Live Chat with Brandel Chamblee

[DCgolf]

DC, it was only a joke based on the amount of energy expended on rolling a cigarette rather than fishing one out of a packet - about as much
exercise (assumed) that most pro golfers of that era took.

I know...I met Sam on a few occaisions. Best word I can use to describe him, "crotchety". He played in a pro am at Seaview CC when I worked there back in 80s. I talked with after the round and he was pissed off that he got "a bunch of hacks" on his team.

 

[DCgolf]

As I recall, Woods was using the new Nike solid ball for some time before Titleist and the other manufacturers caught on that something had changed the golf world. Much the same happened when the feathery gave way to the gutty in the 1850's and the gutty gave way to the wound balata around 1900. In each case the old ball was abandoned in a matter of a few years. In other words, for a brief time Woods had a huge equipment advantage over the field which magnified his superiority.

Nicklaus, on the other hand, always played the universally acknowledged lousy MacGregor ball. Even the MacGregor staff players usually switched to Titleist after their first hole, and Hogan eventually split with MacGregor over their insistence that he play their ball.

Maybe it was your bottle and nappy time so you slept through the 1965 Masters?

Old Tom

So he won the 2000 Open by 15 shots shooting 12 under on a course that the rest of the field couldn't sniff par because he had a better golf ball. Is THAT your logic?

 

[mgranato]

The field plays against the course setup. Who has the best plan, and executes it the best usually gets the cardboard check.

So maybe the question should be - which generation has been faced with the most demanding courses and severest greens. Getting to the green is only half the job. What you're faced with once there can be just as daunting.

What influences the number posted more, the course of the other 143 in the field?

 

[trashpar]

As I recall, Woods was using the new Nike solid ball for some time before Titleist and the other manufacturers caught on that something had changed the golf world. Much the same happened when the feathery gave way to the gutty in the 1850's and the gutty gave way to the wound balata around 1900. In each case the old ball was abandoned in a matter of a few years. In other words, for a brief time Woods had a huge equipment advantage over the field which magnified his superiority.

Nicklaus, on the other hand, always played the universally acknowledged lousy MacGregor ball. Even the MacGregor staff players usually switched to Titleist after their first hole, and Hogan eventually split with MacGregor over their insistence that he play their ball.

Maybe it was your bottle and nappy time so you slept through the 1965 Masters?

Old Tom

The Pro V1 came out in Oct of 2000. Don't think that was a lot of time difference

 

[Old Tom]

So he won the 2000 Open by 15 shots shooting 12 under on a course that the rest of the field couldn't sniff par because he had a better golf ball. Is THAT your logic?

My logic says that the ball helped him about 7 or 8 strokes on that long and soggy layout. I think history has shown that the new ball flew nearly 10% farther and curved about 40% less in flight. I thought Woods Masters victory in 1997 was more impressive with the old wound ball.

Old Tom

 

[tongzilla]

some of the stuff mentioned in this thread is such a joke, I have to try really hard to refrain myself from joining this conversation and going berserk.

 

[Burner]

Officer Dibble reporting for duty.

some of the stuff mentioned in this thread is such a joke, I have to try really hard to refrain myself from joining this conversation and going berserk.

Leo I never realised you were now self-appointed head of the forum police.
If you don't want to enjoin a thread then simply keep out of it but please afford others the courtesy of commenting as they see fit and enjoying the
comments that others are making.

 

[tongzilla]

Sorry Burner, I should have been more courteous. Just really frustrates me to have a player's accomplishment diminished because of the ball he's using or the era he played in.

 

[ej20]

There is a school of thought and there is a strong argument to it that Tiger's superiority was diminished due to modern equipment.He has always used a higher spinning modern ball because he likes the control of spin.Most other pros using pro v's picked up enormous distances and Tiger lost his power advantage.He has also never transitioned well to graphite shafted drivers.

I believe if they kept the steel shafted driver and balata ball like in Jack's era,Tiger would have 20 majors by now.Twenty five if not for his scandal.Tigers A game vs Jacks.Tiger by 8 shots over Nicklaus at the 2000 US Open.

 

[Brian Manzella]

It's really very simple.


In 2000, Tiger hit it as far as Jack in his prime did relative to the field.

In 2000, Tiger's 3-wood and long iron game (including the stinger) was no worse than 90% as good as Jack's in his prime.

In 2000, Tiger's mid & short irons were was no worse than 80% as good as Jack's in his prime.

In 2000, Tiger's short game not including putting was significantly better than Jack's was in his prime.

In 2000, Tiger's short putting was better than Jack's was in his prime.

In 2000, Tiger's putting longer than short putting was a lot better than Jack's was in his prime.


Handicap the match, experts.

 

[ej20]

Jack was also not a good chipper and his bunker play was well below average.There is no doubt that Tiger has the better all round short game.

In 2000 Tiger was also number one in total driving,GIR and ball striking just to add to his Seve like short game.Not to mention the lowest scoring average in history.Tiger's Golf game in 2000 is the equivalent of an ELO rating of 3000 in chess.No human has achieved a rating higher than 3000 except for computers.

 

[Burner]

Should have had a thunk before hitting the send button.

Sorry Burner, I should have been more courteous. Just really frustrates me to have a player's accomplishment diminished because of the ball he's using or the era he played in.

I guess I came on a bit strong Leo. No apology necessary but its the mark of the man that you volunteered one - thanks.