Jump to content

Jack Watson

Established Member
  • Content Count

    1,085
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Jack Watson

  1. With this performance Tiger won me over as the best golfer ever despite lacking 18 (he might beat that too!). He hit rock bottom after allowing himself to be coached by mr Magoo,  but he got away from the overthinky inexperienced dB.  

    Now,  no coaches,  talent emerged again,  FINALLY!  No coaching screwing everything up.  Just hands and clubhead like EJ preached!

    i believe it was eleven years between Jacks 86 win and eleven years prior to Tigers last Augusta win.  Coincidence?

    Bravo Tiger.   You are the GOAT.  YOU CANT BE A GOAT WITHOUT A COMEBACK!  Case CLOSED.  

     

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vimZj8HW0Kg

     

     

  2. I think if a golfer does not have an established game it’s best to play something pretty much standard but with flexible shafts if they want to learn to swing better.

    If you are swinging too quick and hard in transition and average 90 imo you absolutely should not use clubs that are stiff.

    I played a couple years with early 80’s Titleist and Wilson blades bent  around 5-6 flat or so (pro gave me specs).  IMO if I had simply gone to really soft shafts I would have learned much faster.

  3. @brocks @iacas

    Look at the 2000 Ryder cup teams.  They were just ok.  In 97-2002 an awful lot of golfs top tier talent was aging.  I know I pointed it out before,  but Tiger benefited not only from otherworldly talent,  but he also burst on scene at just the right time.  I’m not trolling,  just enjoying a friendly spirited back and forth.  Tiger came in when Norman and Faldo had been at the top but were aging like many other big names.  Its fine to point out a mathematical concept and apply it to a situation as you guys are doing,  but I also think it’s important to take into account specific realities of those exact years of golf.  That’s fair isn’t it?

  4. Thing is,  in golf you take the older players who grew up with equipment that required them to be more precise and develop their skill better and they scored pretty close to what guys now score.  They had to have more skill because the gear required it and the courses forced it.  The old gear was the swingdeveloper.

    All I know is I respect George Knudson way more than say Hunter Mahan or pick your modern journeyman.  Knudson was a better striker with more skill and it’s not even close.

     

  5. @saevel25

    The topic here is based on a premise that all athletes in all sports are better than in the past.  To a degree that’s absolutely true but to what degree?  Athletic ability itself doesn’t exist in a vacuum.  Other factors also affect outcomes.  Take auto racing.

    You give Mario Andretti a car that’s slow he will be slow,  but still fast relative to others in the same car.  Take Formula One.  Were Senna and Prost worse than Lewis Hamilton on pure skill?  Was Schumacher worse than Hamilton?  The Mcclaren Honda Marlboro cars were different and much more difficult to drive.

    Notice I’ve never disagreed with the reasoning itself in the argument being presented here.  It’s logically consistent.

    I am simply pointing out that its premise is incomplete.  

  6. If we look at tennis and we assume the greater talent pool ultimately results in the performance gain v time graph flattening we would expect to see parity emerge.  The limit being approached.  But that’s not what we see.  We see Federer Nadal Djokovic winning everything.  

    Is a massive changing of the game in tennis with huge power a result of stronger better athletes?  That’s whats being put forth.

    But what about technology?  I’ve played almost 40 years.  The tech now is light years ahead in terms of the spin you can use vs say gut or synthetic gut strings.  The strings are so much better that the ball can be hit way way way harder with equal control due to spin.

    https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/qkqyvd/conspiracy-string-theory-how-new-technology-killed-american-mens-tennis

    So,  the other point is why the lack of parity?  Does better equipment make it tougher for outliers to dominate?  Not in tennis!

  7.  

    @Vinsk

    I was unable to view the paper listed above.  I did take a look at some data though.  At the Masters from 1940 through 1994 there were 32 instances of final totals under 280 strokes.  From 95-present there were also 32 such instances.  32 in the first 54 years and 32 in the next 24.  From mid nineties to now scores dropped.  Why?

