The Players Championship 2024 (*** NO LIV DISCUSSIONS ***)

[betarhoalphadelta]

7 hours ago, Ferguson said:

Scheffler won. 

 

 

Sounds like things must be going really well in the Scottie / Meredith household. Marital bliss. 

[ike31197]

4 minutes ago, PedronNiall said:

 

The players still were not afraid of him at that point like they were back at his best. You're free to watch interviews and hear the difference of how in awe everyone was of him back in the early 2000s compared to closing in on 2020. In the latter the young guns 100% think they can hang with him. Koepka Yanged him without much trepidation that I could see. The water ball on 15 at The Masters two years prior may have done him in fully, but nothing about how the rest of the field played showed they were ready to crumble just because Tiger was lurking. 

 

I'm sorry, but he didn't dominate The 2019 Masters, the leaders wilted. Dominant performances were those where he lead through 54 and no one would dare put up a fight or where he closed the door even if they did. Losing in the PGA is not dominance and the Zozo is certainly not a tournament of note because it carries no weight other than the dollars that come with it and one more win on the record. 

 

You're not going to convince me without compelling evidence that 2018-19 Tiger invoked anything nearing the awe of early 2000s Tiger. Show me the pre-round interviews where those in the field at the top on Sunday were afraid because Tiger was leading or lurking. Better yet, show me Tiger's closeout rate in the later years compared to the 2000-2008 run and explain how you'd categorize him as just as dominant.

Are you suggesting the mentally weak, yet athletically gifted young golfers of today wouldn't be intimidated by a prime Tiger?  C'mon man.  Tiger would have them shrinking like a poked balloon.  Scottie is proving these guys are just as easily intimidated as anyone was in Tiger's prime era. 

 

 

[PedronNiall]

1 hour ago, ike31197 said:

That's kind of my point though.  IMHO golfers of today are much more mentally weak than they used to be.  Maybe it's the additional spotlight shining on them.  Maybe it's the over-analyzing of the swings.  Maybe it's the amount of money involved these days.  It's hard to compare eras.  Tiger smashed the guys he was playing against.  Before he came along, no one ever thought there would be another golfer remotely close to Jack.  And it's also not like Tiger didn't have solid competition.  There were a laundry list of elite golfers in his era.  Mickelson may be the most gifted golfer of all time.  Who knows?  But to suggest Tiger was doing what he was doing simply because no one worked out, or had video  back then is unfair to Tiger and the rest of the great golfers he played against.  Maybe those things hurt golfers, who would really knows?  Would Rory still be Rory if he wasn't a superstar that decided to emulate Tiger instead of being a chubby chap from Ireland?  Would John Daly have been Tiger if he slimmed down and took the game seriously?  Who really knows?  

 

There's certainly a different kind of mental weakness in many modern golfers, but whatever their foibles, the fields on average put up much stiffer competition. Despite that, a middle of the road putting week is 100% Scheffler's unless someone else has a literal career high for the week. He's just that much better everywhere. If it weren't for the injury he would have sailed away this weekend. 

 

Tiger put up a mystique that other players thought they couldn't touch even before he hit his true stride in strokes gained; Scheffler has come into that stride early and has the benefit of everyone in the golfing world reminding the rest of the field how good he is. If he's in form they know they're in trouble. He doesn't need the swagger of Woods to make other players afraid, his game does that for him. 

[ike31197]

5 minutes ago, PedronNiall said:

 

There's certainly a different kind of mental weakness in many modern golfers, but whatever their foibles, the fields on average put up much stiffer competition. Despite that, a middle of the road putting week is 100% Scheffler's unless someone else has a literal career high for the week. He's just that much better everywhere. If it weren't for the injury he would have sailed away this weekend. 

 

Tiger put up a mystique that other players thought they couldn't touch even before he hit his true stride in strokes gained; Scheffler has come into that stride early and has the benefit of everyone in the golfing world reminding the rest of the field how good he is. If he's in form they know they're in trouble. He doesn't need the swagger of Woods to make other players afraid, his game does that for him. 

