News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7   Go Down

Tom Huckaby

Re:Despite the field changing the most has the game changed the least?
« Reply #25 on: January 30, 2008, 11:27:33 AM »
JK:

The very many children for whom even $3K is beyond their means and/or they have no Mommy or Daddy with the free time to travel the country pursuing this dream.

And... the children who have a desire to play other sports.

TH
Logged

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Despite the field changing the most has the game changed the least?
« Reply #26 on: January 30, 2008, 11:32:50 AM »
Tom,
You get a choice in a $500 one down automatic partner bet.
Everybody's paying their own way.

You can have a kid who attends Leadbetter acadamy and plays the AJGA junior tour complete with a cast of gurus.
Or you can have a kid who picks the range in exchange for golf and practice priveledges, caddies when he gets a chance, and competes only in local events.

I know who I want for a partner as we walk down 18 with 9 bets out.
Logged
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

John Kavanaugh

Re:Despite the field changing the most has the game changed the least?
« Reply #27 on: January 30, 2008, 11:33:29 AM »
Quote from: Tom Huckaby on January 30, 2008, 11:27:33 AM
JK:

The very many children for whom even $3K is beyond their means and/or they have no Mommy or Daddy with the free time to travel the country pursuing this dream.

And... the children who have a desire to play other sports.

TH

Sorry if lazy kids with selfish parents can't be the best in the world at something.  Not ground breaking news.
Logged

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Despite the field changing the most has the game changed the least?
« Reply #28 on: January 30, 2008, 11:33:44 AM »
Quote from: TEPaul on January 30, 2008, 11:00:01 AM
John:

Long ago there was actually a concept in golf that was advanced by some of the early and perhaps best writers on golf and architecture that since the only opponent in golf is the golf course and not the human opponent (much like the sports of hunting and fishing etc) that the idea was for any player who considered himself a "sportsman" to ONLY use a ball and equipment that he felt could JUST sustain his physical skill in relation to the golf course and nothing more.

This was no different than the idea that a real sportsman in hunting does not use a 10 gauge shotgun to shoot a small bird and a sportsman in fishing does not use a line test much too heavy for the size of the fish he's after.

To do either of those things was not considered "sporting" because that kind of equipment would overwhelm his quarry or opponent and consequently not be an adequate test of his skill.

This idea never caught on very well in golf as everyone seemed to want to use whatever was allowable unlike the true "sportsman's" mentality in other sports where nature was the true opponent and where one who considered himself a true sportsman voluntarily reduced his equipment to a point that maximized the evidence of his physical and mental skill.


You know Tom, I have always loved the idealism in that thought by Max Behr about "true sportsman", but it's never quite sat right with me...I think I know why...in fishing, you know when you have been successful (you caught the fish). When you feel your skills have advanced to the point that you might need to downgrade your equipment, you can...same sort of scenario with hunting...

But the golf analogy struggles for the simple reason that noone ever conquers golf. What would dictate me, a scratch handicap ex-pro, downgrading my equipment to not "overwhelm" the course?
« Last Edit: January 30, 2008, 11:37:04 AM by JES II »
Logged

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Despite the field changing the most has the game changed the least?
« Reply #29 on: January 30, 2008, 11:36:31 AM »
As long as the game is about score and not who has the prettiest swing, I think there will always be a prominent place on Tour for the Boo/Bubba/Heaths of the world, even more so than the Charlie Howell's.
Logged
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

John Kavanaugh

Re:Despite the field changing the most has the game changed the least?
« Reply #30 on: January 30, 2008, 11:37:59 AM »
JES,

I don't think it was very sporting of you to ask for you amateur status back.  I have always found that to be distasteful.
Logged

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Despite the field changing the most has the game changed the least?
« Reply #31 on: January 30, 2008, 11:39:33 AM »
I think the argument never changes...it has been, and always will be, the best athletes rise to the top and the rest are has beens...and the best find a way...
Logged

John Kavanaugh

Re:Despite the field changing the most has the game changed the least?
« Reply #32 on: January 30, 2008, 11:43:31 AM »
Quote from: Craig Sweet on January 30, 2008, 11:39:33 AM
I think the argument never changes...it has been, and always will be, the best athletes rise to the top and the rest are has beens...and the best find a way...

Craig,

I am saying that by expanding the arena golf has diversified the athlete.  Look at what the octagon has done for ultimate fighting.
Logged

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Despite the field changing the most has the game changed the least?
« Reply #33 on: January 30, 2008, 11:45:08 AM »
Quote from: John Kavanaugh on January 30, 2008, 10:19:10 AM
Being born in 1960 ...


Dammit, I'm older then JakaB ...
Logged
"... and I liked the guy ..."

