iggywriter

93 today...could have been better. I played a course I've never played before, and it was by far and away the most difficult course I've ever played (the scorecard rating wouldn't lead you to think that; it's about as difficult as most of the courses I normally play). Mostly shot bogey (11) with 4 DB, 1 TB, and 2 Pars. The big thing today was really tricky, fast greens (I've never played greens this fast; I would barely touch the ball with the putter and it'd fly, and when I tried chipping or pitching, It'd be one bounce and off). Driving has actually significantly improved; I hit 6 fairways, and had approach shots very close to the green (usually about half a club length short; I decided that since I struggle with long irons, I'd take them out of the bag. The longest iron I had in the bag today was my 5).

A buddy of mine gave me a Bobby Jones 460cc black driver today and I played absolutely great with it! Highlight of today's round, however, was a beautiful 3 wood onto a par 3 that landed about 7-8 feet from the hole. There must have been a closest to the pin challenge earlier in the morning, because a marker was out there. My shot would have won it today had I been there to play in it 🙂 Overall, really solid round. Still some inconsistencies with iron play, but it's getting the better (the last three holes were really good with my 6, 7, 8, and W).

Not sure if it counts, but: Scrambled with some great guys today (foursome). We played an absolutely beautiful course. Shot a 73.

No I mean more in terms of the entire park system (they offer kayaking, trails, a butterfly garden, etc in addition to the golf course, almost all of which is free to the public. It reminds me a little bit of Belle Isle in Detroit, which offers several amazing amenities to the public for free). And okay, sorry. It's 2 and a half gallons then for me (which roughly boils down to $6.25 at current prices; average seems to be $2.59 a gallon).

And I'll be playing them as well. No, it's more of the idea of the course is something I really admire, and supporting it is something I'd like to do (both by playing and donating to the organization that maintains the upkeep of the course). It's not so much the course itself, but the fact that a service like this exists, and that's what I like about it. I wish there were more places like these, funded by super wealthy people looking to contribute to society (the guy who founded this park made his money and gave back to the community; the offer more than just a golf course. It's a pretty incredible place from what I'm reading). Plus, it'll cost me only a gallon and a half of gas (if not less) plus whatever amount I donate when I play. Reasonably, I can't imagine paying less that $25 to play a course in Cleveland. If I pay that same amount with gas figured it, it's going to a really cool organization offering something nobody else is.

Philosophically, I like the idea of the course, and the job that I'll be working isn't all that high paying (so paying for gas in my car --- which gets 60 miles to the gallon doesn't really factor in all that much in terms of the price because a round trip will cost me about a gallon and a half, if that) but I'm taking it because it gets me a step closer to my end career goals. It's a good opportunity, career wise, and it also gives me a chance to experience a course like this and pretty much play all day and not worry about green fees (obviously I will be donating from time to time, so you can call that a minor fee).

So...bit of an update: I just got offered a job in Cleveland, which is only about 90 minutes away. Looks like I'll be playing this course quite a bit in the coming year.

I'm starting to really enjoy this game. My last two rounds have been 81 & 82 (18) at this little executive course near my house (par 62 --- 66 /107 ratings; my regulation course is 69.1 / 124 from the tees I play) for 18; so like this is averaging out to be mid 90's at a regulation course). My short game has really been outstanding; good, consistent chipping and two putting. Also, I'm just madly in love with my Ping Eye 2 irons!

Shot an 82 at the same place I played the other day and shot the 81. I think that's called consistency 😉. In all seriousness, I'm starting to have fun out there!

Thanks for the update. At Red Oaks (the local executive course) I managed to get a hold of there official card to check handicap course info, so I've been going off of that. The other two courses I've played I've been relying off the scorecard.

That makes a ton of sense, because I shot an 81 and an 82 at my local executive course this week ( 66 / 107) and I had broken 100 with a 99 at the closest regulation course near me (69 / 127). I thought I was on the right track, because my first round I shot a 120, and had another 115 in there, so my scores were all over the place and I was expecting to be rated around 28 - 30 (the 18.2 just really caught me by surprise).

