Jump to content

Jack Watson

Established Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Jack Watson

  1. For me quality of roll is number one or I guess smoothness. For short putts which to me is the biggest part of putting I’d rather have a faster surface most times. Distance control to me is all feel. Don’t have a formula for it, but faster greens are probably a bit tougher for me lag putting wise especially downhill... Thats been my experience.
  2. Jack Watson

    Jack Watson

  3. @saevel25 It’s a fact that for a given course for a given length it’s tougher to shoot 66 with gear from 66 than with gear from 2000. So, the skill of fields in 66 is being hugely underestimated round these parts.
  4. Ok, what do you say to course length club tech. Pebble 72 same length as 2000 US Open. I could go on, but it’s obvious there was a huge difference in relative length played due to tech. Dismissing facts and saying everything another poster says is a joke is not making a counterpoint.
  5. @saevel25 1960 PGA at Firestone par 70 almost 7200 yards 1960. Hogan vs Singh Augusta...53 Hogan playing 53 gear would have beaten Singh on a course the same exact length but with Singh with 2000 equipment. If you start looking at the course lengths it becomes apparent. Its self evident that 1950 tech is not as good as the stuff from 2000.
  6. @saevel25 So you are just calling Barkow a bs artist? Another way to look at field strength is course length relative to club and ball tech. Augusta for example played the same length in 2000 as 1950. Then look at scoring at the top.
  7. @turtleback http://www.espn.com/golf/masters07/news/story?id=2814780 Jack, a age 58, with a bad hip almost won the Masters. He beat Woods and almost the whole field.
  8. I’ll say one thing, the fields today from say 08 on are much much stronger at the top than 97-2006 or so. Sure depth overall is one component of field strength. My question is more about winners or guys who know how to win. I am not going on a simplistic assumption that the relationship of going forward in time and field strength are a 1-1 relationship. Its already been pointed out about agronomy and equipment and if one were to assume the older equipment was harder to use, I think that begins to poke holes in @klineka s argument and also is a testament to skill of older gen play
  9. @Phil McGleno I am concerned with the top of the field. Also how does an almost sixty year old Watson come inches from another major against the field in 2009? That should be impossible if what you imply is true.
  10. @mvmac Here’s some numbers. Won’t be posting about field strength again. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1687496-the-myth-of-deeper-pga-tour-fields-during-tiger-woods-era
  11. The thing I am proud of is finally curing myself of obsession with mechanics and improvement of the swing. I toiled for around maybe 8 years or so and really enjoyed a lot of the journey, but it became an obsession with detrimental effects on me. Through it all I learned a lot about myself and if I had to do it over again I’d have done the exact same thing. There was no other path for me. Any time spent truly committed to an activity you enjoy is time well spent and if there were no lows there would be no highs. Very little worth having comes without hard work even in recreation
  12. @Golfingdad Clearly you have a dizzying intellect!
  13. @iacas There’s no point to repeated assertions regarding field strength. I and others pointed out some things and it seems we are at an impasse. I’m done on that. That’s ok. This quote from Tiger here at the bottom regarding the looks of his swing troubles me. One difference in style between Jack and him is Tiger tore down and rebuilt while Jack managed his swing with whatever. https://www.golfdigest.com/story/tiger-woods-didnt-like-his-1997-swing-butch-harmon/
  14. @mvmac Whats the date on the video? Tigers heyday was what 17 years ago? Tiger wasn’t beating the guys today silly. Back then the field was so weak at the top. Not many knew how to win.
  15. @rehmwa Cool post. I’ve never done skydiving or known a person into it. I have done some stupid cliff jumping when I was younger but not the same thing. I have surfed pretty much my whole life though. The visualization side of things is always interesting for me to hear about because I’ve never done it much. The link I posted was just first hit on a quick search. You nailed what I focus on no pun intended with the time slowdown comment. In surfing, you are constantly reacting/acting based on the wave. There’s really no rehearsing it per se. I never used visualization in
  16. @turtleback Are you saying Jack has an unfair advantage over Tiger opportunity wise?
  17. @saevel25 and @Vinsk and @iacas Just to be clear I mean physicality and it’s not my intent to include hand eye coordination or athletic talent or timing or training by that. I don’t see any reason preventing a person of average build/strength/range of motion of swinging 105+ except lack of the above qualities. Alvaro Quiros was asked about his length one time and his reply was most of it was the coordination.
  18. @saevel25 The big difference in golf is it’s such a skill sport. Most healthy people of average build have adequate physicality to play professionally. Imo makes golf great.
  19. @turtleback We aren’t discussing the Haig or Vardon. In all GOAT discussions in all sports number of the biggest championships won weighs very heavily.
  20. I feel the need to respond due to getting referred to as too simple. Accusations were made that I did not read others posts or respond and that I am trolling. @turtleback basically makes an argument based on a concept of dominance. I did not specifically address the underlying concept here. The concept is that margin of victory is meaningful. Ie a team beating another 200-0 is better than 1-0. My response is seriously that in terms of record it counts the same one victory. Turtle made many excellent points to support his position but imo makes the mistake of saying here I challenge
  21. Fact majors represent the most important tournaments with the strongest fields era for era. Jacks placed best in these games. Best vs best. That’s fact. That’s why I hold my opinion that’s all. Scoreboard. Its simple to me and that’s all I have to say on this except that I can’t wait for Tiger to get back in his groove and compete this year. I hope his health is good and he can end this discussion permanently. Carry on.
  22. @turtleback If I want to know who won a game I look to the scoreboard not stat sheet. I don’t think stats were accurately kept for say Hogan Snead Palmer Jack etc anyways so comparing ballstriking is not objectively possible. As far as the depth of field, I think the top of the field in Jacks time was much more formidable than in Tigers in terms of winners with mental toughness. They had more guts and won more majors than Tigers competitors. I think five of Jacks majors were won with Sunday comebacks. Tiger never did that and he never faced several rivals unafraid to sta
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...