allin

I answered lay up. Upon considering what I actually do, I usually go for it. I rarely have a chance to reach in 2. The few times I do the chance for glory wins out. If there is water in play the answer would be hell no, turning a birdie chance in to a bogey is just to painful.

I am not sure that overall winning stats are the final distinction. At least if you accept that majors are a different animal. For example Kenny Perry lost the Masters when in great position to win with just a few holes left. Majors seem to expose any mental weaknesses, even more than regular events. Thats kind of the basis of this poll for me. I can't make a compelling statistical argument, actually 5-1 has more common sense appeal than my choice. It is more a reflection of much you value winning majors then a proper way to rank the best golfers. That is why I am reluctant to consider it heavily until 2 or more majors wins.

Cornhusker, can beat everyone but Michigan State on their schedule, defense will be improved, offensive line is only average. 10-3 or 9-4 seems reasonable.

All the time. I suppose it is because I base my feeling on my ball striking. Often my best scores are on days I am hitting it so so but my short game is on. If my drive is in the rough but playable and I get it around the green and get it up and down, doesn't feel like good play. A good drive, GIR, lipped out birdie, feels like good play, but both are pars.

This is why I keep the u wedge in the bag. When I need it, it is usually a short par 4 or 3rd shot on a par 5. That means possible birdie. The 2h or 5w I would replace it with wouldn't get more use. I do drop it for a 5w if I know a course has 200+ par 3s, especially if uphill since I can't hit a 3h that far and trying to finesse a little 3w I choke every time.

I think this gets to the crux of the matter. I feel a great player has 2 or more wins in majors. A player with one major and only a couple of other wins might have caught lightning in a bottle one week. I would tend to place someone with 15 - 20 wins without a major ahead of a 2 - 3 win player with a single major. The tough ones are players like Tom Kite, guys who won a lot but only one major compared with a guy like Andy North. I would like North better if one of the majors was not a US Open. It would be easier to cut him some slack for the injuries then. 2+ majors and 5 regular wins beats 20 regular wins for me, so for guys with 2+ majors its 10 - 1 for me.

I am expressing my frustration that topics and threads have increasingly become venues for simplistic ego fests. Topics are reduced to incredibly simplistic there is only one right answer, as if every topic was a math problem. The gladiators have at it then declare themselves victors as they are obviously superior. Intelligent adults recognize the limits of facts, comparing eras is not a science experiment, things are rarely that black and white. Yes Eric I hold you accountable for a significant part of this. Your recent post about an outdated swing thought by a fine old time player, emphasize the left side, is typical. Rigidity and intolerance to any point of view you don't share is frequent. You basically run the site, so you can do what you want . Of course if I respond with anything like that tone I am lashing out. Please look at your own house first. I have a 30 year background in social work, as far as I know experience you do not share. Please leave the analysis to someone more qualified.

Comments by Ernie Els that equipment now allowed guys to win now that couldn't have 20 years ago because of the equipment. http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golftalkcentral/els-says-technology-the-reason-guys-winning-today/

Turtleback, posts like yours are why I visit this forum less often than I once did. You present historical records, but your conclusion includes all kinds of assumptions, then you post a self congratulatory post. What a crock, you assume that the best players were pros then, many of the best players were amateurs then. You compare different generations and assume that everything is equivalent except the superiority of modern golfers, what you have done is give us a 9th graders level post, without the reasoning, perspective and thoughtfulness of a truly knowledgeable person. Perhaps what is really amazing is how well players like Jones played, he completed an advanced education while competing, had inferior equipment, no video, no mental guru etc. The only thing you have proved is you are arrogant and your perspective as shallow as a child's wading pool.

I have played Sawgrass and Pebble Beach, plus several courses where pro events were held or are planned. I was not playing them under tournament conditions. Don't be intimidated, they usually up the green speeds and grow the rough for tournaments. I don't know how big a part of the decision process it is but locker room and clubhouse size, parking, room for hospitality tents etc are considered when choosing courses for tournaments

I would add that there is a pattern I often see. Higher handicap golfers under estimating the impact of in to the wind and up hill shots, over estimating the impact of downwind or down hill shots. Of course a short hitter like myself has to allow for more run out with my 3h from 190 than a longer player who is hitting a 6 iron from 170 after their longer drive. I once played a 2 man match play scramble,with a partner who hit his driver 15 - 25 yards farther than I. Every one was shocked at how many greens I hit,several in the 5 - 15 ft range. We had about the same handicap, if I hit the driver his distances I would beat him consistently. My point is that some of what you see is the less skilled player is often playing the more difficult approach shot in addition to having poorer skills . It is not surprising they have poorer results on approach shots.

My point was that there are so many differences that comparing each to the players own generation is the valid way. For example Tigers win percentage compared to his contemporary players is probably better than Jacks. Bobby Jones did win both the US Open and British Open. In his era most of the best pros played both. This insistence in comparing players from past generations as if they were playing today is ridiculous. It shows a complete lack of perspective and really is the refuge of people who have already decided players now are better and lack the intellectual capacity to think in a rigorous way.

If you were a complete beginner no way. Still your odds of making the pro tour are similar to winning the lottery. Very talented golfers who have been working their backsides off since they were 15 often fail. Getting down to a 3 and making the golf team is possible if you are talented. If you can't do that your pro tour question is answered. See if you can get to 5 or 6 and find some type competition to see what your competitive level is yet this summer.