Hey folks, I've just imputed the data from my last 7 rounds (the total of what I've played this year) and came out with a number that seems much higher than what I was expecting (I came out with an 18.2). Can someone link me to a good site that has an up to date calculator? And, if at all possible, can someone also explain how the handicap system works? I understand essentially that the idea is to measure potential ability, but how is it completely calculated and what impact does say a really bad round or a really good round have the next time you try to calculate?

I played 18 at my short, executive course (Red Oaks) and had the best round of the year for me (I shot 81; par is 62).

We're talking about Tiger's first run (1997 - 2008) not today when talking about strength of field. Yes, I agree with you that the players today (top to bottom) are much better than back when Jack played. The depth is incredibly more challenging, even during the first run (today's much better than it was 15 - 20 years ago). Okay, sure, Tiger's 81 victories have had stronger fields top to bottom: but what about the top guys during that first run? Who are they, outside of Phil, Sergio and Ernie? Fred Couples is like the next best guy. Harrington had a few good years. There's like nobody else (I guess you could name Furyk or Vijay, but neither of them are on par with Hale Irwin or Johnny Miller). So what if each of these guys would have won more and more majors? They didn't, even when Tiger was absent off and on for a decade. So your top guys for Tiger (during that first run) are: 1. Phil 2. Ernie 3. Vijay 4. Sergio 5. DJ 6. Rory And what about Jack? 1. Tom Watson 2. Seve Ballesteros 3. Lee Trevino 4. Gary Player 5. Arnold Palmer 6. Johnny Miller 7. Hale Irwin Heck, if you want to go even deeper at the end of his run, you've got Greg Norman and Nick Faldo. You can't tell me that those names are worse or less skilled than the guys you named as Tiger's primary challenge during his first run. Here's another thing to consider: Tom Watson in 2009 nearly won the open at 59. If that doesn't say something about how great Tom was, and just how weak the top of the field that Tiger had to contend with during his run was, then nothing else will. It was harder for Jack with the top guys; It's harder for Tiger with strength of depth. To me, it's a wash saying which field was harder to compete in. To me, the rivalries are much more indicative of just how great a player is. With Jack, you've got plenty of guys to pick from. That's not the case with Tiger. And yes, the game is different. You have much more forgiving clubs, and you don't see guys needing to use a 1 iron off the tee to play a long par 3. Putting is certainly different, too. The length of the courses today are longer, but are better kept. Each era presents it's own challenges, and when you're talking about all time greatness, you need to keep that in mind. Anyway, I'm sticking to my guns here: Jack, as of right now, is still the GOAT. At the end of his career, Tiger will likely pass him. What does Tiger need to do to pass Jack? Win at least 1 more major against the field today; if he can dominate these guys like the last generation, then there's no question as to who's the best of all time. And one more thing: Bobby was great. The guy deserves credit for what he did.

I had a very good round with my short game the other day. That was nice. Around the greens, I'm usually pretty good, but everything seemed to click with my SW and putter. Of course, the overall score wasn't great, but that wasn't because of the short game (irons and driver were very inconsistent).

In a nutshell, that's basically what I'm saying. I'm almost certainly romanticizing the past; but isn't that what we do when we talk about the GOAT in any sport? That's certainly the case in boxing, basketball, tennis, etc...