Tiger and Scottie go about things in much different ways, I agree, but I would argue that it's their games that intimidate everyone more than anything else.  The difference is Tiger's supreme dominance began well before he played his first PGA tournament, Scottie's began once his career began.  Scottie's following and galleries are fast becoming Tiger-esque, which I believe really was one of the major factors in players folding while playing against Tiger.  The size of the crowds.  The roars.  All of it.  We're starting to see the same with Scottie.  And if you remember, when Tiger first started dominating, he was very likeable. No one in the public really knew about what was bubbling under the surface.  Tiger was looked at as a role model for everyone.      

 

I would also have to disagree with you that golfers now put up a much stiffer competition in golf now than before.  The word you're looking for is parity.  There was parity before Tiger.  There was parity before Scottie.  In both eras, the fields were ripe for the picking because everyone was so close.  That doesn't mean there weren't great golfers in both eras.  I've named a few, but there were seriously elite talents in Tiger's era that he simply smashed.   

 

Rory almost did it, he had the game, but he couldn't sustain it.  It's anyone's guess as to why, but he lost his edge.  Outside of Rory, I'm not sure anyone else really had the ability and makeup to scare the field like Tiger did, and like Scottie is doing.  Koepka tried, and succeeded for a brief time, but injuries and a weak mind have done him in.  

 

I'm personally excited to watch Scheffler and Aberg battle for years to come.  Aberg is that dude.  

 

[mosesgolf]

44 minutes ago, TiScape said:

Yup. N Scottie just goes about it out there like Gomer Pyle out there playin’ a casual Tuesday round w/the boys. Dude is different. 

Gomer was a closet bad gluteus maximus.  I remember the episode when he beat up the bully in pugil sticks.  When the sargent asked him why he loses to pansy but beats crap out of bully his reply was basically bully deserved it.  I know you old timers remember this one.  lol

Edited March 18 by mosesgolf

[the bishop]

28 minutes ago, ike31197 said:

True.  Look at all the robotic golfers with lower back injuries at early ages.  They're in better physical condition than almost anyone has ever been in the sport but they're all tearing up their lower backs while golfers like Phil seemingly escape this for their entire careers.  The list of major level elite golfers who have torn up their lower backs in the modern era is honestly too long to list.  Reminds me a lot of baseball and the increase in pitcher elbow injuries.  People make unnatural moves and expect the body to just accept it.  The body won't, it will give up.  Hopefully the up and comers start to figure this out.  

 

On another note, I know it's a completely different era and different golfer, but Gary Player is another that proved it really doesn't matter what happens after contact.  Arnie is another.  All of the modern instructors would cringe at the way Arnie held onto his release.  Looked so amateurish, but he was so powerful and consistent.  And Gary's walkthrough?  Very Scottie-esque in the way he would get 100% of his weight onto his left side.  Less powerful swing, of course, but the concept is the same and really takes pressure off your body while encouraging proper shift.  

 

 

 

 

 

All I can say about this position is "holy sh*t".

[the bishop]

4 hours ago, JungleJimbo said:

https://www.reddit.com/r/golf/s/3BHoZ6f8iq

 

 

[NetBogey]

Alright, I think I’m still lost and can’t find a clear answer. Can someone give the 5 second elevator pitch of Wyndhams cheating escapade? Is there just one or a couple.

[aenemated]

23 minutes ago, PedronNiall said:

He doesn't need the swagger of Woods to make other players afraid, his game does that for him. 

 

Herein is the big difference. Prime T-Dub didn't just win, he made everyone else feel like losers. Watch the interview with Ernie Els after 2000 US Open. Or Monty going into Sunday at Augusta in '97. I'm sure there're plenty others I can't think of off the top of my head. They're just deflated. 

 

Scottie's got a lot more wins in his future, no doubt. But he won't make the competition practically give up like peak Tiger did. 

Edited March 18 by aenemated

[Ferguson]

22 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Sounds like things must be going really well in the Scottie / Meredith household. Marital bliss. 

 

Hal Sutton felt the same way after his third marriage. 