I have played many times in 98+ temps. Many years ago I walked 58 holes in 96 - 98 degree with my then 62 year old father on Okoboji View golf course. There was a spot you could cut across and return to the clubhouse after the 4th hole, almost no one else was out there. We did leave the course after 36 for lunch at Dairy Queen, about 1 hr break. I couldn't do that now and I am 56. Maybe they really were tougher back then. I do frequently practice in hot weather, practicing is tougher than playing but I do believe since I do it a lot your body adapts. Humidity is the other factor. I will take 105 in Phoenix over 95 in say south Alabama or Florida any day. Eastern Nebraska is much more humid than you would expect, only 5-10 % less than Mobile Alabama where I once lived. I believe I read that the higher humidity keeps the temperature down a bit. That would explain why we have more 100 degree days here, ocean breezes also.

While the number of non major events is a small part of the equation I question how much weight it should be given. Because the money and rules now alllow it Tiger selects courses he plays best on. Much of the money in Jacks era was made playing exhibitions, something Tiger does little of. Jack played 5 years before he had access to private flights Tiger has used them from the beginning. If you base it on percentage of majors won what was Bobby Jones 's percentage? The players seem content with total majors won as the primary criteria. These other statistics are interesting but there are so many differences in eras that total majors won will be the yardstick.

Of course values always play a role. I think the great ones don't need much pushing. It will be interesting to see how long the careers of golfers groomed this way are. Burnout and injuries could lead to a lot of successful but short careers. FWIW I think over involved parenting and coaching leaves golfers developed this way ill prepared for the hurdles life throws at you.

I kind of see it this way with my group. On the course out of the rough, wind, uneven lies etc inconsistent contact is the issue. On many courses the trouble is to the side and back of the green. Right now I am finally hitting the ball better. Combined with the hot weather I have blown a number of online irons over the green recently. The lies and recovery shot has been much tougher than a a shot online and just short or barely on the green would be. I will adjust my distances of course but I have a different attitude on full shots than chips or pitches, safety first. I leave flag hunting for the single digit golfers. .

I[quote name="reedf" url="/t/60287/how-much-does-loft-swing-speed-affect-distance#post_740893"]IMO, if you try to maintain lag, you're gonna screw something up! If you maintain a light grip pressure and relax, lag and release will just happen on it's own. I know thats over simplified, but it works best for me. Although I'm not a low hdcp golfer, I've shown to be longer than slightly better golfers during my league play. [/quote] I second this. Trying to increase lag by delaying release will probably increase tension and hurt your timing. Like a lot of things in golf I feel good lag comes from doing the right things earlier in the swing. Good lag is a result of relaxed arms, hands, wrist, being pulled through by your body with your release a natural response. A flip is a forced release, especially upward. If the release is through the ball on the swing line then it is probably not a flip, it could still be early, but that is a separate issue.

I think part of this is cyclical. A number of the best American players are quite young and could become dominant in the next few years. I also wonder if their are fewer opportunities for female Korean athletes, so a higher percentage of their best athletes choose golf.

One test would be which of this year's event winners Majors or Olympics are you likely to be able to recall in 2, 5,10,years. My guess is that we are more likely to remember who won the Masters. Granted it is partly because the past winners get mentioned at each years event. I think winning a major will have a much longer effect on a winners career and marketability as well. That certainly seems to be the case with Tennis.

I not sure I am comfortable with equating athleticism and fitness. I see plenty of very fit people at the gym who are not very athletic. Fitness allows for maximizing your athletic potential. I would suggest that the less fit professional athletes are very athletic, but most would be even better if they improved their fitness. You can be fit and overweight, at least aerobically. You would probably be more injury prone.

I have had a number of bouts of vertigo over the years, after effects of a severe head injury with some inner ear damage. For me it is closer to motion sickness than what you describe so probably my opinion is not worth much. I keep otc motion sickness meds around to tide me over till I get to the doctor for more effective treatment. It might be worth a call to your family Doc to ask if they might reduce your symptoms.

I said 1 in 100, but if it's an unfamiliar course it would be 2 or 3 in 100. The first time you play a course or a hole position you haven't seen before you can over think it or just get fooled. Usually for me if I miss one of these it is because I hit it to hard, irritated by a missed birdie putt.

This is the point I keep hammering at. The playing conditions and equipment today favor players with certain strengths. The balata ball, wooden clubs, slower, bumpier greens required a different skill set. Creative shotmaking, wristy putting styles, were responses to the technology and playing conditions of the time. Many of the somewhat robotic power players of today would struggle greatly I believe under those conditions. Some, like Bubba Watson might have done even better. Valid comparisons can only be made if the conditions are consistent. Yes population has grown and the potential pool of players has grown. If you had the top 50 of Jacks era play the top 50 now back to back, with one of the rounds with equipment and conditions for each era I think the current would prevail, but it would be much closer than most would expect. The top 50 is a very small subset in any event and growth in the total pool makes only a small difference. It is kind of like the number of people with a 200 point IQ you have to grow the population a huge amount to increase the number significantly.

There are two problems with the population has grown therefore there are more talented golfers now idea. It assumes the percentage of the total population playing golf has remained stable or increased. It also assumes that superior talent and skill mix occurs at a regular rate. Both issues cut both ways. For example, men at least have opportunities in the expansion of leagues and the number of professional sports. Culture plays a large part in sport selection, for example Kenya's ability to dominate Marathon running. Golf is a secondary sport almost everywhere, so the increase in talent level may be over stated. If it is purely about percentages then truly great players like Nicklaus and Woods should appear more often than the apparent 10-15 year span we now see. I am a bit lazy so I cannot say which generation has the higher participation rate. Although it is reasonable to assume there has been some worldwide increase I think given the position of golf as a secondary sport, the role of culture, the unpredictably of talent emerging the statement that the top 50 is much superior now is overstated.