leftybutnotPM

Yes - you are correct. Guys in their mid to late 20s with 7 or 8 majors between them are washed up losers because they aren't better than Tiger or Nicklaus. You have had the last laugh and it seems that already your predictions bout Koepka are coming true. Not a good player. Will NEVER be as good as Nicklaus. Imagine ----- if he falls short of Tiger or Nicklaus's record, in twenty years you can say you predicted it and people will marvel at your perceptive and sophisticated reflections on the sport.

Let me make sure I've got this worked out. You use the name "Eldrick" as often as possible and never say "Tiger". If someone quizzes you on that, you innocently say "But that's his name". No-one calls him Eldrick. And "Tiger" is on all of his trophies. That's a pretty pathetic way of criticising a person who is certainly one of the two greatest players of all time. And by the way - The Masters is a 72 hole tournament. Did Tiger not have to play holes 12 to 18 in your peculiar world?

Geez. You've really researched that one.....

You can be pretty sure I'm not talking about Koepka. Lee is one of my favourite players, but it ain't no 2 horse race.

Do you not know where they are playing/? Miss the fairway and you pretty much lose a shot. 2 horse race? Just wait for the dreaded 10 shot round 1 v round 2 differential to kick in.

Is this what sober people do? No. The whole point is that if someone is "too high" he is not going to behave rationally. This is why others have a duty of care. We help each other and some need it more than others. As for the mobile phone story. It is not true. It did not happen. The below is from Snopes.

What if you had a student who was known to be (and knew herself to be) diabetic and you stood by and allowed her to have lots and lots of sugary drinks - or gave her lots of sweets to her to the point where she went into a diabetic coma when you KNEW she was diabetic? You would bear responsibility. A person who is served alcohol to excess, even if they aren't commonly known to have a drinking problem, but have clearly consumed an excessive amount can easily foresee success in a case against the server when they leave and drive home drunk and get into trouble. Whether you think it's "BS" or otherwise isn't really relevant.

No-one does say there is an EXACT path. But all successful players have ability and they win at many levels. Saying you want to be rich and famous as a pro does not mean that you can do it without being a good player. Diece has never won a ball as far as I can see. He lies to himself as well as others. Not a good start.

More importantly, let's hope that he does not work in the medical profession. Imagine his compassionate response to a child who presents with a broken arm after falling off a fence. "You do not have a medical condition. You chose to do something dangerous. It was not an accident, consequently you do not have a condition that can be treated."

And guess what? If you had contracted lung cancer caused by your foolish choice to smoke you would have a medical condition.

Complete and utter nonsense. Sorry. How do you think they restricted Rocco Mediate in his duel with Tiger Woods in the U.S.Open in 2008? That is the question I would ask the people who make this claim. Please don't buy into the BS peddled on forums about "players" clubs and GI clubs limiting shotmaking.

So..... You're hitting it inconsistently - but you claim to be making consistent contact. Your impact position is clearly wrong - you are probably delofting your short irons. You have an obsession with distance rather than quality of strike. Your gaps are all over the place. It is possible that the lofts are out. You might actually have two six irons - or your 6 iron might be a seven iron. You are hitting clubs that no-one should be playing. They hurt your hands and they are not working for you. You don't want to change clubs. I am struggling to see the logic. What are you seeking, exactly? Seems to me that your desire is to play "blades" rather than to improve your game. The first thing you should try is a modern set of clubs that are designed for players like yourself. There are dozens of PGATour players who are hitting cavity backs.

