Page 113 of 127 FirstFirst ... 1363103111112113114115123 ... LastLast
Results 1,681 to 1,695 of 1904
Like Tree9Likes

Thread: The Golf Thread

  1. #1681
    Hall of Fame Member Son Of Coco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    17,227
    I've just re-read what I wrote and I seemed to mention 'all year' at least twice...I don't think focusing on my first sentence (which was totally serious by the way) sums up what I said.

    And Tiger probably would be winning a lot more titles if he played more tournaments. But wouldn't most of the top golfers? The only way we'd really find out is if they all played all of the tournaments...and then we'd have a year full of the equivalent of major tournaments. I think it's common sense to suggest more weight is placed on the majors, but not winning one doesn't mean you haven't had a good year.

    I didn't think what Social suggested was that ridiculous to be honest.
    "What is this what is this who is this guy shouting what is this going on in here?" - CP. (re: psxpro)

    R.I.P Craigos, you were a champion bloke. One of the best

    R.I.P Fardin 'Bob' Qayyumi

    Member of the Church of the Holy Glenn McGrath

    "How about you do something contstructive in this forum for once and not fill the forum with ****. You offer nothing." - theegyptian.

  2. #1682
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,282
    Quote Originally Posted by social View Post
    What the experts (i.e. not me, you or the candlestick maker) are saying is that a victory in the FedEx Cup will push one of them over the top and give him bragging rights for the past 12 months

    Until then, it is too close too call which is why I said that Scott "must be close to being the best player in the world right now"

    Stop reading Marc's posts as he knows **** about ****
    Haha ok, right.

    My posts have nothing to do with Marc. My posts were about your logic being flawed, which you don't need to know anything about golf to realise (indeed I don't follow golf much).

    You haven't actually responded to any point I raised in my post, presumably because you don't have a response. The fact is that results in golf in the short term mean next to nothing, and reducing the short term further down to only four tournaments renders them more pointless still.

    As I see it, there are two ways that evaluating golfers may be valid. Either look at results over a long term, or actually watching them play. Your evaluation of Woods as you have presented it in this thread does neither.

    "What the experts (i.e. not me, you or the candlestick maker)". Who are these experts exactly? If they are anything like the experts that we have to endure regarding cricket (this is a bit harsh as some of Sky are good but others are awful) and football in this country, then I don't see why you would want to be parroting their opinions as fact.
    MSN - tomhalsey123@hotmail.com

    Manchester United FC: 20 Times

    R.I.P. Sledger's Signature, 2004-2008

  3. #1683
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,282
    Quote Originally Posted by Son Of Coco View Post
    I've just re-read what I wrote and I seemed to mention 'all year' at least twice...I don't think focusing on my first sentence (which was totally serious by the way) sums up what I said.

    And Tiger probably would be winning a lot more titles if he played more tournaments. But wouldn't most of the top golfers? The only way we'd really find out is if they all played all of the tournaments...and then we'd have a year full of the equivalent of major tournaments. I think it's common sense to suggest more weight is placed on the majors, but not winning one doesn't mean you haven't had a good year.

    I didn't think what Social suggested was that ridiculous to be honest.
    Ah ok, apologies. I read the first sentence as being sarcastic.

    I still disagree with much of your post. "If they weren't Tiger would've won a major recently." is not necessarily true for instance. Jack Nicklaus during his peak years went 3 years without winning a major twice. He was never seriously considered to not be the best in the world, and rightly so. As I said, golf tournaments are just ridiculously high variance and very little can be gleaned from results in them in the short term.

    I do not contend that they are not more important than other tournaments (up to a point), but basing views of who is the best in the world at any given moment cannot be based entirely off results in the majors.

  4. #1684
    Hall of Fame Member Son Of Coco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    17,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Halsey View Post
    Haha ok, right.

    My posts have nothing to do with Marc. My posts were about your logic being flawed, which you don't need to know anything about golf to realise (indeed I don't follow golf much).

