The Golf Thread

[Son Of Coco]

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.

 

[Tom Halsey]

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.

 

[Tom Halsey]

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.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

 

[Tom Halsey]

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.

 

[benchmark00]

On this note, I think I've wasted enough time replying.

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

 

[social]

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

 

[Riggins]

titleist vs cleveland wedges, anyone?

 

[Son Of Coco]

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.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

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.

 

[Anil]

holy crap...woods has been hit with so many rules infractions these past few months...

 

[Son Of Coco]

holy crap...woods has been hit with so many rules infractions these past few months...

Beats being hit with a golf club I guess...

 

[grecian]

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.

 

[Anil]

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...

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Love seeing someone coming down the stretch for a 59, even with the most ****ed swing ever

 

[grecian]

Love seeing someone coming down the stretch for a 59, even with the most ****ed swing ever

meh, even a 59 can't make Jim Furyk, seem interesting.....

 

[grecian]

She really is ice-cool, Lydia Ko.

Yeah I'm watching Womens golf, don't judge me.

Big putt from Pettersen though, I officially would as well.

 

[Anil]

meh, even a 59 can't make Jim Furyk, seem interesting.....

that's true, i like furyk but he is pretty boring to watch even during a 59 run...

 

[grecian]

So that's Jimenez coming second, and now Ko, more joy for my gambling woes.

Ko strikes the ball incredibly well. putting not up too scratch yet though.