cdnglf

When I was in Ireland, we played a round at Ballybunion, drove to Old Head, and played the front 9 at dusk. Not something I'd recommend, though. Its a pretty long drive, and driving in Ireland requires a lot more attention than driving in North America. (Narrow, twisty, roads that you share with tractors and even sheep; and don't forget you're driving on the other side of the road). As another poster mentioned, the accommodation at Old Head is excellent, and not too expensive (relatively speaking). When I was there in 2009, it was $299 Euro/night, including unlimited golf. While I wasn't particularly impressed with the layout, it is perhaps the most visually spectacular course I've ever played.

The two Wolf Creek courses are by far the best I've played in central AB. Wolf Creek is about 30-40km north of Red Deer. If that's not close enough, try Riverbend or Alberta Springs.

Quote: You seem to be forgetting that if you're on the PGA Tour, your tee-it-up money pays your expenses (and usually then some). I don't know if that's true (and I don't know if its not true). I've read that since the recession, many journeymen hardly make any endorsement income at all. But that's still kind of beside the point - a system in which a bonafide PGA Tour player can barely cover his costs with his PGA Tour earnings doesn't make sense. Fundamentally, I don't understand what the advantage is to paying out almost all the money to the top few. It weakens the competitive balance of the tour, and the often-cited "incentive" argument is weak. The benefits that come with a win are immense - a million bucks, a 2 year Tour exemption, invites to the Masters and PGA Championship, entrance into the guaranteed-money event in Hawaii (and sometimes the guaranteed-money WGCs), bigger endorsement deals/bonuses... If someone doesn't find that enough incentive to try his hardest to win, how will a few hundred thousand more change things?

Quote: Is there really much of a difference between $3k and $10k at that level? At $10k, you're probably covering your costs; at $3k, you aren't. That strikes me as a very significant difference, particularly for the guys who are just starting on Tour. Under your proposed distribution, I suspect you'd end up with guys who'd be high enough on the money list to keep their cards, but operating at not much above break even. That doesn't make sense to me.

Quote: in my opinion, the drop off slope of prize money after finishing 1st should be a bit steeper than it is now which hopefully, would generate a bit more "burning desire" to win. That can only really equate to better competition in more tournaments besides only the majors......Only a few have that desire...we know who they are. The rest seem to be happy making millions finishing in the middle of the pack. There are only about 40 tournaments per year, so most guys will play for years without winning. Does this mean they don't have the desire to win? Or that they just aren't good (and lucky) enough? The perks of winning (money, 2 year exemption, Masters and Hawaii invites, etc) are already very significant. I doubt very much that bumping the first place money by 20-30% will materially affect anyone's desire to win.

Quote: First place 25%. Second 10%. Drops off quickly after that. Put more importance on winning, not less. This will never happen, because the majority of PGA Tour players will recognize that it is not in their best interests. And while it seems to be a common sentiment among fans, I'm not sure how the Tour as a whole benefits either. What is the advantage in concentrating the bulk of the total PGA Tour purse into fewer hands? For the best players, an increase in purse is just more money on the pile; but if you cut the earnings of the mid-level player, you're probably impacting his ability to compete. A cut of 20-30% (or more) off ~$900k probably leaves him having to make decisions about trainers, swing coaches, travel arrangements, living situation, etc that are not advantageous to him playing his best. And when you diminish the ability of the mid-level guys to compete, you dilute the overall quality of play on the tour. The pat answer to this is always "play better". But the problem is this: there's only 40 tournaments per year, and the PGA Tour needs 200+ guys to fill them. Not everyone can "play better".

" I think I would pick DJ over Rory, what do you guys think?" DJ is a fantastic player, and he and Rory look pretty close in ability right now, but Rory is 5 years younger. I fully expect Rory to have the better career by far.

