Jump to content

johnclayton1982

Established Member
  • Content Count

    472
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by johnclayton1982

  1. No, I get it. Its not hard to grasp what the market is. I understand shows with more viewers are more valuable than shows with less. My point is that the market doesn't always make the best decisions for (1) society or (2) for morality. Slaves were legal for a hundred years. Was that just "the market" ? Shouldn't we have just let those market forces play out? I mean, a business with slaves is Game of Thrones and a business without slaves is the Newsroom. So why should we interfere? An enterprise is way more valuable if it doesn't have to pay minimum wage, so under your theory, why doe
  2. Does anyone think there is value in getting your clock cleaned in championship flights? I don't play net tournaments, but not because I'm a low cap (I guess kinda, at a low single digit, but not like these +1s!) but I refuse to play handicapped flights. My background is in tennis and chess tournaments when I was younger and they were 1v1 sports with no handicap. If you were worse, you lost. If your better, then beat me. I don't totally understand this handicap idea, but I've never really used mine I don't think. Ever since the new USGA you can't turn in solo rounds rule my only ha
  3. I'm one of those people who have one of those "little voices". Also, I think somewhere in this thread Inkster's actual comments changed from "more" to "equal". Those arn't even close to the same thing. I read the entire thread from the first page to the last. The "market" argument is absolute garbage. Anyone who makes that argument here must have been vehemently oppressed to the civil rights act, because the opponents there had the exact same arguments. "If we let black people stay in this hotel, other people won't want to. That's not us, that's just the market. That's just giving p
  4. The USA basketball team plays by international rules every Olympics and absolutely dominates. I guess the question I (and golfingdad) have is why is this so important to you? Don't you think its cooler to be able to hit a drive closer to DJ's distance (because you can use a super juiced ball at a .89 COR driver) than it is to be able to figure out what he would shoot on your home course? Bifurcation exists in literally every other sport I can think of. Even in tennis (which I've posted before about playing at a high level) there is minor bifurcation between high school, college and the
  5. 100% correct. I'd make the ball (and the driver face) longer and hotter. Its more fun for everybody. Shots go flying into the woods more and those shots are fun. I have no issue with obsoleting old courses or the distances people drive the ball. My argument basically boiled down to the fact that science and golf have intersected in a way that makes massive hitters the norm (and not the unique, like in Hogan/Nicklaus' day). Its the phenomenon of diminishing returns. A 4.4 40 running linebacker is incredibly fast, but doesn't seem or sound as fast than a 4.6 linebacker. But those two hund
  6. All I'm saying is dialing back the ball is an insane reaction. It makes it less exciting. The PGA Tour should be getting people excited and into playing golf. We now have game golf and Loft 18 and all that. The PGA Tour needs to follow suit. If that takes music, people being allowed to cheer during swings, teams, trick holes, whatever, I am 110% for it. My view is probably not popular with more traditional golfers / golf fans, and there are obviously some things that wouldn't change (like Augusta), but you can at least tell the difference when two football teams play each other. My be
  7. I actually totally agree with this. Us, as golf fans, see huge differences in Furyk hitting it 285 and somebody else hitting it 300 and Furyk having a funky swing, and ZJ being a wedge master and so forth. If the goal was to get die hard golf fans to watch the Tour, we'd be fine. But we'll watch regardless. Everyone else just sees a bunch of corporate guys who all look the same playing yet another tree-lined course trying to hit as many greens as possible and taking six minutes to line up putts. They know the best way to play the game, and trackman has given them unprecedented contro
  8. We disagree on excitement. I see people do fist pumps all the time (Patrick Reed, for example). But its still not nearly as popular as the Tiger days. How should we judge the popularity of the PGA Tour if not for TV Ratings? My understanding of TV Ratings is that they allow for additional content in how they are measured, but I could be wrong about that. "Figured out" doesn't mean "perfected", it means "figured out". The best way to play has been figured out, as you wrote in your book. When that happens the Sport suffers significantly. Everyone is playing (relatively) the s
  9. No. I'm advocating rules changes so that the optimal way to play the game isn't figured out any more. I didn't know that writing more was considered bad here. I was making an argument that I think was correct. The ball doesn't matter. Its boring to watch the same guys play the same way every single week on courses that all look the same. Diversity in looks, approach, strategy and other factors is very interesting. The PGA Tour has none. You might think its not boring, but TV ratings sure think its boring.
  10. Tiger Woods was interesting because he was different. If in 2000 there were 55 guys who played the game exactly like Tiger and were just as long as Tiger and understood what it took to shoot low scores like Tiger (i.e. iron approaches most important, than drives, etc...) Tiger may have won a lot, but he would have been boring. All the guys we remember as super amazing, super interesting, super memorable guys are almost uniformly the first great type of guy who has solved the sport. First great isolation scorer in a no-help-D-allowed NBA? Jordan. First great fast/ forechecker /
  11. I read the thread, I think some of the "other sports" analogies are a bit off, because they have all made massive allowances for players getting bigger and stronger and faster. Sure, there is someone just as big playing defense on the other side, but all those sports have still recognized the need to change as "distance" (physical prowess) has changed. To say the hoop is still 10 feet and someone bigger and faster is playing defense is so simplistic as to be wrong. All of those sports have made massive rule changes at the professional level (but not the amateur) to "keep up" with what t
  12. The issue, though, is the mental "aspect" of the game always looks backwards. Someone always "was" in the zone. Nobody is ever "going to be" in the zone. Whereas in 2000, Tiger Woods playing well at the British was probably a pretty likely outcome given his US Open. Nobody ever seems to be able to predict when a golfer will become mentally strong. Its always used as an excuse or a justification after the fact. Which is why its nonsense. You miss a ton of short chips and putts, and self-diagnose yourself with the yips. Its a storyline you've made up because you don't want to tell yo