I don't think it's a matter of better competition overall (depth is certainly beneficial to the Tiger argument; anyone can get hot and win the whole thing; Willett or Weir is an example of this) but rather more direct competition. Tennis offers a really good comparison: Roger Federer is certainly the best player of all time, but would he have been perceived as great if it weren't for the competition he faced? Look at Sampras (another guy who deserves to be considered here) and the guys he faced in majors. Until Nadal and Djokovic arrive on the scene, Sampras looks like the guy with much better competition (Agassi, Goran, Edberg, Becker) because Roger's beating guys like Roddick and Hewitt (good players; not greats). The competition level gets much more fierce when Nadal bursts on the scene and Federer falters at Roland Garros year after year. Then, he conquers, and finds his way back to the top. He builds his resume (not just with Major victories), but with legendary matches, and the success of the other guys (who are also all time greats; the big three era of tennis is probably the best era in the sport's history). Basically, my point is this: Greatness isn't necessarily just skill. Tiger is a better player than Jack, just like Federer is a better player than Sampras. But, the story (or legacy for lack of a better word) is built on the perception of competition and the rivalries that develop. Jack had Tom, Arnie, Lee, etc. all building towards that legacy by their own success. Tiger has basically just had Phil. That's how I look at this; it's not just the end product; if that's all that matters, then sure, it's Tiger all day long. No question, no debate. The story is important; the success of the other guys is just as important. It builds the narrative; it becomes more interesting. It keeps us coming back and talking about '77 at Turnberry, or '82 at Pebble Beach. Really, until this Masters, all we had from Tiger were the shots ('05 Masters for example) and the Tiger Slam. I guess I'm wanting more. I probably don't think about this the same way that most people here do. Greatness for me is all about the stories. I haven't felt that Tiger has given us all that much, in comparison to Jack, or even Bobby.

Great question! My response is going to be Open heavy (but it's always been my favorite): 1. 2009 Open: The story of Tom Watson. This is the tournament where I fell in love with golf (I had watched most of the majors going back to the '90s with my Dad and Grandfather before, and I was very familiar with the game coming from a family that loves golf, but this was when I think I first fell in love with the game); the heartbreak on 72 has been unmatched since. 2. 2010 Masters: I was living in Augusta at the time (serving at Fort Gordon) and this was a big event. I always liked Phil, and it had been a while since he had won. That stretch of eagle - eagle - birdie during the third round I'll never forget. This one just felt really good. 3. 2007 Open: Harrington was quickly becoming one of my favorite golfers, and his battle with Sergio was epic (his shot into the water, then the tense bridge encounter was fantastic). So many lead changes; and in the end, the good guy pulled through! 4. 2008 Open: Greg Norman is my all time favorite golfer. His run here really caught my attention; I was hoping he'd pull through and win, but I was happy to see Harrington win back to back. 5. 2017 Masters: Sergio finally winning; the battle with Rose. Enough said. This was a great tournament, and it was fun to finally watch one of the best players of the last decade win his major. Honorable Mentions: The 2016 Masters (Willett coming from nowhere), 2005 Open, 2009 US Open.

Forgive me, then, folks! There's just so much. To make it clear, I really think at the end of his career, Tiger's going to be the GOAT; it's just really hard, given the quality of players during Jack's era, to really just say the competition has been better. It might have more depth, but the top guys were so good when Jack played. That's really the point. Anyway, I'll go back in read up and see if I change my mind. Cheers!

