The Philadelphia Open at Pine Valley!

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Once again, that last post of yours is the most bizarre logic I've ever heard in an attempt to support a dumb remark you made which is completely unsupportable and the facts to prove that are right here on this page of this thread (from Mike Clayton).

Once again, according to you Hartman said he could not come within 10 shots of Parvenik in any round in a major tournament! And you agree with that statement according to your 7/18/5:20 post! Why the hell Hartman would've ever said something so untrue and dumb is beyond me since the last time he played in a major tournament against Parvenik not only did he come within 10 shots of him in a round he actually beat the guy in the tournament!

It's beyond belief that you keep telling us we should read what you write more carefully and that any of us are  misquoting you. Apparently you can't even understand what you wrote yourself! Before you produce more of this foolishness on this subject why don't you reread your own 7/18/5:20 post because as of now you're starting to misquote yourself!

If you want to make some other point about GAP players and Pine Valley then make it but stop trying to make it with this foolishness. If you don't I'm going to call Hartman myself and ask him why, with the facts available, he would've made such a dumb statement, or if, in fact, he did make that statement!

[TEPaul]

Ahhh, Pat, I think what Mike Clayton recapped was the 2000 US Open--not the 2002 Open. The 2000 Open apparently was the last tournament Hartman teed it up in against Parvenik in a major--that would have been Pebble!

Apparenly what Mike Clayton was trying to explain to you, with a simple fact, is the remark you reported that Hartman made that he could not come with in 10 shots of Parvenik in any round in a major tournament--a statement you've said you agree with--is total BS!!!

Apparently you're having a hard time coming to grips with that FACT which basically scotches that statement which you agree with--so as always, you're going to try to figure out some way to obfuscate that fact or slough it off!

Don't bother--noboby's going to buy it! And even if Mike Clayton hadn't produced that FACT, it really wouldn't matter that much--none of us are dumb enough to believe that statement in the first place. Most of us know golf a bit better than that!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You're so euphoric from your last four (4) rounds at Pine Valley that you haven't been able to focus properly.

When Hartman said Parnevik was ten shots better per round in Major competitions, he didn't mean that every time they played, he would be EXACTLY ten shots behind Parnevik.
It was a global assessment of their abilities, not based on any individual round, but many, many rounds.

Let's take your recent 71 at Pine Valley, Mickleson, fresh from an all nighter at AC comes to PV and shoots 74.
Are you three (3) shots better than Mickleson ?
Can you take that one specific example and magnify it to become a universal ?

Surely, you're coming back down to earth from PV and your focus is becoming clear again.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Well, thanks, but why didn't you say that in the first place? You said 10 shots per round.

So now it's a global assessment, huh, not in any individual round but over many many rounds!? What exactly does a "global assessment" mean in the context of your 10 shot per round statement?

Does that mean that if they played in ten rounds of majors that Parvenik would be about 100 shots better than Hartman?
I guess that would mean about 15 rounds from now, since Hartman beat Parvenik the last time they played at the Open at Pebble.

Damn right I'm happy to have played so well last week but I know that golf course and what they can do with it without being gimmicky well enough to know that if someone like me teed it up in the Philly Open on Monday the chances of me breaking 160 in those 36 holes would be very remote--very remote!

[Will E]

There is NO way Jesper would give Rick 10 shots. I'd doubt he'd even give him two. I've been paired with Rick and claim that Rick's golf swing is better than 90% of the tour's. I do think he could play the tour if that is what he decided to do. I'd imagine life at Atlantic for him ain't too bad though.
Pat-
I agree there is a HUGE gap from the club pro level to the tour. Let's look at how many club pros will make the cut at this year's PGA. Ten shots per round??
I've known Rick for a while too, but come on.
If you really buy into Rick's comment, I'm going to call Rick tonight and tell him he could sell you anything.

[Chris Kane]

Patrick,

Mike Clayton's competitive record speaks for itself, too.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You're absolutely right, I did misquote you: Hartman's statement which you agree with was;

"When it comes to tournaments, Parvenik is TEN (10) shots per round better than he is."

