tdiii

My $0.02: (a) Consider squatting and deadlifting. I had chronic back problems from age 18 when I had bulging discs at L4/L5 until my early 40s. Both herniated along the way and I didn't have a pain free day in my life -- until I started squatting and deadlifting. Obviously you'll need good form and start cautiously but look into it. (b) There's a lunatic on Youtube, Robin Matthews, who was a PGA instructor in England, but has given it up and advocates, essentially, no coaching and learning feel by not watching the ball. In any event, I think there's something there you might want to look at. (c) I don't see anything wrong with this experiment. I'm eager to see how it goes for you!

Not really.

I don't think Woods has any idea about what loyalty is. He's never hesitated to cast someone aside when he/she has lost utility. With that said, I believe Tiger is better situated to evaluate LaCava than I could ever hope to be.

I'm willing to put up with terrible entertainment for some eye candy. Nonetheless, I found it unwatchable.

Actually, I wasn't interest in those who didn't, so that's why I didn't ask.

My frustration with the teaching pros I've worked with is a lack of direction for practice following lessons. I'm sure the good ones will structure specific practice sessions. x number of balls with drill #1, y number of balls with drill # 2, etc. My last two local pros, I've asked them both specifically for that guidance and they don't seem able or willing to provide it. Frustrating. Before that I'd tried lessons with 3 different pros as I was first learning and, frankly, didn't know enough to ask for that guidance, but it wasn't volunteered. So, 0 for 5 with what seems to me like a basic requirement for student improvement. I look at the range at my club and almost no one (less than 5%) is doing any sort of drills. All just beating balls. Interestingly, it is the lower handicappers who are doing drill work. Chicken or the egg, eh? Are they lower because they do drill work, or are lower handicappers more apt to do drill work? I think a pro needs to figure out when you are next coming for a lesson, and provide specific practice instruction and templates based on what your schedule permits. That has the pro and the student invested and probably makes for a more profitable and successful endeavor. Probably more enjoyable for the pro too.

My golden retrievers are well-trained and well-mannered and I would love to have them accompany at my course. They wouldn't be a distraction at all. I've contemplated pushing my club for a dog day or limited times where dogs would be allowed. And then I remember that our members (or at least a sizable minority) can't be trusted to fix ball marks, rake bunkers, or replace/fill divots.

I think that identifying the number of viewers lost due to glacial play is difficult if not impossible. Certainly we can agree that the Tour is not gaining viewers on account of slow play, no?

It's like the person at the grocery store cash register who waits until the grand total to start looking through her purse for her check book. Like she had no clue whatsoever that she would be expected to pay. Sure, but everyone expects to wait to hit their shot. Just not for more than 4 minutes after one of the three has already hit.

In my view, there's nothing classy or polite about taking up everyone's time unnecessarily. It is precisely the opposite.

So, if you were the rules official that day, you'd have assessed the 2 shot penalty against Holmes? Is Noren subject to a penalty for failing to call the penalty on Holmes? If so, what is it?

Mouthbreather.

What if he'd waited 10 minutes? Would the PGA have penalized him then?

Fair enough. How many people made eagle during the tournament on 18 via chipping or putting vs. holing out?

At least we can agree on that.

I'm no rules expert, but based on the text of rule 6-7, could JB have been penalized for failing to play without undue delay? The rule: "The player must play without undue delay and in accordance with any pace of play guidelines that the Committee may establish. Between completion of a hole and playing from the next teeing ground, the player must not unduly delay play.” It does not say to play without undue delay "or" in accordance with pace of play. It says "and". That suggests, at least this uninformed observer, that you you both have to play without undue delay (admittedly subjective) and you need to adhere to pace of play guidelines. He failed on the former, I'd think. Am I reading this correctly? I understand the Tour doesn't enforce this regularly, but if it did it would have been consistent with the rules, no?