    You haven't actually responded to any point I raised in my post, presumably because you don't have a response. The fact is that results in golf in the short term mean next to nothing, and reducing the short term further down to only four tournaments renders them more pointless still.

    As I see it, there are two ways that evaluating golfers may be valid. Either look at results over a long term, or actually watching them play. Your evaluation of Woods as you have presented it in this thread does neither.

    "What the experts (i.e. not me, you or the candlestick maker)". Who are these experts exactly? If they are anything like the experts that we have to endure regarding cricket (this is a bit harsh as some of Sky are good but others are awful) and football in this country, then I don't see why you would want to be parroting their opinions as fact.
    On this note, I think I've wasted enough time replying.


  5. #1685
    International Coach
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,282
    I feel like Richard here, but that post basically amounts to taking the easy way out. Logic is universal, there's no special kind of logic that applies to golf and nothing else. Nothing I've posted is reliant upon actually following golf, it's just fairly basic stuff.

    You haven't explained why anything I've said is wrong, and I'd be interested in hearing it. I'm not trolling obviously.

  6. #1686
    Request Your Custom Title Now! benchmark00's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Is this CricketWeb's greatest poster in the short history of the forum?
    Posts
    37,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Son Of Coco View Post
    On this note, I think I've wasted enough time replying.
    Parmi | #1 draft pick | Jake King is **** | Big Bash League tipping champion of the universe
    Come and Paint Turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Kohli. Do something in test cricket for once please.

    Thanks.

  7. #1687
    Hall of Fame Member Son Of Coco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    17,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Halsey View Post
    Ah ok, apologies. I read the first sentence as being sarcastic.

    I still disagree with much of your post. "If they weren't Tiger would've won a major recently." is not necessarily true for instance. Jack Nicklaus during his peak years went 3 years without winning a major twice. He was never seriously considered to not be the best in the world, and rightly so. As I said, golf tournaments are just ridiculously high variance and very little can be gleaned from results in them in the short term.

    I do not contend that they are not more important than other tournaments (up to a point), but basing views of who is the best in the world at any given moment cannot be based entirely off results in the majors.
    I don't think what Social posted was based purely on results in majors. I read it as 'when majors are taken into account, then there's a strong argument for Scott (and a coupe of other blokes) to be considered close to the best in the world at the moment'. Which is a fair point, it's not as if Scott has won one major this year from a ranking of 125th and done nothing else. He's second in the world, has contended in nearly all (if not all) of the majors this year and has been playing some pretty consistent golf. I don't think Social's comment was as ridiculous as you guys tried to make out. If I'd have suggested Scott Gardiner was close to the best in the world if he won the PGA from 160th in the world and done little else I would expect that reaction.

    Tiger dominated the majors before he stuck his knob in a bunch of women and things fell apart for him for a while. He has lost his air of invincibility in the majors, but I think where the variance you're talking about really comes into it is in the regular tournaments. The quality of the field depends entirely on who has decided to turn up that week. Not so with the majors.. and I think Tiger's failure to win won for a while does mean something. It might only take 1 win to get him going again, but at the moment he has come back to the field quite a bit.

  8. #1688
    International Coach social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    12,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Halsey View Post
    Haha ok, right.

    My posts have nothing to do with Marc. My posts were about your logic being flawed, which you don't need to know anything about golf to realise (indeed I don't follow golf much).

    You haven't actually responded to any point I raised in my post, presumably because you don't have a response. The fact is that results in golf in the short term mean next to nothing, and reducing the short term further down to only four tournaments renders them more pointless still.

    As I see it, there are two ways that evaluating golfers may be valid. Either look at results over a long term, or actually watching them play. Your evaluation of Woods as you have presented it in this thread does neither.