I quoted the remark as; "he couldn't come within 10 shots per round..."

I suppose there is some significant material difference in there somewhere, but I'm too dumb to figure out what it is, except that the remark quoted either way is still total BS!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shooter,

I couldn't agree more about the quality of Hartmans swing and game, he's terrific, and a terrific guy to boot.

Hartman's comment was made in earnest and was part of a lengthy discussion on the relative abilities of the two players in competition, and a variety of other golf related subjects.
Nannies were not part of the official discussion.

One of the things that amazed me was despite a 30 mile an hour, left to right crossing wind, on three occassions Parnevik hit a draw into the green with 3-wood, 8-iron, and wedge, when I thought for sure he'd ride the wind in with a fade.

I was also fascinated by one of his practice routines, whereby he placed a ball under his right foot, while hitting balls.

I also asked him innumerable questions about playing in the wind, and the elements and how he adjusted to varying conditions.  One question referenced a little chip/lob shot he was hitting.  Later that week, I believe he holed that very shot at the Ryder cup.  Practice makes perfect.

Chris Kane,

I have no doubt that Mike is a terrific player and that his record speaks for itself, but reaching and maintaining a ranking of 12th in THE WORLD is a bit extraordinary, and puts any who attain that lofty ranking in a different category from all but a few PGA TOUR players.

I could be wrong, but I think Bernhard Langer held a World ranking position longer than any other golfer since they began that system.

There seems to be some confusion, this thread isn't about demeaning anyone's game, Hartman's, Mike's, GAP Open players or MGA players, it's about the enormous disparity in the game of PGA TOUR players ranked 12th in the world and good local players while competing in Major events.

[Mike Clayton]

Patrick

Very few have any idea how good the top 12 in the world are.
Hartmann and I played for years together and we were of similar ability -decent but a mile from Seve who was the best player in Europe in the 80's
Never would he beat us by 20 over 4 rounds -5 a day.

Hartmann -speak up for yourself -I know this web site is on your favourites list.
Bobby R. Tell Hartmann to post.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

None of us on this site are denying or taking exception to what you said in your last post--we all understand what you're saying there!

What we are taking exception to, all of us--and enormous exception at that--is the statement about 10 shots per round! That's not realistic--it's not in the ballpark as good as we all realize those world's top ranked players are!

You should simply admit that it isn't a realistic statement regardless of what Hartman might have said or meant to say--and then we will let this go. Stop trying to prove the uprovable in one way and then another.

It just ain't going to work--it ain't reality as good as those guys are which most of us realize!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul and Mike Clayton,

When I look at the scores, each week, on the PGA tour, the top 12 players are at least 10 shots per round better than many of those failing to make the cut.

This is not something I made up, but empirical fact.

Please, consult your newspaper or GolfWeek or Golf Digest and look at the scores on thursday and friday.

Understand that the leaders aren't competing against local players, but fellow PGA TOUR players, and we know that to be on the PGA TOUR a player has to be incredibly exceptional.

We just disagree on the gap between the BEST of the BEST players in the world, and the average players in a local/regional competition.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

My God man, you won't quit will you? Can't you see from the things you're saying here that you're taking a bunch of "assumptions" basically out of the air, or in the last few posts out of the newspapers, and trying to make a "provable conclusion" with it!

That doesn't work in reality Pat, as hard as you're trying to make it work!

Why doesn't it work? Because the premise we're discussing with you is; "In a tournament Hartman will be 10 shots per round worse than Parvenik."

We've already proven that to be untrue from the 2000 US Open! So why do you keep avoiding that FACT which disproves your premise we're discussing here?

Is Hartman going to be in the back of the listings in the newspapers 10 shots or more per round behind the leaders in every tournament? No, it's been proved he isn't.

Has the GAP section had players who have performed in top caliber pro tournaments as well as Hartman has? Yes!

If something you say gets disproved you have a way of looking around for other assumptions that you hope will prove your premise or conclusion! Or else you look for other premises that look to be the same as your original premise that's already been disproved.

First, stick with your premise, would you please, and second, understand if and when it gets disproved by known FACTS nothing is going to change the FACT it's been DISPROVED!

