Jump to content

csh19792001

Established Member
  • Posts

    51
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

csh19792001 last won the day on January 7 2022

csh19792001 had the most liked content!

About csh19792001

Recent Profile Visitors

1,218 profile views

csh19792001's Achievements

Established Member

Established Member (3/9)

  • 1st Topic
  • 1st Poll Created Rare
  • 1st Post
  • 1st Reaction Received
  • 1st Reaction Given

Recent Badges

12

Reputation

  1. This is one of the greatest posts I've ever seen in my life on sports message boards like this!! Bravo, Sir!! 👏
  2. Can you please list your top 10 seasons all time, in order? Thanks! 🙂 Truly epic. Greatest season ever in all of sports, IMHO. "I don't know who the greatest player of all time is; the answer in unknowable, and, ergo, unanswerable. What I do know, however, is that Tiger Woods played the best golf of anyone, ever, in the year 2000." -Chamblee
  3. Tiger is the GOAT of the greatest sport in world history.
  4. Forgot Olympic Gold Medal Winner, also. 🙂 And, well said and reasoned, iacas. Which specific seasons/players would you take ahead of Scheffler? Do you have a top 10 seasons list all time? Or, by era? Thanks! 🙂
  5. Where Does Scheffler's 2024 Season Rank All Time? Scheffler Career Earnings: $96,818,667 (Second all time to Tiger Woods: $120,999,166). Scheffler won $75,242,699 the last two seasons, in only 42 starts. That alone would be #3 all time. He won $89,289,609 in the past 3 seasons (67 starts). Last 3 years: 65/67 cuts made, 19.4% win rate, 42.0% top 3 percentage. HISTORY IN PERSPECTIVE: 2024 Season We probably could have dedicated an entire article to this section as there is an abundance of statistics that validate Scottie’s historic season. These are the most eye-catching of the bunch: Lowest scoring average in PGA TOUR history (68.0). First player to win THE PLAYERS, a major championship and the FedEx Cup in the same season Fourth player (seventh instance) to win 7+ times in a season including a major Second player in history win the Masters Tournament and the FedEx Cup in the same season (first since 2015) Second player in history to win THE PLAYERS and the TOUR Championship in the same season (first since 2019) First player in history to lead the TOUR in Greens in Regulation (73%) and Putting Average (1.69) Led the FedEx Cup standings for the final 25 weeks of the season, which is the longest streak to end the season in FedEx Cup history by 21 weeks 50th career week at No. 1 in the FedEx Cup standings (second all-time) 68th consecutive week as World No. 1 (fifth-most all-time) Scottie Scheffler led the PGA TOUR in 40+ major statistical categories in 2024, most notably: 1st in Scoring Average 1st in SG: Total 1st in SG: Approach 1st in GIR Percentage 1st in SG: Tee-to-Green 1st in Birdie Average 1st in Putting Average 1st in Birdie or Better Percentage 1st in Par 4 Scoring Average 1st in Par 5 Scoring Average Wins Top-3s Top-5s Top-10s Rounds in the 60s
  6. I support your side, Iacas. 100%. Tiger had a better career than Jack, and was far better at his best. Field strengths are drastically better in the 21st century versus pre 1980's, and LIGHT years ahead of when Hogan played. Nobody in this thread listed non American Major Winners during Jack and Tiger's entire primes. I thought people would find that interesting and that it would be revealing, in a comparative sense.
  7. How many Majors were won 1960-1980 by non Americans? Total Count: Gary Player (South Africa): 7 wins Kel Nagle (Australia): 1 win Bob Charles (New Zealand): 1 win Peter Thomson (Australia): 1 win Roberto De Vicenzo (Argentina): 1 win Tony Jacklin (England): 2 wins Seve Ballesteros (Spain): 2 wins David Graham (Australia): 1 win Total Non-U.S. Major Championships: 16 Between 1960 and 1980, non-U.S. players won 16 major championships. How about Majors won by non Americans 1997-2017? Total Count: Ernie Els (South Africa): 4 wins Vijay Singh (Fiji): 3 wins José María Olazábal (Spain): 1 win Paul Lawrie (Scotland): 1 win Retief Goosen (South Africa): 2 wins Mike Weir (Canada): 1 win Michael Campbell (New Zealand): 1 win Geoff Ogilvy (Australia): 1 win Ángel Cabrera (Argentina): 2 wins Padraig Harrington (Ireland): 3 wins Trevor Immelman (South Africa): 1 win Y. E. Yang (South Korea): 1 win Graeme McDowell (Northern Ireland): 1 win Louis Oosthuizen (South Africa): 1 win Martin Kaymer (Germany): 2 wins Rory McIlroy (Northern Ireland): 4 wins Charl Schwartzel (South Africa): 1 win Darren Clarke (Northern Ireland): 1 win Adam Scott (Australia): 1 win Justin Rose (England): 1 win Jason Day (Australia): 1 win Danny Willett (England): 1 win Henrik Stenson (Sweden): 1 win Sergio García (Spain): 1 win Total Non-U.S. Major Championships: 33 Between 1997 and 2017, non-U.S. players won 33 major championships.