    "What the experts (i.e. not me, you or the candlestick maker)". Who are these experts exactly? If they are anything like the experts that we have to endure regarding cricket (this is a bit harsh as some of Sky are good but others are awful) and football in this country, then I don't see why you would want to be parroting their opinions as fact.
    Sorry, thought I did respond so I will try to clarify

    The PGA Player of the Year is awarded to the golfer voted by his peers (i.e. the players) as being the outstanding player of the past 12 months

    According to a poll taken amongst the world's leading golf journalists, there are 4 main contenders:

    1. Tiger Woods - world no. 1, winner of 5 events this season but no majors

    2. Adam Scott - world no.2, winner of 2 events this season including 1 major

    3. Phil Mickelson - world no. 3, winner of 2 PGA events this season plus 1 European Tour event including 1 major but missed 3 cuts

    4. Justin Rose - world no. 5, winner of winner of 1 major this season

    Ordinarily a player with 5 wins would be a shoe-in but as the top players (especially Tiger and Scott) gear their seasons towards the majors, Woods' performances in these events has left the door open for others.

    As such, it is generally considered that if one of the other contenders wins the FedEx Cup, it will be sufficient for them to get the award this year and obtain recognition as the best performed player of the last 12 months in the opinion of the world's leading players

    On the other hand, world rankings are less subjective, being the average points scored in ranking tournaments in a rolling 24 month period.

    In this regard, Tiger is rightly ranked no. 1 despite performing at a far lower level than, say, Scott in the major tournaments during the period in question as consistency across tourneys of all levels is paramount
    Last edited by social; 30-08-2013 at 10:56 PM.

  9. #1689
    International Vice-Captain Riggins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Get ready for a broken ****ing arm.
    Posts
    4,321
    titleist vs cleveland wedges, anyone?
    The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament.

  10. #1690
    Hall of Fame Member Son Of Coco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    17,227
    I like Titleist, but haven't seen their new wedges. Am a big fan of their irons. Cleveland have made a bit of a name for themselves with their wedges, or at least they had when I used to play a bit.

  11. #1691
    State Vice-Captain schearzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Isla de Muerta
    Posts
    1,323
    Quote Originally Posted by Riggins View Post
    titleist vs cleveland wedges, anyone?
    Have had Vokey's in the bag for over ten years and have had good results with them in all environments (cold wet, hard ground, soft ground and of course sand). I tried a friend of mine's cleavland and it was good but I found the head didn't sit right, perhaps too much weight for my liking. But having not owned one I can't put too muc store in that. The Titleist wedges I've had have been great for me.
    Current Favourite XI 1. Vijay 2. Gayle 3. Sangakarra 4. Clarke* 5. Chanderpaul 6. De Kock+ 7. Stokes 8.Johnson 9.Harris 10. Herath 11. Steyn

  12. #1692
    Cricketer Of The Year Anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    9,775
    holy crap...woods has been hit with so many rules infractions these past few months...
    Quote Originally Posted by FRAZ View Post
    very very close friend of mine is an Arab Christian and he speaks Arabic too and the visible hidden filth shows the mentality which may never change .....
    Quote Originally Posted by FRAZ View Post
    AAooouchh !!!!!
    I still remember that zipper accident of mine when I was in kindergarten ..... (Thing is OK I repeat thing is OK now )!!!

  13. #1693
    Hall of Fame Member Son Of Coco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    17,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Anil View Post
    holy crap...woods has been hit with so many rules infractions these past few months...
    Beats being hit with a golf club I guess...

  14. #1694
    International Coach grecian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Oh, God, I'm bored. Might as well be listening to Genesis
    Posts
    14,955
    Surprised a few of our many Kiwi posters aren't more interested in Lydia Ko, I know it's just women's golf, but she looks a genuine phenom.
    Do I contradict myself?
    Very well then I contradict myself,
    (I am large, I contain multitudes.
    Walt Whitman

  15. #1695
    Cricketer Of The Year Anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Tattooine
    Posts
    9,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Son Of Coco View Post
    Beats being hit with a golf club I guess...
    yeah although this latest one is just plain ridiculous...there needs to be some common sense applied to these rulings, if he gained an advantage, i get why he should be penalized...but that was so clearly not the case...and i am sure pretty much every pro golfer has done this and more without "getting caught" just because the camera is not on them all the time...



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •