TryingtoPlay

Well, I am certainly not being obtuse. It just makes little sense when considered fairly. Furthermore, why would it apply only when comparing winners of major championships? Certainly, it must not. How about a great player who one major championship in the 70's as compared to a very strong player today, who has not. Kevin Kisner>Tom Weiskopf? Or how about one of my favorite players, who I would love to see win a major championship, but to this point has two top-ten finishes in majors, Kevin Na. Kevin Na>Tom Weiskopf? You are right that Tiger set out to achieve what Nicklaus had achieved, particularly as to scoring, faster and earlier than Jack had. He used Nicklaus as a benchmark in this way. That doesn't change the fact that the most prized possession was Nicklaus' major championship record and that his ultimate goal in golf was to break it. He said so many times. It was certainly an absolutely extraordinary goal to set, but it was always the ultimate and final objective for him.

The point pertaining to Nicklaus' comments in his autobiography though was simply that his comments there do not actually mean what some here seem to be proclaiming that they do. As for the quality of the field, I simply just do not accept your conclusions, as I briefly covered in my first comment above. I also do not accept that Nicklaus "moved the goalposts" as to what would lead to someone being characterized as the greatest player in the history of the game. Nicklaus has freely admitted that he is not universally viewed as such by everyone and that some would choose Woods, Hogan, Hagen, Sarazen, Vardon or Jones ahead of him. Also, Tiger set out from early childhood to try to break Nicklaus' records in the game, amatuer, professional and cumulative and of these records, from day one, the most prized was always Nicklaus' major championship record of eighteen professional major championships. So, I am not sure exactly where you are going with that. Maybe you could clarify?

I would also say that I think that several of Jack's statements in his autobiography have been used in a misleading fashion here. It is true that Nicklaus stated in his autobiography, published in 1996, that the fields at the time were superior overall to the fields which he had played in, whether in the 60's or the 70's. I would say that this was probably, on the whole, true. However, he also stated, on numerous occasions, in the early to mid 2000's that the fields were somewhat weaker then they had been in the past, which I also agree with. In the 2010's, especially as the decade has progressed, he has been very positive about the overall quality of the competition at the highest level of the game, saying that the quality of the fields right now are as good as they have ever been and are possibly the best that they have ever been. I think that this is very clearly the case, as well. So, Nicklaus' comments in his autobiography should not be understood to substantiate the notion that the competition continuously and indefinitely improves, or anything like that. That would not be easy to square with the full breadth of his comments over the years.

The competition argument is really overblown, to be frank. We often hear people say that it is true that Jack played with other historic great players, but the depth of the field, top to bottom, was simply substantially weaker over his career than during Tiger's career. This is often said as a means of countering the argument as to Jack's absolutely unbelievable level of consistent competitiveness in major championships, therefore diluting, in relative terms, his records as to top-two, top-three, top-five and top-ten finishes in major championships. The problem is that this argument makes little sense because these other historic great players, the greatest of the greats, who we refer to here, Watson, Trevino, Player, Palmer, Casper, e.t.c. have records in major championships which look nothing like Jack's. If the competition issue was a substantial factor, as we are sometimes told, we should expect to see far higher rates of top-ten finishes for these players, as well, relative to the greatest players of later generations. Yet, that is not what we find, at all. Take Lee Trevino, for instance and compare his top-ten finishes in major championships to Ernie Els, or to Phil Mickelson. For visual purposes, a good way to do this is to look at them side by side, at the bottom of their respective Wikipedia pages. So, such was obviously not the factor in play here. The simple reason is that there were many great players in the 60's and 70's, many of who won one or two major championship ls over their careers, as is the case today. Jack is simply an outlier.

How I setup now is probably symptomatic of the lessons that I took as a kid in which my posture was criticized for slumping over the ball. I did notice that in the videos that I posted my weight seemed to be distributed more on my heels. I don't remember exactly what I was working on that day that was inducing that, but that is not really common for me.

I included a link to my swing on Vimeo.

I've been Playing Golf: Off and on for my entire life My current handicap index or average score is: Unfathomable My typical ball flight is: Left to right, although I also hook. The shot I hate or the "miss" I'm trying to reduce/eliminate is: The top, the slice, the hook, the duff, E.t.c. E.t.c. E.t.c. Videos:

Yeah, I was trying to work on it but I was really struggling. I brought my Dad along to that session so as to try to help me but we really were not able to get much of anything going. Due to the weather where I live and also due to his disappointment in how terrible I am (although he won't admit that openly) he told me that I should essentially quit playing until at least next Spring. It is all really pretty discouraging.

It is an incredible honor any of the four, but I had to list them I think that it would be: The United States Open The Open Championship The PGA Championship The Masters ....in that order.

I practiced again on Tuesday, but I simply could not stop slicing the ball. It was as bad as it has ever been. The slice just creeps back in. I cannot seem to vanquish it with any permanence. I can eliminate it for a while, but it will it just always ends up rearing its head. It was demoralizing because I hit the ball as badly on Tuesday as I have ever hit the ball. It was completely hopeless. I hope that your game is coming along.

We are in agreement on the laws. I just don't understand your use of tge phrade "away" from the path. Away from the path relative to what? It is all relative to the clubface. If you come-out-to in by 2°, we don't know what that ball is going to do in the air. If the clubface is 4° closed, that ball is going to start approximately 4° left and it is going to draw in the air. Obviously, if the face is 0° to the target, then it will start approximately straight and it will fade in the air.

Yes, based on the differential between the face and the path. The point is that the ball is slicing due to the differential between the face and the path, not solely because of the path. In fact, in that scenario, the path is zeroed to the target. Movement in the air is hence just as much about the face as it is the path. The face predominantly dictates the initial direction of launch and the differential between the face and the path dictates movement in the air. My initial post was poorly written. I should have said that I see the opposite being just as true.

I know that the old ball flight laws are incorrect. What do you mean by "curves away from the path." In the scenario that I listed above the path is square to the target and the face is 6° open. In that scenario, the ball will start well right of the target and it will slice. Again, that is a push slice, not just a push. It is differential that matters.

Again, with a path that is 0 degrees to the target and a face that is 6 degrees open, that ball is going to start on the line of the face and it is going to slice. That is a fact. So, it depends on exactly what you mean.