 

[goalie]

1 minute ago, NetBogey said:

Alright, I think I’m still lost and can’t find a clear answer. Can someone give the 5 second elevator pitch of Wyndhams cheating escapade? Is there just one or a couple.

Basically "accidentally" trampling over where he was going to drop prior to dropping from well below his knee, and having his caddie line up putts with a wedge.  

[Ferguson]

2 minutes ago, NetBogey said:

Alright, I think I’m still lost and can’t find a clear answer. Can someone give the 5 second elevator pitch of Wyndhams cheating escapade? Is there just one or a couple.

 

Ball moved.   Ball didn't move. 

[ike31197]

1 minute ago, NetBogey said:

Alright, I think I’m still lost and can’t find a clear answer. Can someone give the 5 second elevator pitch of Wyndhams cheating escapade? Is there just one or a couple.

Improves lies, ALL THE TIME and in various ways.  Caddie lines up his putts, not against the letter of the law, definitely circumventing the intent of the law.  Doesn't call penalties when ball moves after smashing the ground behind the ball in the rough.  Tamps down his lines on the green to the point he's seemingly creating a channel the ball can't escape.  I don' know, I'm sure there's more.  He just rubs me the wrong way.  Clone of Patrick Reed's playing style. 

[aenemated]

2 minutes ago, Ferguson said:

 

Hal Sutton felt the same way after his third marriage. 

 

 

Be the right wife today? 

[PedronNiall]

4 minutes ago, ike31197 said:

Tiger and Scottie go about things in much different ways, I agree, but I would argue that it's their games that intimidate everyone more than anything else.  The difference is Tiger's supreme dominance began well before he played his first PGA tournament, Scottie's began once his career began.  Scottie's following and galleries are fast becoming Tiger-esque, which I believe really was one of the major factors in players folding while playing against Tiger.  The size of the crowds.  The roars.  All of it.  We're starting to see the same with Scottie.  And if you remember, when Tiger first started dominating, he was very likeable. No one in the public really knew about what was bubbling under the surface.  Tiger was looked at as a role model for everyone.      

 

I would also have to disagree with you that golfers now put up a much stiffer competition in golf now than before.  The word you're looking for is parity.  There was parity before Tiger.  There was parity before Scottie.  In both eras, the fields were ripe for the picking because everyone was so close.  That doesn't mean there weren't great golfers in both eras.  I've named a few, but there were seriously elite talents in Tiger's era that he simply smashed.   

 

Rory almost did it, he had the game, but he couldn't sustain it.  It's anyone's guess as to why, but he lost his edge.  Outside of Rory, I'm not sure anyone else really had the ability and makeup to scare the field like Tiger did, and like Scottie is doing.  Koepka tried, and succeeded for a brief time, but injuries and a weak mind have done him in.  

 

I'm personally excited to watch Scheffler and Aberg battle for years to come.  Aberg is that dude.  

 

 

My guy, you're just flat out wrong about the parity. Statistically the fields are much tighter now than they were in Jack's era, and tighter at current than they were in the early 2000s. It doesn't matter if you don't feel that the field puts up a better challenge than they used to, the numbers say they do, it's that simple.

 

Besides making things like that clear, the age of data has also changed what players know. The air surrounding Tiger was that he made everything, got up and down from everywhere, and took every course apart. As the data actually emerged we learned that his biggest strength--as some commentators pointed out on occasion but didn't have a full grasp of at the time--was is Par 5 scoring. Some of Tiger's strongest wins were at courses where he was actually over par on average for the 3s and 4s but massively under par for the 5s. Now every player knows that and tries to take advantage of Par 5s, tries to drive 4s when they can, and knows to the pin placement when and when not to go after 3s. The data also bore out that Tiger's willingness to go long into trouble is often an advantage over laying back to leave a full shot in, and now all the guys in the field know that truth.

