Jump to content

ScouseJohnny

Established Member
  • Content Count

    644
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

ScouseJohnny last won the day on April 2 2018

ScouseJohnny had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

124 Multiple Major Winner

About ScouseJohnny

  • Rank
    Dedicated Member

Personal Information

  • Your Location
    In the Big Rock Candy Mountains

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index
    12
  • Handedness
    Righty

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. There is such a thing as "enough" money, or, perhaps, the independence to choose his own clubs and play whatever he wants is worth far more to him than an all-in deal with a club manufacturer. He appears to be wearing a Nike hat, a Nike shirt, Nike trousers, and Nike shoes. For all we know, @Groucho Valentinehe's wearing tight Nike briefs as well. I doubt he's coordinating that Nike look for free. Clothes are just clothes. Nike, Puma, what does it matter? In his position pick the ones you like and pick up the whopping big pay check that goes along with the free golf clothes. According to https://www.golf-monthly.co.uk/gear/gear-news/brooks-koepka-whats-in-the-bag-158612 his bag is a mixture of different manufacturers' clubs. Perhaps he likes being able to select each club for its job, rather than trying to fit into a particular manufacturer's driver or putter because he's being paid to?
  2. Surely that's a respectable number of points for a 16 handicapper? What element of your game is causing you dismay? I went through a stage where I couldn't hit a driver and keep the ball in the fairway to save my life. It wasn't that my game fell apart, but the driver of the tee became very, very demoralizing. There my playing partners' tee-shots would be, nicely in the fairway, and inevitably Johnny was digging around in the right-hand rough looking for his ball and holding up play. It became tedious. I kept on playing by sacrificing distance off the tee in favor of accuracy. I went the best part of a season hitting an old Ping Zing 2 iron on par 4s and 5s. In the meantime I bought a new Wilson D100 driver and spent hours with it at the range. Fingers crossed, the ability to hit a driver has not abandoned me, since.
  3. This is neither intended to refute what you are saying, nor even to argue against it. You clearly know the history far better than I. I have never found the definitive answer to how the (modern) majors became majors. There seems to have been some sort of apocryphal conversation between Arnold Palmer and a golf writer, Bob Drum, on a flight to Canada in 1960, in which Palmer determined to contest the (then) deeply unfashionable British Open, and, as the 1960 US Open Winner, decided that the Masters and PGA could comprise a quartet of "grand slam" tournaments. If that is the case, it draws the line between the old world of golf, and the modern era, and makes the previous winners casualties of history, I suppose. Again, I know nothing of Nicklaus's motives in emphasizing, as you suggest, the disproportionate significance of winning those four competitions post-1960 when quantifying the major winners, and subsequently the golfing greats. The generous streak in me wonders whether, as he's known to be a huge tennis fan, he thought his own sport needed four certain majors, as had been the case with tennis for years.
  4. I first approached this thread (and its related threads) many years ago with the argument that you can't cross-compare over eras. For what it's worth, your posts, and posts by iacas and others, convinced me otherwise - I accept that it's perfectly reasonable to examine the careers of players of different eras, and compare them to identify who was the better player, or had the better career. On this one occasion, though, I think you're barking up the wrong tree, slightly. Jack won his last major in 1986, Tiger had collected all 4 majors by 2000. That's only 14 years apart. I think people tended to refer to Nicklaus as the GOAT (not GOTE) in 2000 simply because other than among determined golf fans, the public at large and the sporting press tend to use majors as the principal metric of greatness. And, in the year 2000, there was no real competitor to Nicklaus in that regard in living memory. He stood head and shoulders above his peers. Only real historians of the game would be debating whether Walter Hagen, a player from the 1920s, belonged in the conversation. Jack and Tiger are from very different eras, but the time-span between their careers (one winding down, the other taking off) wasn't very long at all. In other words, there was no need for GOTE conversation in early 2000, because Jack was the GOAT. There were no other contenders in people's minds. There was just Jack, alone. Then suddenly, there were Jack and Tiger. And now there are Tiger and Jack. If Jack is no longer the GOAT, then what is he? The 2nd GOAT? Perhaps. But even though we can compare across eras, the one thing we can't do (a typical GOTE-er complaint, here), is put Tiger in a time machine and send him back to the British Open in 1977 to compete in the Duel in the Sun or what-have-you. Ergo, Nicklaus, no longer the GOAT, is the GOTE(1962-1986).
  5. Interestingly, the "tightness of pants" graph looks different to the strength/depth of field graph @iacas posted in this thread tonight. From unfortunate, tight, plaid, polyester offerings in the Jack era, through a sort of prolonged "slackening off period" thereafter, and hence, lately, to whatever the hell DJ was strutting around in today. Modesty, DJ old chap, that's the ticket.
  6. Yeah, maybe the time will come, one day, when we can speak of him in the same breath as Tom Kite or Jeff Maggert or whoever else satisfies the top 100 metric. Right now, at 29, he has three more majors than Sergio, two more than Bubba, one more than Payne Stewart achieved in his 42 years, the same number as Rory (who shows very little appetite for winning another), one fewer than Seve, two fewer than Faldo, four fewer than Tom Watson... He's already in the conversation, in a big way. And I get the impression this isn't his last major win.
  7. I was thinking exactly the same thing. I must confess I'm intrigued. It sounds beautifully old fashioned. In all of the chatter to be found online about who actually designed it, I found this observation:
  8. That's all perfectly reasonable. It reminds me of F1 fans debating Senna vs Schumacher. Watching Koepka these days, I could easily imagine him in a Jack/Tiger/Brooks conversation a decade from now, being favorably compared to neither of his predecessors.
  9. I have neither your disdain for Tiger, nor others' undying love for him. By your logic, my own childhood hero, Nick Faldo, was pretty much gifted every major he ever won. But they're still his green jackets, and his name on the Claret Jug. Willett won his green jacket, and so did Tiger this year (and ever other year he added one to his locker in Augusta).
  10. There may be some subtle irony here I'm missing, as I haven't heard the sound clip you mentioned. If not: what would Koepka have to do to no longer be boring, and become interesting?
  11. I won't slate you, principally because I agree with you. The Florida "dram shop" statute I cited earlier concurs with the valid (legal) point another poster made: the difference between a bar and an ABC store is that the drinking in a bar occurs away from home, and the person has to get home. My rebuttal to that is that many DUIs occur on the second beer run. A party is planned, booze is bought, the party takes place; at 10pm "Oh shit, we're out of beer." And some foolish soul digs out his car keys and decides to make a trip to the liquor store. The argument is that the bar contributes to causation, when serving a driver who gets off his barstool and into his Ford to drive home. No such link exists in the case of the liquor store clerk. Outside of the legal arguments, I agree with you. The guy who voluntarily tipped it down his own throat should bear the lion's share, if not all, of the responsibility for the poor decisions he made thereafter. The bartender just served it up, on request, like a guy pumping gas.
  12. Right now, of course. And you'll never do better than a set of Tour Edge XCG3s. They were the iron of the early 2010s. Without peer in their day, appreciating classics today. By happy circumstance, I have a near-mint set in climate-controlled storage (otherwise known as the back of my closet). PM me for Paypal details, and we'll open negotiations around $500 or so?
  13. I agree with your sentiment. However: Florida doesn't have a statute about knowingly feeding candy to a diabetic. It does have a "dram shop" statute about knowingly serving booze to an alcoholic. 768.125. Liability for injury or damage resulting from intoxication. A person who sells or furnishes alcoholic beverages to a person of lawful drinking age shall not thereby become liable for injury or damage caused by or resulting from the intoxication of such person, except that a person who willfully and unlawfully sells or furnishes alcoholic beverages to a person who is not of lawful drinking age or who knowingly serves a person habitually addicted to the use of any or all alcoholic beverages may become liable for injury or damage caused by or resulting from the intoxication of such minor or person. The Florida statute is unusual. Many states have "dram shop" statutes that refer to over-serving (serving someone already drunk). Florida's statute includes knowingly serving an habitual drunkard, too. I ran the statute's citation through Lexis Nexis this morning, out of curiosity. Many cases decided under the statute show that if you knowingly serve an alcoholic, you will be on the hook for their negligent actions. The most relevant case is probably Okeechobee Aerie 4137, Fraternal Order of Eagles, Inc. v. Wilde, 199 So. 3d 333 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016). It was summarized at this legal news site: http://floridadefenders.com/blog/huge-settlement-case-drunk-driver-leaving-eagles-club-okeechobee-county-fl But in essence, this is what happened: A member of a private club who was well know at that establishment and spent much of his time there getting wasted on a frequent basis, decided to engage in yet another day's drinking at his club. He then got in his car, pulled out of the parking lot, and slammed into a motorcyclist who suffered horrible injuries. As per the news story above: On May 16, 2014, a civil case against the Eagles Club that was serving Felt (the driver) came to a close with an $11.1 million verdict in favor of Wilde (the motorcyclist) for the injuries that he sustained in the accident. Those injuries included head injuries that cause memory issues, trouble with his eyes and trouble standing. The verdict ended up being the largest in Okeechobee County history. The fact that it was an Eagles Club that is the focus of the lawsuit is important here because that is where the knowledge of Felt’s drinking habits came in to play. If Felt was a club member and drank like he did the day of the accident at that Eagles Club often, it would be reasonable for the jury to find that he was a known “habitual drunkard” for the purposes of the law. Note: the case settled after a successful appeal by the motorcyclist against an earlier decision - an error in law by a lower court that had allowed another, irrelevant statute to bear upon the proceedings. Faced with a new trial, in which the "dram shop" statute alone would be the principal issue, the insurer for the club folded and settled with the plaintiff. Note: I am not an attorney, just a humble academic. None of this is professional legal advice.
  14. I think "Good Samaritan" laws work well in one direction only - protecting the person who tried to help from legal liability, if negligence is attributed to their helpful act; I don't think that extending culpability to the bystander who declines to become a Good Samaritan is desirable. In the instance you describe, I think there is a moral obligation to intervene; I'd be reticent to see a legal obligation arise.
  15. That's certainly the distributive justice argument. A harsh reality for all litigants, it's only worth suing someone who's worth suing. If you get hit by a drunk driver, it's better news if the driver is a Wall Street trader than a guy who works part time in Dollar General. I'd argue that the primary responsibility for the accident lies with the driver, who voluntarily got drunk and chose to drive a car. But, as you said, if the driver is broke, the victim won't see a cent. Distributive justice goes in search of someone who is worth suing, and, in the process, I'd argue, stretches the meaning of duty on the part of that person or entity, considerably, in making them a defendant to the case.
×
×
  • 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...