  13. I think its kinda like Gary Player said. The more I practice the luckier I get. The more I practice the better my mental game gets. Locking seems silly. We're disagreeing about the role (or even, on a more basic level, the existence) of the mental game in golf over the internet. Its like the old joke. Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and a phenomenal ball striker who shoots 85 because of his bad mental game are all in a race. Who wins? None of them, because they are all figments of your imagination.
  14. Every single golfer has a probability distribution every single time they step up to the ball. This probability distribution narrows in band among more consistent players and widens among less consistent players, but it is a probability distribution. You are a band of potential results which get less and less likely in terms of proximity to the hole as you get closer and closer and less and less likely likely in terms of proximity to the hole as you get further away. You are about as likely to hit a driver from 400 yards away into the hole as you are to hit it 200 yards behind you. Its a b
  15. Those folks who "experience it" are experiencing a physical swing breakdown that, generally due to putting in so much time and caring so much, their brains will not allow them to attribute to being really bad at the physical act of a golf swing. Golf is unique in this. In basketball, if you play a lot, you can hustle around and play D and rebound and generally be OK even if your mechanics in all facets of the game are poor. In Golf, you can work constantly and incredibly hard on your game and still stink. Our ego doesn't let us believe that, so it makes up a nonsense narrative about is
  16. Nonsense. Its simply that the scratch has a tighter band so you don't notice the physical as much. The scratch might hit a 100 yard shot to 10 feet and then 12 and then 16, but its all physical for the most part. The beginner might hit that same shot to 10 then 50 then 70, and those are also all physical for the most part, they are just fooling you because the beginner has a bigger physical difference relative to each shot. Just because the physical difference is, on average, 2% in the scratch and 20% in the beginner doesn't make it "more mental". Its a narrative that people make up to tr
  17. He has also said that he had a massive advantage due to his length. I don't think he was hitting the club with his brain. It was an interesting discussion Jack Watson turned into an absurdity. The only way to a mental versus physical, which is more important discussion makes sense is in the context of shot selection. You don't get to decide if you form myelin or not. If you do something 50,000 times (your example Jack), you *will* be effected mentally. Thats how the body works. Its not "mindless". It might not be conscious, but it isn't "mindless". Your talking in circles. Wh
  18. Why are you equating tons of concentration to good mental skills and lack of concentration to bad mental skills? Throughout this thread there is no definition of what is good mentally and what isn't. Compare Nick Flado and Boo Weekly. I'd argue they both succeed largely because of their mentality, especially the mechanics of early Faldo, but their mentalities are completely different - from borderline obsessive concentration to almost not paying attention. This is the part of this thread that leaves me scratching my head. Why is the guy who has "extreme concentration" using mental
  19. OK, to completely simplify it, mental because physical doesn't exist. When someone goes to golf evolution or golf now or whatever, the mind is being trained. The conscious mind is the most important part because it is the only party you actually control. Whether you think keeping it involved or getting it out of the way is better is irrelevant. Its the only thing you control, so its the most important thing to you. When you practice you arn't literally programming something into your bicep likes a Dell computer. Your training your mental facilities, which use its tool (the bicep) later.
  20. Right. Chicken, egg. Why are you getting mad? Did you hit a bad shot the previous shot? Physical. We can do this all the way back to when your car left its garage headed to the course. Your mental and physical cannot be separated like this. Its ridiculous.
  21. You can't hit a golf ball when your mad because your muscles are full of nodreneline and can't 'function. That's physical. Chicken, egg. Its a completely nonsensical question.
  22. This is like saying that bricks are more important to a power plant than plutonium. That is technically true, but misleading. Your muscles don't work without orders from your brain. So mental is obviously the answer!! Genius. You "using your subconscious" isn't "mental" just like you winning the lottery isn't "using" your skills at picking random numbers. Which is more important at winning the lottery, anyways, your skill in picking random numbers or how lucky you are? That is basically what you are asking here if you define "mental" to include the subconscious, because you don't co
  23. Quote: I only use golf bags with 14 way dividers Same, I can't stand it when each club doesn't have its own spot. The other quirk I have is I used to dip a ton and since quit, but got used to it on the course. So now I put about 5 sticks of mint bubblegum in (same flavor as my old dip flavor) and shove it in my bottom lip while I play. It feels really wierd to play golf without a big ball of something minty in my bottom lip lol. I've gotten some serious "wtf" looks on the first tee eating that much gum at once.
  24. Quote: This is where I tend to disagree (all opinion of course, since there's no real way to prove any of this). I think you're born with a certain level of athletic talent, not talent pertaining to a specific sport. Right, but I could serve a tennis ball as fast as low-level ATP players at 18. I've been playing golf longer (Relatively speaking) and my speed isn't anywhere close to a tour pro. This is why I think it is early childhood, not biology. If it was biology, shouldn't I be able to swing a golf club relatively speaking as fast as a pro wit
  25. Quote: I think you were born with tennis talent, and my only proof is the fact that your family owns a tennis court. Normally people don't own a tennis court with the hopes that they can get their kids to learn to play tennis at a high level of proficiency. The cause is more than likely a demonstration of talent (maybe even one of the parents), then the purchase of tennis courts. Of course there are exceptions of people who own tennis courts while their kids possess no talent in the sport. This is more the exception than the rule, as the
×
×
  • 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...