  8. Exactly correct. 👍
  9. I’m in full agreement with your position. I’m supporting you 100%! I personally thought that was an amazing post, and thought you would appreciate it! Please let me know what to query. Im new here and I’m learning. Thank you!
  10. Iacas- Can you please post all the data behind field strengths? Thank you very much!
  11. I'm sure you've read this, but I just have to post it, here, again, for everyone who hasn't. It changed my thinking forever and irrevocably on this exact topic:
  12. Where/when did he admit this? Do you have a link to the source? Thanks!
  13. Field Strength -- Facts Versus Rosy Memories - Tour Talk - GolfWRX I have to laugh at the chumps who show up with arguments that today's golfers by definition are the best ever. Right, except nobody says that. We don't say the golfers are more talented today. We say there are more... Not sure if this guy "Brock Savage" is a member here- since I'm never on here- nonetheless, I thought this was an extremely insightful comment directly apropos of this ongoing debate/discussion: "Right, except nobody says that. We don't say the golfers are more talented today. We say there are more talented golfers today. "More" meaning they are more numerous, not more talented. Talent is random. Only a small percentage of people win the talent lottery --- for world class golf, way less than 1%. And there's no telling whether the most talented player of any period, including this one, was more talented than Jack, or Jones, or Vardon. It's absolutely unknowable. What is knowable, though, is that the base population is larger, so whatever percentage of people are born with golf talent, there are a lot more of them today than there were 50 years ago. What is knowable is that training and coaching is vastly improved. Hogan had to dig his swing out of the dirt. Today, they have radar and laser and the Minolta super duper high speed swing cam, and they know exactly how every little swing tweak affects their spin rate and launch angle and apex height -- stuff nobody had any clue about in Jack's day. So 50 years ago, if you had 100 guys born with golf talent take up golf, maybe 30 of them would find their optimal swing. Today, it's probably over 90. What is knowable is that the huge purses, and the fact that Tiger was the world's richest and most famous athlete, and not just the world #1 golfer, is making golf the first choice of more young athletes, rather than just the guys who couldn't make the "real" sports teams in school. So if you had 100 guys born with multi-sport talent 50 years ago, most of them played golf for fun, if at all. Today, a lot more of them concentrate on golf as their main sport. And what is knowable is that travel is much faster and cheaper now, so almost every world class player shows up for almost every major and WGC, and for many of the regular PGA events. 50 years ago, the second or third best player in, say, Australia, often didn't even play in the British Open, let alone a PGA event. So all the PGA events, and three of the four majors, had only a handful of international players, and the fourth major had only a handful of Americans. None of that is speculation. It is a verifiable fact that there are over twice as many people in the world today than there were 50 years ago. It's a verifiable fact that the purses today are hundreds of times as high as they were 50 years ago --- Tony Lema got about $4200 for winning the 1964 Open; today, it's about $1.5 million. It's a verifiable fact that virtually all the world top 100 play every major they are eligible for, instead of only a handful playing any events that require overseas travel. It's not knowable exactly how all of that combines, but a good indication is the number of entries in the US Open. To enter the US Open requires both top 1% talent for the game, and a serious commitment to it. There were about 2400 entrants per year 50 years ago. This century, it's consistently over 9000, well over three times as many. It's true that, mostly because of the time and expense, the number of duffers recreational players has declined, but they never had any influence on field strength, anyway. High school kids on the golf team still play all they want, for free. What do you have to counter that? Nothing but your belief that there were half a dozen golf phenoms all at the same time in the 60's, and none today, now that Tiger's past his