Sorry Mac.
Sorry Mac.
I hear where you’re coming from, but you are way, way off base. I will dismantle your argument, and for fun, I’ll even offer some advice—one straight shooter to another.
Tiger Woods would not have stood a chance against Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer.
Are you
high?
I saw them all play, and I have payed the courses they played on. I played the, with persimmon, and with titanium. And, unlike you, I never quite had the game for the Tour, so I don’t bring to the table any of the has-been syndrome that it seems 90% of all ex-jocks have.
Tiger at his peak—the Tiger Slam years—would have destroyed Arnie and Jack. And I’m talking 1960 Arnie, and 1975 Jack.
Why?
They just didn’t have it in them to go that low.
Tiger was as long as they were, and at his best, straight enough.
His fairway woods and long irons are equal with Jack and way better than Palmer. His mid-irons were slightly worse than Jack, but even with Arnie. Short irons go to Arnie, with Tiger and Jack about even.
But…the short games are OFF THE PLANET different
From 50 yards and in Tiger would cut Jack a shot a side and even the hot-putting Arnie more than half that.
Look at these stats from 2000:
Driving Distance 298.0 2nd; Driving Accuracy Percentage 71.2% 54th; Greens in Regulation Pct. 75.2% 1st; Putting Average 1.717 2nd; Eagles (Holes per) 72.0 1st; Birdie Average 4.92 1st; Scoring Average 67.79 1st!!!!!
Mac, you are wrong pal. Jack and Arnie couldn’t match these stats.
Woods, the three-time PGA and four-time Masters champion, is the worst driver to win the Masters.
Tom Bartlett will be happy to send you the DVD of the 1997 Masters. Watch it 200 times, and call me in the morning.
"When Nicklaus and Palmer played, when (Ben) Hogan played and Sam Snead played, on a scale of zero to 10, they were a nine-plus," he said. "Tiger Woods is not even a one-plus."
You, sir, have drawn too many lines on those old photos, and spent too much time thinking about calling it science.
Hogan couldn’t have shot 12-under at Pebble if he could have played a scramble. He just wouldn’t have hit as many par 5’s and not made NEARLY ENOUGH PUTTS!!!
Start drawing lines on Tiger’s putting stroke from that year and the ’97 Masters and I’ll let you call THAT science.—The science of psychology. You need a shrink if you can’t understand that Tiger was TOTALLY better with the long irons, and with his length and short game, would demolish a Snead or Hogan score wise.
Lowest SCORE wins Mac. Not who makes the best sound on the range.
O'Grady said technology is the reason for players' success today. A change in the drivers' grooves from a V shape to a box shape allows golfers to hit the ball farther with more spin.
When in the rough, players go straight for the hole instead of just trying to reach the green. This, he said, has ruined golf.
"The reason why (Woods) can hit it on the green is because he has square grooves," he said.
What??
Tiger was LONG and STRAIGHTER with Persimmon. And that little metal 3-wood he destroyed Augusta with in 1997 was no tecno-club. He also used mainly v-grooves back then.
"He doesn't have that, he's dead. He cannot do it -- it's impossible. For him to go after Nicklaus' records is cheating. This is like steroids."
Cheating?
Dude, you have no idea.
If David Toms could go back and play courses like Lakewood Country Club and Houston Country Club, he’d have shot in the 50’s a few times. Ask David if Tiger is any good.
The players are better. Period.
O'Grady, who shot a 1-over-par 73, has studied the swing for 23 years and plans to turn his research into a book.
I think that quote is from 1991. I was there in San Francisco.
"The problem is the teaching hypothesis," O'Grady said.
"All the teachers have different theories, and anybody can say anything. It's unregulated”
Unregulated?
No, its BUSINESS. Just learn how to fix people, instead of IMPRESSING people, and learn to TREAT people better, and you’ll be slightly more than infamous.
He said technological advancements in clubs and balls have eliminated curve problems.
Balls used to have what he called a concentric arc dimple configuration, meaning their indentions were in a circular shape and each dimple was the same size, allowing for even dispersion of air across them. Now dimple sizes and positions vary, eliminating the balls' curve.
"It allows all these guys to come into the game that ordinarily couldn't do it," O'Grady said.
That’s right. Chris DiMarco is not as good as Gay Brewer right?
Jim Fuyrk is not as good as Miller barber, right?
Fred Funk is not as good as Cal Peete, right?
Right?
Wrong again.
"This ball is …blah, blah, balh….. It's not fair."
What you mean to say is this:
I am a great ball-striker, just ask anyone. I should have won 100 tournaments, or at least the “Superstars.”
I am pretty sure that if Scott Verplank went back in time to play with persimmion and old Titleist, he would still win.
Oh, I forgot, he DID win win persimmion and old Titleist.
O'Grady said he used the qualifying event as research for his book, taking note of driving distance and players' performance.
If you playing in a 4-spotter qualifies as research, than doing this forum ought to win me the Nobel prize.
O'Grady said in the Champions Tour, what he called former "powderpuff" players such as Jay Haas, are defeating "dinosaur guys who had the best technique."
Powderpuff hitters?
Like HALF the tour in 1980.
I’m 5’9, 190lbs. and I am tired from one round of golf and hitting some balls on a launch monitor. My driving distance would rank me about 175th on Tour now.
With the OLD club and OLD balls, I’d be about 60th in 1980.
Ed Fiori was 60th in 1980, and even THEN, I could blow it by him.
Mac, you are a bright guy. Take a year off from all of your hard work
, and write the damn book.
And while you are at it, tell Tiger you are sorry.
