turtleback

Funny how opinions differ. For me that is one of the silver linings of LIV.

And THAT, my friends is how a proper fisking is done. Well done.

But it makes it crystal clear that the major drought had nothing to do with his physique, since he was able to do all of that with that physique.

Actually, he has a nice little set of man boobs. If anyone looked jacked it is Bryson.

Didn't Mike Souchak (and possibly others as I'm just going by memory, but I'm pretty sure Souchak was first) shoot a 257 years ago? It wasn't on a par 73, so it wasn't 35 under, but still.

Tiger announced that he'll be playing the PNC. I hope its a sign that he'll play some in 2025.

LOL No, but a lot of guys only have one son in law and DON'T like him.

Part of the clubmaker's process, in this case, is to have the player come back after a few rounds for any necessary tweaking, FWIW.

So I have a son-in-law that I really like, and he plays. Not great, averages 100-110 on a normal course. For his birthday I got him a series of 5 lessons (he's never had lessons before) from a well-regarded local pro. He hasn't started them yet. For Christmas I am getting him a fitting and clubs from a local clubmaker with credentials and equipment out the wazoo: And following the fitting I will be having the clubmaker make him 13 clubs (he already has a putter he really likes and putting is one of the better parts of his game). I'll let the clubmaker and him work out how many 'woods', how many and which hybrids, how many and which irons, and how many and which wedges. Other than paying I don't want to inject myself into the process. So my question for the board is which should happen first, the fitting/building of the clubs or the lessons? I can see arguments on both sides and I just thought this would be a good place from which to get some input. Thoughts?

It's not so much the time that is an issue it is this notion that sex is 'assigned'. What, is the Dr. going to say, "well your baby has a penis, but I am going to assign his sex as female."? The pollution of the language is a big factor in how this stuff is sold. The baby's sex is observed not assigned. And in most cases it is observed on an ultrasound long before birth. But neither of these inconvenient facts fit the narrative.

People can know the sex of the child long before birth. My niece is expecting in May, 2025 and already knows it will be a boy. My wife and I, OTOH, decided to not find out ahead of time. But nowadays the majority of people do choose to find out ahead of time.

I never heard of this guy before, but what a horrible break. golfer hit in eye

Was that enough damage to let him replace the club? 😇

And yet he has still put up an incredible record.

Another one in Tiger's time is Y.E. Yang, who cost him a PGA. And another European in Jack's prime was Tony Jacklin who won both a US and British Open.

Yeah, IMO there are (at least) two different aspects to the strength of field issue. One is organic, ie, the quality of play increases because of better training methods, equipment, quality of courses, etc. The other is structural, how the universe of players widened with to growth and inclusion of minority and foreign players, faster and cheaper transportation, more stringent qualifying - like eliminating so many club pros from the PGA, or making it more accessible for top European pros to qualify for the US Open by having qualifying in Europe, and the general increase in the sheer number of players. There was a time when there were NO events where substantially all of the best players played. Now you have, at a minimum, the 4 majors and the Players where that happens. Between Tigers prime era and now that second aspect hasn't changed that much. Most of the increase in depth of field for Scottie reflects the first aspect I listed, IMO.

Good post. I've been thinking about what Scottie would have to do to get into the greatest ever conversation and it led me to a question. Which was a bigger disparity in strength of field, Jack to Tiger or Tiger to Scottie?

So, insulting wholesale is OK, but insulting retail isn't? In any case the point is that the winner of the Tour Championship is the Tour Champion, the winner of the Players is the Players Champion, the winner of the PGA is the PGA Champion, and the winner of the British Open is the Champion Golfer of the Year. So what? If you want to see who the best was for the year you look to the 2 Players of the Year, not to any one tournament or what the winner of that tournament is called.

No more pretentious than calling the British Open winner "The Champion Golfer of the Year".

Everyone on the protour has the ability to have spare $600 drivers in reserve.

No, I'm suggesting it is a stupid Local Rule that is at odds with reality.

And unless one believes he tanked his next drive, the cracked face appears to have affected the ball flight.

Ah, that explains it. Thanks.

Huh, I looked but didn't see it. I still don't see it other than the merge. Sorry.

PGA Star Freakin’ Loses It On Official After ‘Outrageous’ Ruling [VIDEO] Matt Fitzpatrick’s PGA Tour season came to a disappointing and contentious end at the BMW Championship on Sunday. The English golfer narrowly missed out IMO the ruling was absurd. First off, players don't routinely scrutinize their driver faces after each drive, so Matt obviously felt something in his drive that caused him to look closely. Secondly, with the high level of today's technology it is not implausible that even such a small crack could affect the structural integrity of the head and therefore the playability of the club. (IMO it is ridiculous to suggest that he hit his next drive poorly, on purpose make a point - too muck money involved to potentially throw away a stroke to make a point.) Thirdly, he had a replacement club readily at hand to replace the damaged club so there would be no undue delay. Fourthly, he would derive no advantage from replacing the damaged club UNLESS the damage affected the playability of the club. Thoughts?