prime. You're entitled to that opinion, but what facts do you have to back it up? Only the number of majors they won. But how many majors would Phil have won if the fields were like they were 50 years ago? Phil finished second in the US Open to Goosen in 2004, to Ogilvy in 2006, and to Rose last year. 50 years ago, odds are that none of those guys would have even tried to qualify for the US Open, since it required shutting down their schedule for a minimum of three weeks to travel to the US for sectional qualifying, with no guarantee that they would make it into the actual tournament. Michael Campbell, who beat Tiger with some amazing putting down the stretch in 2005, said that he would not have entered that year if the USGA hadn't established overseas qualifying sites, so he didn't have to travel to enter. How would Phil look next to Arnie with those three US Opens? Eight majors, and a career Grand Slam. And how would Tiger look if Michael Campbell, Trevor Immelman, Angel Cabrera, and YA Yang had stayed home, like most international players did in the Jack era? I'll make it even simpler for you, since you follow women's golf. How much better would the US women look today, if there were no Asians on tour? Or even just no Koreans? Well, it looks like you're going to crow about the lack of current talent every time a guy backs into a win for the foreseeable future, but come on. The Valero was a 40-point tournament, which makes it one of the weakest regular PGA events, barely above the John Deere. And the tournament committee knows that most top players don't like to play right before a major, so they try to attract the few who do by making it as close to major conditions as possible, to help them fine tune their games. A weak field facing a tough setup is not a recipe for low scores, but you still insist on taking one bad week and comparing it to the majors of your hazy memory, even though you seem to have forgotten epic collapses by the likes of Arnie, who managed to lose a seven shot lead over the last 9 holes of the 1966 US Open. And who knows how often something like that happened in a low-rent event? I don't know if Tiger was more talented than Jack, or even Trevino. All I know is that there are many solid reasons to believe that in order to win a tournament, he had to beat around three times as many talented golfers, even in most of the regular tour events he's won, as Jack did in a major --- especially the Open, where Jack only had to beat as few as 8 other Americans, at a time when probably 60-70 of the world top 100 were Americans. I don't say it's true by definition, as you claimed, but I say it's the way to bet, based on facts and logic."
  14. Field Strength -- Facts Versus Rosy Memories - Tour Talk - GolfWRX I have to laugh at the chumps who show up with arguments that today's golfers by definition are the best ever. Right, except nobody says that. We don't say the golfers are more talented today. We say there are more... Not sure if this guy "Brock Savage" is a member here- since I'm never on here- nonetheless, I thought this was an extremely insightful comment directly apropos of this ongoing debate/discussion: "Right, except nobody says that. We don't say the golfers are more talented today. We say there are more talented golfers today. "More" meaning they are more numerous, not more talented. Talent is random. Only a small percentage of people win the talent lottery --- for world class golf, way less than 1%. And there's no telling whether the most talented player of any period, including this one, was more talented than Jack, or Jones, or Vardon. It's absolutely unknowable. What is knowable, though, is that the base population is larger, so whatever percentage of people are born with golf talent, there are a lot more of them today than there were 50 years ago. What is knowable is that training and coaching is vastly improved. Hogan had to dig his swing out of the dirt. Today, they have radar and laser and the Minolta super duper high speed swing cam, and they know exactly how every little swing tweak affects their spin rate and launch angle and apex height -- stuff nobody had any clue about in Jack's day. So 50 years ago, if you had 100 guys born with golf talent take up golf, maybe 30 of them would find their optimal swing. Today, it's probably over 90. What is knowable is that the huge purses, and the fact that Tiger was the world's richest and most famous athlete, and not just the world #1 golfer, is making golf the first choice of more young athletes, rather than just the guys who couldn't make the "real" sports teams in school. So if you had 100 guys born with multi-sport talent 50 years ago, most of them played golf for fun, if at all. Today, a lot more of them concentrate on golf as their main sport. And what is knowable is that travel is much faster and cheaper now, so almost every world class player shows up for almost every major and WGC, and for many of the regular PGA events. 