Jump to content

iacas

Administrator
  • Content Count

    65,265
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    713

Everything posted by iacas

  1. Look at the poll results and tell me again “most do.” And I need not respect it any more than any other opinion. Particularly if I have good reasons to think it’s short sighted.
  2. Phil. We have this topic already. I’ll have someone merge it.
  3. I don’t. Your 90% weighted average strikes me as awfully short sighted. Majors are almost a small sample size. Winning or losing two has a HUGE effect. And most of Tiger’s regular victories were against stiffer competition than Jack faced in his majors.
  4. It’s $29.95 from us, shipping included. We are the only people printing them. If someone on Amazon is selling it, it’s being re-sold. Just FYI.
  5. You made nothing clear. You quoted an entire block of text and then responded with a sentence or two. The wins are quantifiable. It’s a count. The fact that the fields are stronger/deeper could also be pretty accurately quantified.
  6. It’s quantifiable because you can literally count them and come up with a number.
  7. That's an insulting bit of absolute bullshit, but beyond that, cool.
  8. Actually you made a triple, because you were required to replace your ball after your brother's ball hit it, and play from there. You played from a wrong place, incurring a two-stroke penalty. I know that's not the topic, but… learn some of the more basic rules, please. They help you quite a bit more often than people think. There's no real answer to the question, because how do you quantify that? Overall, breaks tend to level out, good and bad. The better the golfer, the less luck matters.
  9. Okay. Except I hope she got it from lowestscorewins.com. 😄 Let me know when you read it so I can get you the badge. Hopefully she's not cruel enough to make you wait until June.
  10. Pretty soon it's gonna be 37 > 33 or something like that. 😛
  11. Every Shot Counts. Did you buy a copy of LSW off Amazon or something?
  12. No it wouldn't. The facts are that the competition is stiffer now. That's an empirical fact. I can use that to determine other facts. That Jack may win 18 against stiffer competition would just mean that the experiment wasn't controlled very well as another factor came into effect.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. Thing is, you have no evidence to support that he'd win more majors than the 18 he won and all of the evidence supports the idea that he'd win fewer. He'd be playing against Tiger Woods. He'd be playing against, beyond TW, stiffer competition top to bottom. The equipment plays a role in further reducing Jack's advantages. Now everyone can hit a high, towering long iron or hybrid. Everything supports that Jack would win fewer than 18 times. I think that he'd win fewer than 15 times, which is why I say 14x or 15x > 18y. But nothing supports Jack winning more than 18 times. Of course there's no "proof" or there wouldn't be any debate here at all, unless people concocted other stupid reasons like "Jack was a more gracious winner" or something else. Because majors are the ONLY area where 18 > 15 and where Jack has an actual "lead" on TW (though again that means excluding strength/depth of field). Really? You're reading and hearing that? What are the other voices in your head saying? I don't see people typing that stuff here. He wouldn't beat it 18 times. I think that can pretty much be taken as a a fact.
  16. C’mon man. Opinions aren’t facts.
  17. @klineka is an embedded ball an ACC?
  18. There's no "penalty" here. Correct. If you have ANY reasonable shot, you're entitled to take relief.
  19. Keep at it. And sneak out for those face-on views if you can…
×
×
  • 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...