Of course we don't "have" to. But if everyone is using different definitions for "greatest", then we really go around in circles. For, say, 288 pages. Which is fine. It would be interesting to know how folks define that term -- conceding that the underlying arguments provide some illumination of a person's working definition. And I certainly was not forcing my definitions on anyone else.

Methinks this is after the fact justification for making a play that ensured he didn't lose cash. It was a no brainer to go for the green in 2 if you want a chance to win. I don't need to look up the stats to know that you have a better chance to make a putt or chip in then hit a 100 yard iron shot. How many people holed out for eagle on Sunday on 18?

I would think we need to start with defining terms. What is greatness? If it is the most majors, Jack wins. If it is the most times losing a major closely, Jack wins. If it is most hookers slept with, Tiger probably wins. To me the term implies some longevity, so if Bobby Jones were part of the conversation that might exclude him. But Tiger's run of longevity even with his last several years is enough to not be a disqualifier. At least to me. I think greatness should examine the level of golf played -- the quality of best shots and best tournaments -- and it should examine the difference between the player and his competition. I have to admit I didn't watch Jack during his prime -- and expect that even those that did were not able to see as much of his heroics because there was less television coverage. Nonetheless, based on press accounts (which admittedly suffer from recency bias), it seems Tiger's level of golf was unsurpassed. Tiger 2001 and 2002 drove as well as Jack, his irons were as good as Jack, and his putting and short game far exceeded that of Jack. And then you look at the difference between the player and his competition. Again, Tiger far outplayed his competition as compared to Jack. I frankly don't buy the argument that Jack's competition was better than Tiger's. There's the simple matter of population counts and the number of people playing high level golf. But, more than that, Tiger so outplayed his competition that he took majors away from folks. Finally, and this is even more subjective than the already subjective comments above -- Tiger had a flair for the dramatic, a charisma, and the ability to hit absurd shots that Jack, with his conservative nature, simply couldn't (or, more likely, wouldn't) match.

I recall reading that PGA tour professionals' short games are far better than that of LPGA players. This came up again in a discussion with a friend of mine who asserted that the LPGA players' short game was just as good or better than PGA players'. Does anyone know for sure and, if so, can you point me to definitive statistics on the point? It would seem the players would be able to practice equally, so if PGA players are better, what is the explanation? Maybe strength contributes to short game prowess more than seems obvious? Did a search on the forum and it didn't pop up already, so my apologies if this has been discussed ad nauseum in the past.

Small sample size, but, as of right now, 2/3rds of those who have broken par did so by age 29, and 3/4ths of those who have broken 80 did so by that age. I thought the par breakers who did so by 29 would be a higher percentage than the 80 breakers. I hope it was implied that these would have been achieved on legitimate courses, not forward tees or really easy tracks and, for shooting 80, on at least par 70 tracks.

Often, the exception proves the rule. Statistically -- in the universe of golfers who took up the game after 25 -- almost no one gets there.

Larry Nelson took up golf at 21. Yang started at age 19. Choi turned professional at 24. He started playing at 16. Calvin Peete was 23. Yes as to Landers.

Maybe. Maybe not. There is a psychological theory that there are critical learning periods for various skills. I suspect there is almost no one who takes up the sport after, say, 25 who breaks par -- whatever the time commitments (it being the internet, I'm sure someone will point to an exception). This critical learning period concept seems to exist in many skills/sports. Tennis and throwing are two examples that are obvious to me. Those who pick these skills/sports up after their teens never seem to develop the same skills as those who picked them up early in life. I've never seen someone who picked up tennis after age 18 or so with strong, natural ground strokes. Similarly, I've never seen someone who didn't learn to throw as a child who doesn't look awkward when throwing as an adult. You do make a good point about lack of time. I suspect both are at play -- lack of time and critical learning period.

Problem with option for never having broken par, is that it also would collect those who never broke 80. I was actually mostly curious about relatively accomplished players -- understanding there is a chasm between breaking 80 and breaking par. Yes, of course there is. They are common markers however.