There's far too many posts in this thread for me to read up on everything, but it seems to be almost consensus that the talent Tiger has faced far exceeds the talent Jack faced. I disagree with that assessment, and here's why: 1. In the early part of Tiger's career (late 90s - early 00's), the talent in the game wasn't all that great; look at your multiple time major champions (Mark O'Meara, Ernie Els, Vijay Singh, etc) are certainly very good golfers, but with the exception of Ernie, you're not talking about all time greats. 2. Nick Faldo and Greg Norman are at the latter part of their careers, and really after 1996 aren't all that relevant (Norman does have success in 1999, and Faldo has some success at the US Open in the 00's). 3. The other guys of that era, specifically Couples and Love III, never really live up to their potential. Couples does perform very well at the majors, but he doesn't win anything. Now, we move into the 00's, where the competition is a little more fierce. I think we can all agree that the second best player of that generation is Phil Mickelson; Sergio Garcia has to be the third best. Phil finds success at the majors, but Sergio doesn't. The rest of the field is a who's who of very good golfers, but very few all time greats. Tiger has his run, and dominates the sport. But who's out there to give Tiger a run for his money on a consistent basis in the majors? Phil's like the only guy. I guess you could say that Padriag Harrington was pretty great (he was my favorite player for a very long time), but he's really only relevant from 2007-08. Now, we're at the later part of Tiger's career, and the game is full of really great (and even all time great) players: Rory, Jordan, Rose, and Jason Day are going to make the next few years very hard for Tiger; throw in Lefty as another potential guy who can win, and about another half dozen names or so of really good players (Bubba, Thomas, Molinari, Koepka, etc.) and we're starting to see a golden era for the game. I have no doubt that Tiger is the greatest athlete to ever play the game, but I WANT to see him win in an era with heavy competition to top Nicklaus. That's just my opinion. Because this is far too long, here's the thing with Jack: 1. The game was much different back when he played; short game and finesse seemed to be valued more. That era had guys who could really putt, chip, scramble, etc. 2. In the 60's Jack had to face Arnie and Player; guys like Venturi, Peter Thomson (at the end of his career), and others were still around and playing well. 3. In the 70s you've got Johnny Miller, Lee Trevino, Seve, and Tom Watson battling Jack. The Duel in the Sun is still probably the finest closing round in Open History. 4. Hale Irwin is often under appreciated in terms of all time greatness: He won the US Open '74, '79, and '90 because he was one of the greats. The point of my post is this: Jack had tougher, and more consistent Nemesis' during his run, and still managed to set the record. Tiger, while certainly much more gifted, hasn't yet had the kinds of rivalries, which to me, signify true GOAT significance. I am confident that in the next three or four years, Tiger is going to break Jack's record, and I think playing in this era (with this competition), he'll over take Jack for me. Right now, I have him tied for second best of all time (with Bobby Jones, who shouldn't be forgotten about when we talk about GOAT) and that's not a bad place for him. Tiger will end his career as the greatest, but there's still a few road blocks ahead of him before he really achieves that status.

Shot 101 today. Not too shabby. Inconsistent iron play and bad drives led to the score, but it's still my second lowest of the season (shot a 99 two weeks ago; I'm confident things will be improving).