Quote: In any case, having fellow PGA tour members believe you are juicing isn't good.. Perhaps not, but it was only 24%, none of whom appears to have any actual knowledge of the matter. Quote: we all know he had a problem with Ambien and Vicodin We do? Quote: And I'm sure people will argue about Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens juicing or not.. Both deny it, but I think most suspect it.. There's way more evidence to suggest they were using PEDs than Tiger. Quote: Apparently enough that Gillette and Buick told Tiger, "bye bye".. Now you're just making stuff up. Buick cut ties with Tiger in late 2008, long before the Galea stuff (or even the infidelity stuff) came to light: http://www.leftlanenews.com/buick-and-tiger-woods-part-ways-after-nine-years.html Gillette claims they were ending the sports-related campaign he was associated with. But even if that's just cover, don't you think its much more likely that they got rid of him due to the infidelity scandal, and (even more importantly) the fact that he wasn't winning anymore? http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2010/12/tiger-woods-dropped-as-endorser-by-gillette/1

Quote: Interesting that SI did a poll on this topic, and 71 touring PGA pro's believe Tiger is juicing.. Really? I can't say I'm surprised that I can't find your source. In the 2010 survey, 24% of 71 surveyed players believed Tiger "used HGH or other performance-enhancing drugs". http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1168986/6/index.htm The question wasn't asked in 2011: http://www.golf.com/golf/tours_news/article/0,28136,2057288,00.html

Quote: It shouldn't surprise you. It's Haterboy 101. :-) Back when I used to post on the golf channel discussion board I sometimes got labeled as being anti-Tiger, but I had nothing on this guy.

Quote: Uh hu.. maybe you should read up on the facts.. Anthony Galea pleaded GUILTY last month July 2011 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/06/anthony-galea-pleads-guilty-drugs_n_891672.html So? Where in my post did I say he wasn't guilty? Quote: Where there is smoke, there is fire.. but if you want to be in denial.. oh well, nothing I can do about that.. The main source of smoke here is you.

Quote: Simply.. The same reason why I will NEVER consider Barry Bonds or Mark McGwire as home run champions.. I will have to support and agree with what Gary Player said back in 2007, "Whether it's HGH, whether it's Creatine or whether it's steroids, I know for a fact that some golfers are doing it." Can we say unlicensed Canadian doctor Anthony Galea? I think you simply don't like Tiger the man and are grasping at any straw you can find to discredit Tiger the golfer. There are an awful lot of logical holes in your argument. The fact that Player thinks somebody in golf is using PEDs of some sort is a reasonable guess, as we've seen guys caught in pretty much every other sport that tests. But so what? Player didn't claim that Tiger was using. McGwire has admitted to the use of steroids and there is quite a bit of evidence that indicates that Barry Bonds did as well. As far as I know, there is nothing - not even the most circumstantial of evidence - that suggests Tiger has ever used steroids. Use of HGH is a different (and probably lesser) issue than the use of steroids, but even then the only connection with HGH is via Galea, who had many patients - some of whom may have had a valid reason for using HGH (which is legal with a prescription) and some of whom may have been undergoing completely different treatments (like the blood spinning therapy Tiger claims). Galea's possession of HGH in the US was illegal, but his clients' use of it may not have been. Finally, even _if_ Galea did give Tiger something illegal, that would have occurred after all of his major victories and almost all of his career wins. And even then, this hypothetical use of HGH would have been out of competition and frankly unlikely to have affected Tiger's playing achievements. I find it a remarkable how you've thrown a bunch of semi-related facts and rumours together and arrived at the conclusion that Tiger's entire career should be invalidated.

Quote: I am a little curious tho about the comment Fred made that Tiger has to play more? Play what events? In Europe and/or Asia. As another poster detailed in another thread, there are plenty of events overseas that Tiger could (and if he wants to play in the Presidents Cup, should) play.

Interesting take on Nelson. Your post has resurrected a vague memory of reading or watching a piece on Nelson that credited him with being the first guy to really figure out how to take advantage of steel shafts. For my list, I was sticking to playing record, adjusted for era and circumstance. Trying to calculate "influence" is pretty tough, as it seems impossible to compare the impact of things as disparate as Vardon's grip, Hagen's role in creating the tour, Sarazen's invention/popularization of the sand wedge, Nelson's swing, Arnie's Army, Jones's founding of Augusta National and the Masters, etc.

Nelson over Snead? Snead won 2 more majors, and 30 more PGA Tour events. As has been widely documented, many of Nelson's wins (including the streak) were against very weak war-depleted fields. I'd rank him somewhere between 16 and 22 or so, behind (in chronological order) Vardon, Hagen, Sarazen, Snead, Hogan, Palmer, Casper, Player, Nicklaus, Trevino, Watson, Ballesteros, Faldo, Mickelson, and Woods; and in the mix with guys like Singh, Els, Norman, Floyd, etc.