I wonder if you ever took a course in logic! If you did I fear you must have driven your professor nuts. If your orange premise happens to get disproved, you just can't live with that and the next thing he knows you're still trying to prove your orange premise by making oranges out of cumquats!

[George Pazin]

(Tried to post this last night, but had computer problems)

THIS JUST IN:

Monty is 11 shots better than Parnevik, which puts him a cool 21 shots better than Rick Hartman & an astounding 26 shots better than the average GAP player.

Prior to this discussion, I thought I was stubborn. Now a new standard has been set...

[Patrick_Mucci]

George,

Some people change positions with the slightest shift in the wind, I'm not one of them.

Hartman made a statement based on his assessment of his game and Parnevik's game.  I'm content to side with Hartman who knows more about both their games than anyone on this site.

TEPaul,

One tournament does not a career make !

[TEPaul]

Pat:

There you go again!

True some people probably do change their opinions with the slightest shift of the wind and it's true you're definitely not one of them! Apparently ten hurricanes of startingly clear FACT may not make you change your opinion?

I'm sure Hartman does know the games of those tour players better than anyone on this site but apparently Hartman doesn't know his own game that well in relation to them, if, in fact, he really did make and believes in that statement you seem to be glued to despite all available evidence to the contrary. Either that or Hartman has a very short memory.

And it's true one tournament does not make a career. What does a career have to do with this discussion or your premise, by the way?

What one tournament, particularly one US Open does do, however, is effectively disprove your premise and that statement--and in spades, it would seem, as Hartman didn't just not lose to Parnevik by 10 shots a round, he beat Parvenik in the tournament!

But pay it no mind because what does a FACT like that, that disproves your premise really have to do with you changing your mind? Not much apparently!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Now, You allege that Hartman doesn't know his own game.

That you and others are better able to assess his game ?

You keep mentioning ALL the facts, could you list them ?

I remain in agreement with Hartman.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

If you still cling to the conclusion you've drawn as a result of the example cited by Mike Clayton, let me offer you this.

Since, Level (ranked 134 or 164 in the world), Elkington (ranked 115 in the world) and Appleby (ranked 63 in the world) all finished seven shots ahead of Tiger at the British Open, do you conclude that they are about two shots per round better than Tiger ?  Or, is the global assessment that Tiger is substantially better more accurate ?

Is it illogical to take one tournament's results and magnify them to a Universal ?

Rick made a statement regarding his assessment of the relative merits of his and Parnevik's game.  I'm content to agree with Rick since he knows his game better than anyone else, and he seems to be fairly familiar with Parnevik's game.

There are no facts to support your contentions, and there are no facts to support Rick's contention, it's just his personal judgement, based on personal experience.
  
I agree with it while you and others disagree with it.

[TEPaul]

Patrick;

This thread and you defending your defenseless premise has gone on long enough. You know I enjoy sparring with you and I know you do with me but this is enough of this jousting even if in fun.

Your premise of 10 shots per round in a tournament, major tournament, whatever, between Hartman and Pavenik is a joke--it's not something that's even close to reality. I don't know if Hartman really made that statment or not and in what vein he said it but I believe one of us should probably call him and ask him if he made that statement and if so to clarify what he meant by it because it's sort of ludicrous to all that he made it the way you've presented it in your premise.

We have given you the facts even though you seem to fail to accept them. We all know the premise you cite is not correct and I'm actually quite sure you know it too--you just don't want to admit it.

So enough of this foolishness, it's been fun for us but at this point others obviously don't think so--so it's time now for other discussions that are more meaningful!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I also enjoy sparing with you, but.....
It's not my premise, I merely agree with it, and you don't.
Let's just leave it that we have differing opinions on the statement.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Fair enough--and if you decide to campaign for a local rule returning the stymie to match play, count me in! At least provided we can throw my wrinkle into it so instead of chipping over your ball I can putt mine into yours and knock it clean off the green in which case you don't get to replace it!

Wasn't it you who said that creative chipping had suffered from the demise of the stymie. Well, you lay some stymies on me and I'll see to it that you can do some very creative chipping!