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Despite the field changing the most has the game changed the least?
« Reply #34 on: January 30, 2008, 11:50:07 AM »
There is good instruction to be found everywhere. The secrets of the swing (setup-grip) aren't mysteries anymore. 25 years ago few knew the whole truth. Just look at the swings rated "excellent"; Jerry Pate's triple shift, reverse "C" comes to mind. The top pro's of the day rated his swing 95 out of 100. Only Jimmy Ballard predicted his future.

For every kid going to Leadbetter, Harmon, Ballard and the like, there are hundreds who are just as hungry or more so who don't. All over the world. Kids learning to scrape shots from conditions the pampered few will rarely if ever see.

There are a lot of ways for kids who want it to find their way.

There are a lot of avenues to make it today as a pro too. A number of tours that allow young pro's to make a living.

« Last Edit: January 30, 2008, 11:51:26 AM by Tony Ristola »
Logged

Glenn Spencer

Re:Despite the field changing the most has the game changed the least?
« Reply #35 on: January 30, 2008, 11:51:17 AM »
I am not sure who I am agreeing with or disagreeing with, but here is how I see it. Things have become very specialized these days and TH is correct that it helps very much to have money and travel to tournaments and things like that. At the same time, in football you need to know if you can tackle and run and throw against the other guys, same with basketball and the others sports. In golf, if you grow up on Bethpage Black and are breaking 70 consistently, why do you need to prove it against the other juniors around the world? Would it help? Maybe, but if you can play, you can play. I am not  a fan of his, to say the least, but Frank Lickliter never traveled to any of the bigger national tournaments and he got a local scholarship and then went out on Tour. It can happen.

Golf is like kicking field-goals, nobody can stop you if you are good at it.
Logged

Tom Huckaby

Re:Despite the field changing the most has the game changed the least?
« Reply #36 on: January 30, 2008, 11:54:08 AM »
Quote from: John Kavanaugh on January 30, 2008, 11:33:29 AM
Quote from: Tom Huckaby on January 30, 2008, 11:27:33 AM
JK:

The very many children for whom even $3K is beyond their means and/or they have no Mommy or Daddy with the free time to travel the country pursuing this dream.

And... the children who have a desire to play other sports.

TH

Sorry if lazy kids with selfish parents can't be the best in the world at something.  Not ground breaking news.

Not having the money nor available time equals selfish in your world?  Wanting to play other sports equals lazy?

You do remain a piece of work.  

 ;D
Logged

Tom Huckaby

Re:Despite the field changing the most has the game changed the least?
« Reply #37 on: January 30, 2008, 11:56:11 AM »
Quote from: Glenn Spencer on January 30, 2008, 11:51:17 AM
I am not sure who I am agreeing with or disagreeing with, but here is how I see it. Things have become very specialized these days and TH is correct that it helps very much to have money and travel to tournaments and things like that. At the same time, in football you need to know if you can tackle and run and throw against the other guys, same with basketball and the others sports. In golf, if you grow up on Bethpage Black and are breaking 70 consistently, why do you need to prove it against the other juniors around the world? Would it help? Maybe, but if you can play, you can play. I am not  a fan of his, to say the least, but Frank Lickliter never traveled to any of the bigger national tournaments and he got a local scholarship and then went out on Tour. It can happen.

Golf is like kicking field-goals, nobody can stop you if you are good at it.

Glenn:  as I say, there will always be exceptions.  But the best and most viable way these days remains the national junior tours - that's where you get noticed, that's where you get college scholarships and/or sponsors, etc.  Sure it can be done without this, but it's damn hard.  And this way is damn expensive, and requires full devotion.

Nicklaus excelled in several sports.  What top junior players today can say the same?  Damn few, I'd guess.

TH
Logged

Glenn Spencer

Re:Despite the field changing the most has the game changed the least?
« Reply #38 on: January 30, 2008, 12:07:07 PM »
TH,

Nicklaus? I think that you have to be very careful when you say that he excelled in a few sports. I can't say for sure, but I thought his stats were something like this. All-city as a center in football and a team-captain on the basketball team. Starter on the baseball team.Hopefully, someone will have the real truth. Is that excelling? To me, it isn't. I don't think he was playing those sports in college on a full-ride if golf wasn't in the picture. Was he?

Others? I think you would find a reasonable percentage of guys that played a few sports at the same capacity as Nicklaus. Doyle, Azinger, Kelly, Els are a couple that come to mind right off the bat.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2008, 12:08:28 PM by Glenn Spencer »
Logged

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Despite the field changing the most has the game changed the least?
« Reply #39 on: January 30, 2008, 12:10:57 PM »
I thought Jack was All City or All State in basketball? Regardless, with your other examples, I think you're almost making Huck's point - those guys are all older.

