Fourputt

Jack's first paycheck was $33.33 for 50th place tie at the Los Angeles Open. Nobody who makes the cut earns such a minuscule amount in a tournament today, even when adjusted for inflation. The famous Cody Gribble (ranked 200 in 2019), of whom nobody has ever heard, in making only 31 cuts in 76 career tournaments, and still has earned $1.9 million with only 2 top 10's (one was a surprise win at the Sanderson Farms Open in 2017, mostly against the other outliers on Tour). Jack wouldn't even have made expenses with that sort of a record. As previously mentioned, most of his competition could not dedicate themselves 100% to Tour competition because they had to work a real job for a living to feed themselves and their families. There was no real financial incentive to do the work necessary to succeed on Tour until Arnold and Jack sparked a new popularity in the game. I'm not sure where this ramble is really going. Just interesting for me to compare different generations and to see how much the influx of big money has changed the game. With only 2 top 10's in his career (including that one win), Cody has made a total of nearly $1.9 million, unimaginable in 1962. He is averaging over $300,000 per year for his 6 years and 76 events on tour, and until I started this post I'd ever even heard his name before. Not a bad deal if you can make it work.

My point is, why does it matter so much to you? You state your position, then someone else states his, you discuss it for a couple of posts, and then you move on with life. It really doesn't mean anything in the big picture which one is, or was, better. But instead, anyone who has the temerity to state a different opinion, or the bigger crime of voicing no opinion at all, and you come back and climb on the train again, repeating the same points over and over. And then you even make the claim that I shouldn't have the right to state my opinion, since I choose NOT to pick one over the other, but to praise both of them for their contributions to our weekend entertainment and to the game we all clearly love. I fail to see why that opinion is not perfectly within the bounds of this discussion.

I sad it before, probably 230 pages back, but I don't understand why it matters enough to anyone to get to more than 350 pages of debate. I loved watching Jack when he was playing. He was my golf hero, through the 70's and well into the 80's. Then a few years later came Tiger, and while I never saw him as a heroic inspiration (I was older by then and knew my own game better), I loved watching him play and rooting for him.... still do. They have both provided hours and hours of entertainment for all of us who love this sport, and both are/were head and shoulders above their competition. Both have made shots that you saw it live and still couldn't believe what you just witnessed. Tiger probably has more of those highlight reel moments than Jack, but then Tiger got far more TV air time than Jack did. For most of Jack's career They would only televise the back 9 on Saturday and Sunday, with no TV at all from the first 2 rounds. Tiger's record has pretty much eclipsed Jack's now, and he still has time to stretch his lead a bit more as long as he stays healthy. For me, that doesn't diminish what Jack did during his career, it only emphasizes just how good Tiger was in his prime. No matter who was actually the better player, I only see the fact that both players accomplished what they did as being a good thing for we the viewers, and for the game of golf.

Sometimes confidence can be misperceived as arrogance. A person who seems to be totally self-absorbed while engaged in his sport can turn out to be the most congenial, friendly and self-effacing person when he/she isn't competing. Others can be jerks at any time and those are the ones who I tend to actively root against.

I'm kind of with you on this, except I rarely even paced off a shot. I think that too many amateurs take this whole distance thing too seriously. It really doesn't take all that much figuring to add or subtract one club, or maybe just add one club choked down, etc., when dealing with wind or elevation changes. It's an estimate, a "best guess", as it has always been in golf. It's part of the "feel" side of the game that I've seen derided here in the past, but has always been an important aspect of golf. All of this overly technical analysis is part of what is contributing to the pace of play issues. I get a reasonable distance, either from course markings that I have previously verified (I'm still a big fan of having clearly visible stakes at 200, 150, and 100 yards), or lacking that, I take a quick look at my Golf Pad GPS app. I don't even have to be next to my ball when I do it... I can adjust adequately for a 5-10 yard offset by estimating the differences with my eye and experience. I rarely miss by more than a couple of yards as compared to the laser that another player feels he has to use to be "more precise", as he then hits his shot nowhere near the yardage or direction that his sighting gave him. And I will estimate what to add or subtract for conditions, then set up and play my shot while he's still screwing around with his calculations. Some players are actually good enough that such precision is useful for them, but too many of us these days just waste time dithering instead of playing.

