far and sure

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Sandbagger

About far and sure

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Your Location
    New Jersey

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index
  • Handedness
  1. generally i think that when you begin to go about playing differently than you feel comfortable with, you make unforced errors,simply because you are altering your style.however course management is a learned skill when playing golf.if you feel comfortable going at a short par 4 with a driver rather than a seven its not exactly great course managment but the reality of the situation is you could be maybe 100 yrds out after a drive,whether it be in the rough trees ect.and have a better chance of getting up and down as opposed say,chunking the 7i off the tee,abd having a long iron shot to the green,which for a high handicapper is a difficult shot.so sometimes its what you fell comfortable doing within your own abilities.
  2. Agreed,I think that there has been some success for players from the web.com tour on the pga tour,but as a whole there is a huge turnover every year for the last fifty spots on the pga tour.that leaves 75golfers who are fairly steady. My opinion is that the need for the turn over is to inject some competition. and to try and fight off the complacency that is so prevalent on the tour today.
  3. How did this be reduced to hockey and racism,lets get back on track.Competition has to factor in,some like lee trevino says all the time that the competition is tougher today then in his time. personally i think hes being a bit gracious to todays players,granted only a few have supassed his major victories,actually two tiger,phil.if you look at the top twenty five winners on the pga of all time you will see most of them are in hogan/jack era. The question then becomes was it easier to win back then,or where the players actually that much better at winning then they are today,we see alot guys today not being able to finish down the stretch,most of the time because of their inability to play smart golf.
  4. I literally dont pick up a club until a half hour before my regular tee time on saturday mornings.a quick warm up and i am on the first tee,i play with three of my buddies that are various handicaps,the lowest one being 15,he plays sometimes three times a week and practices. on the whole i will shoot somewhere between 90-96 on average,sometimes i break into the eighties and that recently have been based on a improved short game(but still horrible putting) my general view is being i have a 20 handicap is that for the average guy,who just plays ONCE a week it is diffificult to put all aspects of your game together IE Drive well,hit second shots to the green,short game is on,and putting well.these things require practice,and as the old saying goes,even a blind squirrel finds a acorn every once in a while. and sometimes a high handicapper can look like a golfer.
  5. Thats my point,Regardless of the number of golfers in any era,if they are not winning it deosnt matter if they are in the field.how many guys on the pga tour today merely make a living making the top twenty five every week .in the 40s and 50s.if your not in the top three week to week your not making a dime.so i think the competition was stiffer based on the fact you had to win to stay on the tour,otherwise you packed up and went home,as Hogan had done three times previous.Do you think the competition was stiffer then or now?
  6. Would it matter much if players,Hall of fame players like Gary Player and even Jack himself and Trevino have said that Hogan was the best they ever saw,then and now,and given the equipment today,Gary Player has consistently said guys like Snead ,Hogan and Nelson would dominate. Whether or not Snead and Nelson,Hogan and others of that era,couldnt afford the passage to the british open every year,and the fact that it was always the same week as the PGA,has to account for any calculation in your metric,they didnt have the Oppurtunity to Play four majors a year consistently,like the players of today. you cant tell me it doesnt make a difference when you can hop a lear jet and fly to st andrews as opposed to sitting on ocean liner for a week.doesnt factor in. even arnold palmer only started going over to the british open when he was able to fly.therefore expanding his oppurtunity to win majors. There will be some people and i know a few myself,that will only determine the goat by wins period,specifically majors.and i think that is not a fair calculation,look at Hagan he won 11 and is even not in the conversation.he didnt even get to play in the masters until way after his prime,and he would even make the trip over to the british,and he competed against Sarazen,Jones,ect.
  7. I have read about these arguments all the time .how can we really compare.i have looked at the top twenty five winners all time on the pga tour.This is one way to look at competition. In Jacks era,there are six players :Palmer,Casper,Watson,Trevino,Player,Miller. Hogans era there are eight players:Snead,Middlecoff,Mangrum,Smith,Demaret,Runyan,Picard,Nelson Tigers era....so far: two: Mickelson,Singh Now this is the all time winning est golfers on the pga of all time,the top twenty five,the twenty fifth was player who won 24 times on the pga. My point is i am always reading about how there was no competition.clearly according to this list apparently the most competitive era was hogans. Granted the era with the most majors won is Jacks,which essentially means he had more competition when playing in the majors,as the players he played against has a higher percentage of winning majors. Hogan built himself into possibly the greatest golfer of all time.the achievements he made:he was not a natural,and lets face it,i know no one likes to hear it but the incredible fact that he came back from a horrific accident to win six majors before his body finally gave in to the injuries is incredible and HAS to be factored in to any discussion about who is the GOAT.