50 years ago, the second or third best player in, say, Australia, often didn't even play in the British Open, let alone a PGA event. So all the PGA events, and three of the four majors, had only a handful of international players, and the fourth major had only a handful of Americans. None of that is speculation. It is a verifiable fact that there are over twice as many people in the world today than there were 50 years ago. It's a verifiable fact that the purses today are hundreds of times as high as they were 50 years ago --- Tony Lema got about $4200 for winning the 1964 Open; today, it's about $1.5 million. It's a verifiable fact that virtually all the world top 100 play every major they are eligible for, instead of only a handful playing any events that require overseas travel. It's not knowable exactly how all of that combines, but a good indication is the number of entries in the US Open. To enter the US Open requires both top 1% talent for the game, and a serious commitment to it. There were about 2400 entrants per year 50 years ago. This century, it's consistently over 9000, well over three times as many. It's true that, mostly because of the time and expense, the number of duffers recreational players has declined, but they never had any influence on field strength, anyway. High school kids on the golf team still play all they want, for free. What do you have to counter that? Nothing but your belief that there were half a dozen golf phenoms all at the same time in the 60's, and none today, now that Tiger's past his prime. You're entitled to that opinion, but what facts do you have to back it up? Only the number of majors they won. But how many majors would Phil have won if the fields were like they were 50 years ago? Phil finished second in the US Open to Goosen in 2004, to Ogilvy in 2006, and to Rose last year. 50 years ago, odds are that none of those guys would have even tried to qualify for the US Open, since it required shutting down their schedule for a minimum of three weeks to travel to the US for sectional qualifying, with no guarantee that they would make it into the actual tournament. Michael Campbell, who beat Tiger with some amazing putting down the stretch in 2005, said that he would not have entered that year if the USGA hadn't established overseas qualifying sites, so he didn't have to travel to enter. How would Phil look next to Arnie with those three US Opens? Eight majors, and a career Grand Slam. And how would Tiger look if Michael Campbell, Trevor Immelman, Angel Cabrera, and YA Yang had stayed home, like most international players did in the Jack era? I'll make it even simpler for you, since you follow women's golf. How much better would the US women look today, if there were no Asians on tour? Or even just no Koreans? Well, it looks like you're going to crow about the lack of current talent every time a guy backs into a win for the foreseeable future, but come on. The Valero was a 40-point tournament, which makes it one of the weakest regular PGA events, barely above the John Deere. And the tournament committee knows that most top players don't like to play right before a major, so they try to attract the few who do by making it as close to major conditions as possible, to help them fine tune their games. A weak field facing a tough setup is not a recipe for low scores, but you still insist on taking one bad week and comparing it to the majors of your hazy memory, even though you seem to have forgotten epic collapses by the likes of Arnie, who managed to lose a seven shot lead over the last 9 holes of the 1966 US Open. And who knows how often something like that happened in a low-rent event? I don't know if Tiger was more talented than Jack, or even Trevino. All I know is that there are many solid reasons to believe that in order to win a tournament, he had to beat around three times as many talented golfers, even in most of the regular tour events he's won, as Jack did in a major --- especially the Open, where Jack only had to beat as few as 8 other Americans, at a time when probably 60-70 of the world top 100 were Americans. I don't say it's true by definition, as you claimed, but I say it's the way to bet, based on facts and logic.
×
×
  • 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...