    Equipment wise little really changed once it was steel shafts and wound ball and wood woods.  (1940 to 1994). Mid nineties to late nineties the transition happened to better golf balls and steel drivers by 2000 longer lighter drivers with titanium heads were in play along with solid core urethane covered golf balls.  Right during Tigers heyday the tech changed golf more than any advancement since steel shafts in the mid 1930’s. 

     

  8. @Pretzel

    If all those guys were very much better than those players from say 65-95 then how could a 58 year old man beat Tiger at Augusta in 98?  How could a guy almost 60 years old come within a hard bounce of winning the Open?

    My explanation is number one peak talent and number 2 peak talent honed on less forgiving equipment.

    @iacas

    If we look into the fields in particular from say 97-03 you had a fair amount of the peak talent guys in decline.  Plus 01 pro v1 comes in which gave an instant extra club on irons over wound ball tech.  97-2010 the game of golf became truly modern.  Also I want to be clear that I am not including 2010 or so onward in my comments on field strength.  By 2018 the game truly changed and you have players who trained on modern gear from a young age and take advantage of it physically and strategically.  What used to be referred to as the college swing all out prioritizing swing speed has become the norm on the PGA tour.  Hogan even said in 5l one day big strong guys will be shooting at the greens from the tee and now many do.

    But in particular from 97-03 the field lacked peak talent to push Tiger.

  9. @Pretzel

    In your a b thing both a and b were equally dominant.  So if you were referring to Jack and Tiger that clearly doesn’t apply.  In regards to your list Price and Langer are Tiger era?  Lehman?  Funk?  Those stood out at first glance seems like they were like 40 in 1997.  I would expect 2001 pga your guys to average lower than Trevino,  they had prov1 and titanium drivers!  

     

     

     

  10. @brocks

    This is copied from the article:

    “First, let’s define a measure for field strength; we measure the strength of a field by the quality of the average player in that field. Therefore, our measure does not (necessarily) capture the difficulty of winning an event.”

    Thats why I make my distinction between field depth and strength-because it’s more difficult to beat a strong field than a deep one.

  11. @saevel25

    If what you say is true and Tigers competition was better than Jacks why is it that you can’t name who these great rivals to Tiger were?

    More golfers on tour shooting within 6 of the winning score does not mean a field is stronger it only means it’s deeper.  A stronger field means a field which contains more peak talent/skill not more also rans and a better score required to make a cut.

  12.  

    @Pretzel

    Is your example purely hypothetical?

    @Ty_Webb

    There is no perfect golfer.  Assume a and b have peak human talent and skill.  You can give tech to their competitors which will make things closer,  but it does not automatically increase the skill/talent part.  There’s at least a minimum there required to compete consistently with a or b.

    No one responded to my question.

  13. 11 hours ago, iacas said:

    You're still missing the point that this argues against your point.

    Better equipment narrows the gap between the greats and those a notch or two below them. Better equipment made it more difficult for Tiger to win majors, by elevating those below him.

    @iacas

    Easier to use equipment increases parity and deepens the competitive field.  It does not increase skill or talent.  Players who competed with vintage gear at the top consistently over time are stronger than say Dimarco,  Yang,  or Woody Austin.

    97 was an interesting time in golf. Norman Kite Langer Faldo Price Watson were in their 40’s.  Proven persimmon great ballstrikers.  Who was the most dangerous guy to Tiger?  A guy in his prime who knew how to win?

    Mickelsen hadn’t learned to win yet Els really should have been the guy but let’s face it milktoast.  Love 3 was a fine player but not a greatest all time player.

    I believe if Tigers career had not coincided with the equipment evolution he would have at least tied the record.  Who would stand in his way?  2 outliers that could have been Tigers rival were May and Duval but they suffered from injury.  

  14. 44 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

    Your friend is another of the many who doesn’t understand the rule. 

    Must be deliberate....now read what you wrote above. 

    @saevel25

    Your friend is correct.  The ref has to make a judgement call.

    @Vinsk

    An arm in an unnatural position OR even a failure to avoid a hand ball constitutes a violation depending on the distance from the kicker and ballspeed.  That’s from intent which is a refs judgement call.  You really have to play the game to get the experience with it to understand.  You posted above that no one understands the rule,  but in this case it’s quite clear that’s not so.  

     

×
×
  • 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...