I really need to convince people not to quote certain posters, or maybe they quote them because what was said was so incredibly asinine that they want me to reply. So I will in this case.

Trevino's swing? Perhaps the best moment of impact ever on tour. The 3rd best ball striker in the history of the game behind Moe Norman and Hogan. He always had total control over his ball flight.

In regards to the pop stroke method of putting, that was a requirement in those days because of how slow the greens were. If you used the modern stroke on those greens you'd average 36 putts per round. The reason strokes are the way they are today is solely because of the speed and condition of the greens.

So in one post someone laughs at the swing of one of the best ball strikers in golf history, and then calls the pop stroke sub-optimal back in the day when it was the only type of stroke where you could make putts. Just wow.

Again, don't post. It gets old trying to educate the uneducated. Especially if the uneducated doesn't want to learn. Look, there's nothing wrong with not knowing stuff, we all are ignorant in a variety of subjects. Most of us just don't post hundreds of times in a day about those topics.

BO

They all seem to think Lee Buck wouldn't be able to play today Bo.

Buddy of mine played with him at Colonial last fall, shot under par from the tips talking the entire time.

BO

lololololol

I may be conflating "arguments" by you and mucks at this point. You are indistinguishable. One of you eschewed stats and facts for the more romantic anecdotes about Jack having extra gears, and doing un-natural things and all this nonsense. You claiming that Trevino's swing does not matter is absolutely correct. Everything he did yielded his stats, which are irrefutable. So you are making my point for me.

The reason why those guys "always showed up" (by the way this is begging the question bigtime), has more to do with a more shallow talent pool in those fields than it does their dominance. You still don't understand that the fields are more homogenized today? The reason why Phil doesn't "show up" is because guys like Oosthuizen make albatross on Sunday at the Masters and Bubba Watson birdie several holes down the stretch then hit one of the greatest shots OAT to win in a playoff. The slogan is "These guys are good". It used to be "A handful of these guys are super dominant because the rest of the field sucks."


I'm sure he got to a good position at impact. His results don't lie.

My point was that you would never teach anyone to swing like that, because the swing is basically solved now and anyone with YouTube can watch the swing and then go replicate it. I doubt if Arnold Palmer or Lee Trevino were born in 1997 they would swing the same as they did 50 years ago. They'd be looking at YouTube and replicating Tiger et al.

You should probably take me off ignore. I seem to get more responses out of you indirectly than any other poster does directly.

Also the other day when you dared someone to post instances that were more important that Tom Watson I posted several with like 2 minutes of thought. Of course you won't respond to them because you'd rather ignore me than lose arguments to my "lobotomized" self. Because you have the most feeble, sensitive ego on this entire golf forum ainec. BO = WOAT ego strength.

so ben crenshaw, dave stockton, billy casper were bad putters because they didn't pop-lock, pop stroke w/ the putter like palmer, trevino, player? yeah after all palmer, trevino, player were way better putters right.

if fact can you please explain how the pop stroke is better for the slower greens? my local muni greens are pretty ****ty sometimes so im thinking of converting to the pop stroke!

Gets the ball up on top of the grain real quick I believe.

Lots of people ITT discounting majors as a "small slice of his overall resume".

Anyways, I think he is <50% to get to 18 pro majors.

As I stated earlier. How does Sneds use this throwback method so effectively? I have a shorter back swing then most with the putter, I do this purposely, as it ensures acceleration at impact.

a friend of mine from New Haven played with Lee quite a few times in Conn. ( second Claudia's home) same club. From what he tells me Lee could be a right pain in the ass. Played a few prop matches with the rich members, fleecing them. FWIW I loved watching Trevino play, entertaining and had guts.

Jack had 38 multiple major winners of his 52 top 10's.

See!! Stats show Jack was GOAT, right??

Yeah 1 of like 10. The rest clearly say Tiger.

And Tiger's career isn't even over.

Because you can use the pop stroke on fast greens and be effective, I just doubt in a vacuum it's optimal on today's greens. But more importantly, it's his natural stroke, he's not trying to copy a long flowing stroke.

Sneds doesn't waste time, he just gets over the balls and smacks it from driver to putter. Guys with this mentality tend to have a faster, popping stroke because it's just natural. Like Tom Watson.

BO

Hey, wasn't trying to bust your balls..just pointing out the absurdity of YB post. Your post just happened to be one I could find that mentioned STATS!

I'm the same way, lotta energy. One of my struggles is getting too quick at times, under the gun when playing well, or late in a tight match. When I notice I'm speeding up I spend a few moments mediating on my breathing and it slows things down.

I've made some dumb posts ITT out of anger and frustration, but this right here is by far the dumbest thing I've ever read on this forum. Cmon man, get a clue.

You should, I'm sure you would putt a lot better.

Leo:

I see you decided to not answer this. Care to try now?

Seriously though, this is perfect. Romo isn't great on paper, Romo is great. He's a top 10 QB, and a small single digit sample size of games does nothing to show otherwise. It's perfect logic for you though, makes a ton of sense.

Dilfer>Marino, yes?

I would not want Romo on my team he would be way down my list of options. He doesn't perform well under pressure.

Agree with ARC. Leo your eyes are still closed

Explain to me how depth of field which I've shown hasn't changed much would keep Phil from posting a number? There could be 20 tigers and 20 jacks in a turny but that would not make phil not shoot 4 68's. He shoots those bad scores all by himself. And it's a fact if you are tiger it's a whole lot easier to beat some guy down the stretch that has never won a major. Come on get real. You know if you are ties after 54 with watson trevino it's going to be harder to win than if it's some guy like luke donald. Its not even close.

Leo, I think you skipped this one again:

Also:
And finally:
Cite please. I know NXT has done a ton of work regarding deviation in scoring in different eras. You haven't shown anything afaik.

Your IQ literally must be around 90.

To answer your question, "because, when you post a number, say 68, it's probably not going to be good enough when there are TWENTY ****ING TIGERS AND TWENTY ****ING JACKS in the same tourney!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Don't you get that? That's the point. When the field is better and deeper now your low number you post is less likely to be good enough. ****. Seriously, how do you not get this?

If 20 Tigers played in a tourney, one of them is probably posting 63 or less. One might shoot 76. Many will be around 70.

You aren't just beating the course, you also have to hope you post lower numbers than the field. This is harder to do when the field is much better. Derp.