Golf's no different than anything else - if you want to be successful on a national scale, you have to specialize. I don't care if you're an athlete, an artist, an entrepreneur, a scientist, pretty much anything. You can be well-rounded, certainly, but you will not likely be a big-time success without concentrating on one thing.
Logged
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Glenn Spencer

Re:Despite the field changing the most has the game changed the least?
« Reply #40 on: January 30, 2008, 12:20:34 PM »
Isn't Sam Bradford, the OU QB, a scratch golfer? Wasn't Hybl a scratch as well? If you grow up in a cold climate, how do basketball and golf get in the way of each other? Specializing helps, but being a competitor at something else, helps you immensely on the golf course. Immensely. If I had a gun to my head, I would bet that more than 50% of the US Born PGA Tour players played another sport at some level in high school.
Logged

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Despite the field changing the most has the game changed the least?
« Reply #41 on: January 30, 2008, 12:24:34 PM »
If you look at players under 30, I'd guess the number is much smaller, and shrinking.
Logged
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Glenn Spencer

Re:Despite the field changing the most has the game changed the least?
« Reply #42 on: January 30, 2008, 12:29:45 PM »
George,

Could be, but look at the success level of those players. Do they go hand in hand or not? For example, it seems like Charles Howell has all the talent in the world, golf-wise, is he missing the killer instinct that is necessary to win a big tournament? Maybe, if so, could it come from not playing other sports? It seems like the case with a lot of the new-age players from the US. I also think the same could be said about quite a few of the foreign talents.
Logged

Tom Huckaby

Re:Despite the field changing the most has the game changed the least?
« Reply #43 on: January 30, 2008, 12:32:18 PM »
George has me correct - my point was that Jack was able to play all of those sports, and quite well - and then also become one of the world's greatest golfers.

I don't see that as possible today.  I truly believe that to get to the top in golf one would have to specialize, and not even PLAY those other sports.  Of course there will always be exceptions, but as time goes on it just gets worse and worse.

Also, remember, we're not talking becoming a scratch golfer - hell I'm almost that - we're talking reaching the top levels of the game.

That's my take, anyway....
« Last Edit: January 30, 2008, 12:33:26 PM by Tom Huckaby »
Logged

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Despite the field changing the most has the game changed the least?
« Reply #44 on: January 30, 2008, 12:40:11 PM »
I agree golf seems to be more a specialist endeavor today. Others sports like hockey, baseball, football and basketball are seasonal and easier to mix.

That said, I don't see cash as a substitute for talent or drive. If this were the case there would be fewer, not more foreign pro's. Some do come through the collegiate system, many don't.
Logged

Tom Huckaby

Re:Despite the field changing the most has the game changed the least?
« Reply #45 on: January 30, 2008, 12:42:21 PM »
Cash certainly isn't a substitute for talent or drive... it's just more of a requirement these days.

Logged

Phil Benedict

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Despite the field changing the most has the game changed the least?
« Reply #46 on: January 30, 2008, 12:42:35 PM »
Even if your goal is something less exalted than being world class at something - like getting into a college - kids are encouraged to specialize at whatever it is they are best at by the time they reach high school.  Not everyone does - there are still multisport athletes - but that's the trend.
Logged

Glenn Spencer

Re:Despite the field changing the most has the game changed the least?
« Reply #47 on: January 30, 2008, 12:42:55 PM »
Quote from: Tom Huckaby on January 30, 2008, 12:32:18 PM
George has me correct - my point was that Jack was able to play all of those sports, and quite well - and then also become one of the world's greatest golfers.

I don't see that as possible today.  I truly believe that to get to the top in golf one would have to specialize, and not even PLAY those other sports.  Of course there will always be exceptions, but as time goes on it just gets worse and worse.

Also, remember, we're not talking becoming a scratch golfer - hell I'm almost that - we're talking reaching the top levels of the game.

That's my take, anyway....

TH,

It is a fair take, to say the least. It depends on how top levels of the game is defined. History tells us that it helps to have other sports in your back pocket when it comes to winning big tournaments., are you really going to count on this generation of US players to prove you right? ;D

If you are saying reaching the Tour, I get your stance, but winning the big ones and winning a lot of tournaments seems to be a different case. You are correct, I only mentioned Bradford, because I would think that he would be hard to handle on the golf course at 23 if football doesn't work out for some reason. My belief has always been that the true champions gain from the other sports and they can do it. The specialized guys seem to have something missing when it comes to crunch time.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2008, 12:47:43 PM by Glenn Spencer »
Logged

Tom Huckaby

Re:Despite the field changing the most has the game changed the least?
« Reply #48 on: January 30, 2008, 12:44:12 PM »
Glenn - I'm not saying it's right nor beneficial nor anything positive... far from it... I'm just saying that's the way it is.

And it's getting worse.

TH
Logged

Glenn Spencer

Re:Despite the field changing the most has the game changed the least?
« Reply #49 on: January 30, 2008, 12:47:06 PM »
TH,


Oh, I agree with you then, it certainly is becoming the case. My point was just that it doesn't seem to be working. ;D
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7   Go Up