On the flip side he made the bomb on 9 nobody should have made. A two shot gift. If it hadn't gone in he would have been lucky to have a 15 footer for par. Yeah, she taketh some but giveth too/two. And then how about this leaderboard??! I mean...damn. Does anybody have an extra Master's ticket for the weekend?....Anybody? Will do your and your entire family's laundry for a year. Anybody??.... No? (chirp chirp chirp).... ok, alrighty then. Just thought I ask.
  40. f***ing security guy
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00

  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • 2018 TST Partners

    PING Golf
    FlightScope Mevo
    More to come…
  • Posts

    • until recently the longest club in my bag was a 16.5* DI with the same x-stiff shaft as i have in my irons. i like the added heft/stiffness and similar feel to my other long irons because it's easier for me to control, but it's possible i could get more distance with a lighter steel or graphite shaft and eventually i may consider trying that. i think getting a used DI and maybe a couple of used shafts or the same shaft as your hybrid is a good idea. i would also recommend experimenting with your setup. e.g. play around with adding weight to the grip or head to change characteristics to better suit you. 
    • Skill level of the teacher doesn't necessarily matter. What matters is what are his pupils doing? Are they winning? Are they dominating? Or is his "best" pupil some guy who one time played in the U.S Amateur Championship and was cut. Of course this depends on what you want out of the game in the first place. If you're just looking to shoot 90, almost any teacher will do. But it's like anything, if you want to get even marginally good. You need to put the time in. Spend everyday practicing for 30 minutes, + playing on the weekends you'll break 90 relatively quickly.         
    • My irons are Callaway Apex CF16 with the steel X95 stiff shafts and 4 iron is my longest and is pretty consistent. My old 3 hybrid was a Ping G30(19') with the Ping stiff shaft but my miss was a hook,  so I replaced it with a Callaway Apex 3 hybrid (20') with a Kurokage 80Hy stiff shaft that I hit well and it doesn't hook but I can hit a little draw or fade.  My 3w is also a Ping G30 (14.5' adjustable) with the Ping stiff shaft and my miss is a hook
    • Because the relief offered for an embedded ball could allow relief from the position that otherwise caused it to be unplayable.  It’s not simply a matter of unplugging it and replacing it in the original position....
    • I'm surprised nobody advised Harmon has won one PGA Tour event....Some event which was played same week as British Open way back when... The basic question of know how vs execution is applicable to every endeavor. All sports...The best managers of baseball, basketball, football, hockey....etal .....and many business jobs. The best salesman usually is not a good manager. The manager of salesmen was probably not a good salesman.  The concept is relatively true that one skill does not necessarily transition to the other.  There are something like 10,000 scratch golfers in the US. Only 200 or so are playing on tour. The difference between being tour quality and a very good golfer[scratch] is actually much more than most realize. The pinnacle of the pyramid is ridiculously difficult to achieve....even if you are really good.  

  • 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...