Jump to content

turtleback

Forum Leader
  • Content Count

    4,388
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    32

turtleback last won the day on April 18 2019

turtleback had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

714 One of the All-Time Greats

1 Follower

About turtleback

  • Rank
    Old Man style golfer

Personal Information

  • Your Location
    Colorado

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index
    none
  • Handedness
    Righty

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The big step is the executive Order that was just signed. Here is an article, from a liberal publication, looking at the effect the order might have on women's sports. Newsweek article
  2. There is also a huge wildcard in that if trends continue women's golf will come to be dominated by XY chromosome women. A big step in that direction just happened in an EO. If that happens will ratings go up or down?
  3. That is my recollection of the early days, when the forum action was rec.sports.golf on usenet. Usually masquerading as "he's getting these endorsements without having done anything. As if putting up the best amateur record of the modern age in spectacular fashion was nothing.
  4. When were you married to Tiger? It is the new ethic of the 21st century. Taking offense on behalf of people who don't take offense themselves. And it's corollary, not forgiving someone on behalf of an injured party that does forgive. So you're not saying it's right, but you do it anyway?
  5. I dunno. The fact that on the ACTUAL Mount Rushmore there are 4? I was under the, perhaps mistaken, impression we were talking about a Mount Rushmore of golfers, not just a list of top golfers. Otherwise it is like having a 'top ten' list with 27 names.
  6. It is a Mount Rushmore, not a Hall of Fame.
  7. It is a bow of courtesy to the people bound up in their nostalgia about Jack and unwilling to look at the objective facts that indicate that he was surpassed as GOAT by Tiger long ago. Cf., the massive thread on the topic. Thanks for sharing your criteria. I disagree with them, but you are certainly free to choose your own criteria.
  8. It would be interesting to see what criteria was used that ignored the 2 GOATs in whichever order. That would be Gene Sarazen, Ben Hogan, Gary Player, Jack Nicklaus, and Tiger Woods. One too many, if you limit yourself to the traditional 4.
  9. If Hal thinks it is all about the mental game, and his win over Tiger in the Players shows he was mentally stronger, then why didn't he outperform Tiger consistently? Because of the wide gap in their physical ability, that's why.
  10. In his peak years, people would say that a part 72 course is generally closer to a par 68 course for Tiger because of his par 5 scoring. But I don't ever recall Tiger himself saying it. Bryson DID say that that about himself. And then karma kicked in.
  11. This kind of thing happens all of the time. Go look up how many holes Tiger played in one day, while winning the 2005 Masters. Go back a little in history and you will find that playing 36 holes on the last day of an event were common. Then there is the US Amateur, which still plays a 36 hole match for the finals. If playing 27 holes is a problem for a player then, IMO, they have no business being a pro golfer, let alone playing in the Masters.
  12. I absolutely think Lee Elder should be recognized by ANGC, but I think this is the wrong way to do it. His outstanding achievement was persistence and endurance in the face of discrimination and hate, not his play. He was a good player, but by no means outstanding. In a sense, putting him in the honorary starters, almost demeans him, because of all of the starters he is the only one who didn't get there because of his play - it makes it look like tokenism. A more permanent recognition, like a plaque or statute would be a better fit, IMO. And would live on as long as ANGC does.
  13. Meh. The PGA's version of Celebrity Bowling.
  14. Separate and distinct from the general debate, with all due respect your chart is nonsense and doesn't even bear on the question because of one HUGE omission. Your chart fails to taken into account the massive increases in course yardage. Some of us are old enough to remember when a 7,000 yard course was considered a monster and most tour events were played on courses in the 6,600-6,800 range. Without "normalizing" courses, winning score comparisons are meaningless. It is exactly the same issue as to why comparing raw scoring averages over different eras tell you very little. You may
×
×
  • 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...