You've never won (or entered) a local club championship in any grade at any level -yet you are going to "dominate" a tour where currently there would be thousands of 14 year olds who could thrash you and none of them would go close to qualifying to play there. You give misinformation about your SS and distances. You still haven't grasped the idea that wanting something really badly has little to do with your chances of achieving it in this area. Self-belief and delusion of self are not the same things. Please answer the question: WHY do you think you will succeed when you have presented zero evidence? I'm not seeing posts where you won a tournament or even did anything other than embarrass yourself. Which tournaments have you entered and been in the top 3 - or 10 - or 20? Can you score in the low to mid 60s on ordinary courses in fair conditions fairly often? Are you known in your district as a gun player who can beat any of the locals any day of the week? Would your name be one of the 10 who a local golf administrator or top pro would identify as someone with a good chance of making it? Will you be one of the top 3 players at the club you are joining? Sorry - your thread has become a perfect example of this kind of nonsense where people talk the talk but get shifty when they're asked to back it up. I have no issue with desire or confidence, but your default position is to try to insult anyone or attack anyone who asks legitimate questions about WHY you are going to make it. There was a thread here a while back where someone said he was going to succeed because he had no backup plan which meant he had no option but to succeed. You can guess where that ended up.

Would that mean that if a person broke their arm whilst drunk they would be undeserving of medical treatment? Isn't it the condition and not the cause that is relevant ion this case?

My point is that playing a long course with unreachable par 4s should not lessen the experience to the extent that it is pointless. It is possible to moderate one's own ego. That's what handicaps are for. I would love to play any course from the back tees. It would be brutal, but so what? I'm not a long hitting pro. A player who hits it 230 yards off the tournament tees at Augusta is not reaching any par 4s in 2 unless he hits his 3 wood 220. So what? That's golf. It's not a ridiculous proposition. I play in Australia. You don't choose your tees. Everyone in competition plays from the same tees. This means that on most courses there are going to be many par 4s where only longer hitters can reach them in two. Everyone else gets a shot (or two) on those holes with their handicap. I agree with the concept of everyone having a chance at a GIR on pretty much every hole. This would make it more fun and accessible. But this is why people like the deluded chap on the Mackenzie Tour dream thread and many like him think they are better than they are. They think they are low to mid 70 shooters and then they play at a proper course from the back tees and they wonder why they can't break 90. I played recently with two guys in their 90s. Both off 23 or 23. Both had no trouble hitting par 4s in 3 and playing close to their handicap. When I play courses in tough conditions with long holes I accept the fact that I can't reach them in regulation - just as I accept that a 350 metre par 4 that can be reachable for Rory or Dj from the tee is not for me. I don't go and look for a tee 220m from the green to give myself the same chance.

You expect bogey but hope to 1 putt. You may even be very happy to hit three solid shots and 2 putt for bogey. That would be normal. You will get a shot on that hole for your handicap 100% of the time. Why would you expect to hit long par 4s in regulation? Not everyone has the option to play from shorter tees. You would probably be unable to reach 30 or 40% of par 4s on championship courses from the back tees if you hit it 250 yards off the tee. A person who hits it 200 yards is not reaching a SINGLE par 4 in 2 at Augusta. And why would they expect to?

I am late to this thread but I binge-read it yesterday. I am curious to know what the OP sees in his game that makes him think he has the potential to not only compete on, but "dominate" the Mackenzie Tour. Also, what does he NOT see in the games of players who compete successfully on that tour and beyond? As a newcomer, I have some observations: There is no evidence of any success at golf at ANY level of competition - just a desire to be successful. We are instructed not to doubt his mission. He disses the the credentials of the owner of this site because he doesn't know him and therefore doesn't "trust" him. Qualified and highly respected teachers are dismissed. He thinks he can make swing adjustments in a single session - and then report on whether someone's advice is good or bad There is no organised practice routine or serious plan Equipment, lack of good playing partners and courses are blamed for a lack of progress. The elephant on the course, logically, is that the people who will be "dominating" the minor tours in three to six years time are 15 and 16 year olds playing off handicaps of +4 My question is - why is the cart being put before the horse? Surely you make a decision to compete at a high level when you have succeeded at the previous levels. From what I can see, the OP is deluded and, to boot, defensive and aggressive - he would not make a good student.