Today, I made a rash decision that led to an equipment change. I'm not sorry for it, because after hitting up the driving range, I really like the new (to me) iron set. I picked up a set of Ping Eye 2 Orange for a pretty good price. I've been feeling the need to switch to something with a little more feel for a few weeks now, because I've begun to notice the needs I'm having on the course weren't matching with my last iron set (SGI Wilson Reflex Irons / 2013 - 14 I think). I was leaning towards staying with Wilson (going to the Staff line instead because they're much better than the box sets and cheaper game improvement irons they sell) and picking up a set of the c300 or D7's but the price wasn't what I wanted to pay (and they're really not all that expensive. I could have easily afford them, but I'd rather invest that money on the course or driver range or with an instructor). Some of the used sets of Wilson Staff's I saw I rather liked. I hit the FG-v2 and they felt great. I also tried out the ci11's, and again loved them. I was really close to getting the ci11's, but I wasn't sure I wanted to play with graphite shafts for my iron set (I've always used steel and I do like the additional feeling of weight vs the lightness feeling of graphite, even if they actually weight the same). Then I saw the Pings, and immediately just feel in love with the design. They're not the prettiest looking irons out there, but there's something very interesting about the way they look. I did have to research the dot system for a little bit, because two sets were available (blue and orange). I went with the Orange because it seemed to be a safer pick, and then I took the 7-iron and gave a few swings. I bought them without hitting, because the price was right, and they looked very lightly played. I went to the range, got a large bucket of balls, and immediately started hitting. I noticed that the first thing I required in a new iron set was the feeling you get when you strike the ball. These felt very good, and the feedback was just enough to know if I toed, hit it center, or heeled. With the 7 iron, I did feel like I was hitting just shorter than with my old Wilson's (which I still have). With range balls, I was hitting about 115 (with range balls, I hit the Wilson's at 120. On the course, I hit them about 10 to 15 yards farther. I'm assuming the difference is just the balls. Still hitting short, but I'm just starting to focus on the game, so I think improvements in distance will come). I did have more mishits, or more toe shots with the Pings. But, almost always, I was able to correct the issue that led to that swing, and then get another good shot. I think these will work really well for me in terms of developing a more consistent shot, and I'm really looking forward to seeing how they do on the course. There's a short par 3 course near where I live (Rammler golf club) I think I'm going to start playing on a regular basis. When I was watching the Par 3 contest yesterday, there was a really interesting statement made by the announcer that was something along the lines of: "Can you imagine just how good you could become if you just played here at the par 3 course every day or every other day. It's a great place to work on your game." (on a side note: watching Craig Stadler yesterday was really good for me. I'm a big guy, and seeing his swing sorta gave me some ideas as to what to do). The other major benefit is that it costs about $20 less to play than Rackham, and about $10 less than Red Oaks (another executive course with 4 par 4 holes). I also work in the area where the course is, so it makes it easy for me to pick up a round on a nice day before or after work. In any regard, I'm happy with the change. I know a bunch of you probably got started on the Eye 2's (or played them at some point in time) and they certainly feel like wonderful clubs. I've read and watched videos commenting on how great and revolutionary they were, and maybe that led to me picking a set up. I'll play them for a few seasons, and maybe think about switching to a nicer or more modern club when I figure out the game a little more. Now, I do want some advice: I'd like to add a Rescue Hybrid, and a new Driver to the bag. Neither club has to be brand new, but should be something that's reliable, and easy to use. I don't have a Hybrid right now, and the driver I'm using most of the time now is a vintage Spalding Persimmon (I like it a lot, actually. When I hit it right, I can get some good distance off the tee, and I do find that a good shot with the Persimmon leads to more fairways than with my Orlimar Tri Metal. The problem is mostly consistency, because when you don't hit it on the screws, nothing good comes from the shot - ever!).

That's not true. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the PGA Championship gives an exemption to all previous winners who are capable and willing to play. This is why John Daly, despite not actually having a tour card, continues to play. The Open also gives an exemption to all previous champions under the age of 60. So it appears that the only major that doesn't honor it's former champions with a lifetime exemption (or rather playing age exemption) is the US Open.

I had one of those rounds that was so bad, I thought about quitting for a moment. I played Rackham again today (I broke 100 my last time there) and nothing seemed to work. I shot a 55 on the front, and 60 on the back, for a 115. The biggest issue again was the driver. In my previous round, I played well with the driver thru the front 9, but poorly with it on the back. Today, I simply couldn't hit it. I managed to find the fairway twice, and had only one decently long drive on a par 4 that led to one of three pars for the day (the other two happened on par 3's; I hit a 4 wood pin high, almost sank the chip in, and then putted for my second par. The third, I hit a 7 iron just short of the green, pitched in, and sank a 15 footer for the best putt I've had this season). I had scores of 7, 8, 9, 10 on the par 5's and mostly double boogied the other par 4's and single boogied the other par 3's. I have to look at the scorecard to give you exact numbers, but I just don't want to ever see it again. I thought I had turned a corner, because each of the last 4 rounds had seen dramatic improvement in my overall game. I started driving good, and my short game became a strength. Today, nothing seemed to work. I'm going to be taking a few days off, and I don't think I will play until next week, because I think this funk is just mental, and I think maybe I've been playing and practicing too much. Maybe I'll just spend some time at the driving range and try and straighten things out. Anyway, that's the round today. It sucked and for the first time in a very long time, I lost my cool on the course. Thankfully, it was mostly empty today, so I really didn't frustrate anyone around me, because I had the course mostly to myself.

Broke 100 on 4/6/19 (shot a 99)