Set your club down on a direct line between the hole and your bag. Since I started doing this, I've never left a club behind when leaving the green. That way you or someone has to see it as your group leaves the green. I never cared for laying spare clubs on the flagstick anyway. If I'm first to hole out, I immediately pick up the flagstick to have it ready to put it back in the hole when we finish, and I don't feel like it should be my responsibility to try to manage my putter, the flagstick, and everyone else's wedges too. To be honest, when I was still able to walk the course I never laid a wedge on the green anyway -it always went straight back in my bag when I pulled the putter. Now that I ride, I've always done as I stated at the start of this post.

It was mentioned earlier in this thread that playing left handed (for a right handed golfer) would be considered "reasonable". I tend to disagree with that contention, as least as far as I'm concerned. I've tried such a few times, and those attempts have proven that playing a stroke left handed is not, for me, a remotely reasonable play. Would I then be allowed under the rules to take relief if a left handed stroke was the only play if the ball was not embedded? I am so strongly biased to a right handed swing that most attempts at going the other way have resulted in a first swing whiff. Add to my ineptness the fact that I'm using a club in a manner (either reversed or just hitting with the back of the clubhead) which I would never consider for a right handed swing, and you see my dilemma.

If the ball lay in the same spot but was not embedded, you might still be able to play a stroke to a location where your next shot would have path to the green. In that case you DO get to take relief because you DO have the possibility of making a reasonable stroke at the ball if it was not embedded. "Reasonable" does NOT have to be in the direction that the player might prefer, only that if the ball was not embedded that it would be a logical possibility to do so rather than drop under penalty (as in chipping out sideways, or even in a direction away from the hole which would offer relief for the next stroke). If that reasonable tag does not apply, as in the ball is clearly lying in a place where there is no possible stroke in any reasonable direction, even if the lie of the ball is otherwise pristine, then you would be required to proceed under penalty for an unplayable ball.

Just because Jack played past his prime doesn't even remotely bring his winning percentages into Tiger's range. Tiger lost a raft of chances to increase his lead when the personal and back issues all cropped up. He is still competing at a high level into his mid 40's after a nearly 2 year hiatus, at an age when Jack was starting to lose his edge.

I believe that they said during the broadcast yesterday that Tiger's percentages go a long way toward illustrating his dominance. Something like 24% of the tournaments he played in he won. Jack's numbers are good but not even in the same ball park as Tiger's (and Jack has always been my golfing idol). These aren't up to date but: Tiger Woods: 79 wins in 324 events -- 24.2 percent Jack Nicklaus: 73 wins in 595 events - 12.3 percent

Just guessing, but I think it was Tiger playing smart. With the problems of the other 2 guys (and I don't know if he knew about Koepka and Poulter ahead having done the same thing), but I think he went toward the bunker deliberately so that if he came up short as well, he'd still be dry. That was a case where hitting last may have made all the difference.

I played with a group where I was the only one who believed the statistics. When I said that testing has shown that leaving the flagstick in the holes resulted in generally easier putting, I was laughed down. The comment was "Oh, we one of them in the group." Since it was a tournament I had no choice in my teammates, and since we won it was good that I didn't make a big deal of it. Left to my own devices, I'd have played more putts with the stick in the hole than I did that day.

First Men's Club competition was today. 5 man scramble has been our first tournament each season since 1972, and we just returned the lowest score ever for the event. The whole team was "in the zone". We made almost every putt we looked at, and only 2 were under 10 feet. This isn't a packed team of ringers... it's set up by the pairings computer from the list of entries so that each team's total handicaps are very close, and each team has an A,B,C,D, and E player. Our team's handicaps ranged from 8 to 20. We made 3 pars, 3 eagles, and 12 birdies for an 18 under par 54, 4 strokes better than the closest competitor. I've always enjoyed this tournament, but hadn't finished in the money since 1989. We use basic scramble rules, along with the requirement that each player's drive must be used at least once each 9 holes. We won for low score, and we also got to split the pot for the only skin out for the field. That worked out to $123 for each of us. Won't know what the prize money on the books in the pro shop is until they post it later this week. This is our card:

Tomorrow (Saturday 4-5) will be my second time as I played a quick 9 holes about 2 weeks ago, but it's the first competition of the season. It will be the Men's Club's traditional rust remover 5-man scramble, still one of my favorite tournaments each year. It's fun to get back together with golf friends that I don't see all winter long, and to meet some of the new members. It's the least stressful tournament of the season, and my first time playing under the new rules for 2019 and beyond. And yes, we play all of our competitions by the rules - in this case as closely as possible within the natural limitations of a scramble format. Welcome everyone to golf, 2019 style. 👍

Bag, clubs, and all of the stuff in the bag. My Walmart copy of a Yeti cup, refilled regularly. That's about it. I don't have any interesting superstitions, so nothing odd in my gear.