 

It doesn't matter that some of the guys might not be "tough enough" in comparison to whoever of yesteryear. They know their own games far better than those players did, know their tendencies & which holes/layouts help and hurt them, and know statistically what the best move is off of every single tee, and have equipment 100% fit to their swings & preferences. Tiger figured out before the data proved it that longer is better and that going for Par 5s in two often pays the biggest dividends. Tiger was brash enough to try what all the traditionalists rarely would; now everyone takes the Tiger route because it's known to be the magic bullet. Longer is better, closer to the green is better even from the rough, and when everyone in the field who is able to plays that way, it's harder to escape the pack.

[bscinstnct]

10 minutes ago, aenemated said:

 

Herein is the big difference. Prime T-Dub didn't just win, he made everyone else feel like losers. Watch the interview with Ernie Els after 2000 US Open. Or Monty going into Sunday at Augusta in '97. I'm sure there're plenty others I can't think of off the top of my head. They're just deflated. 

 

Scottie's got a lot more wins in his future, no doubt. But he won't make the competition practically give up like peak Tiger did. 

 

lol SS is good but has nothing to do with Tiger

 

Now, if Scheff can go out and win 2 majors and 4 more events this year

 

And then do the same thing next year…

 

 

 

 

🤣 🍻 

Edited March 18 by bscinstnct

[ike31197]

2 minutes ago, PedronNiall said:

 

My guy, you're just flat out wrong about the parity. Statistically the fields are much tighter now than they were in Jack's era, and tighter at current than they were in the early 2000s. It doesn't matter if you don't feel that the field puts up a better challenge than they used to, the numbers say they do, it's that simple.

 

Besides making things like that clear, the age of data has also changed what players know. The air surrounding Tiger was that he made everything, got up and down from everywhere, and took every course apart. As the data actually emerged we learned that his biggest strength--as some commentators pointed out on occasion but didn't have a full grasp of at the time--was is Par 5 scoring. Some of Tiger's strongest wins were at courses where he was actually over par on average for the 3s and 4s but massively under par for the 5s. Now every player knows that and tries to take advantage of Par 5s, tries to drive 4s when they can, and knows to the pin placement when and when not to go after 3s. The data also bore out that Tiger's willingness to go long into trouble is often an advantage over laying back to leave a full shot in, and now all the guys in the field know that truth.

 

It doesn't matter that some of the guys might not be "tough enough" in comparison to whoever of yesteryear. They know their own games far better than those players did, know their tendencies & which holes/layouts help and hurt them, and know statistically what the best move is off of every single tee, and have equipment 100% fit to their swings & preferences. Tiger figured out before the data proved it that longer is better and that going for Par 5s in two often pays the biggest dividends. Tiger was brash enough to try what all the traditionalists rarely would; now everyone takes the Tiger route because it's known to be the magic bullet. Longer is better, closer to the green is better even from the rough, and when everyone in the field who is able to plays that way, it's harder to escape the pack.

My guy, I never mentioned Jack, but do you have any statistics to back up this comment?  Would love to see 3-5 years pre-Tiger and 3-5 years pre-Scottie.

 

The rest of your post is wholly subjective and irrelevant.    

[Titleist99]

1 hour ago, ike31197 said:

I've been watching golf since around 1985.   I was young then, but my dad made sure to have golf on tv whenever it was broadcast.  I saw Jack's last Masters live.  I didn't understand the importance then.  What Tiger did to the field was unbelievably epic.  He broke golfers.  Players like David Duval were no joke.  Tiger broke him mentally, just he did to numerous elite talents.  Phil might have 20 majors if not for Tiger's shear dominance.  Unbelievable stuff. 

 

I liken the Tiger hate it to the youngsters that say Lebron is better than Jordan.  It's not even close.  Kobe was the most similar player to Jordan I've ever seen, and Kobe did it for a long time. 

 

Scottie, so far, is the closest thing to Tiger we've seen since Tiger got caught getting busy with diner trash.  Outside of injury, I don't know what slows him down.  Let's see how he handles fatherhood I guess.  Anyone that has children knows how it changes everything about you, if you're a good father of course.  If anyone can handle that along with the pressures of competitive golf, I believe Scottie can do it.  He just seems so grounded and keeps everything in perspective.  I hope it lasts.  Like I said, we really need more role models like him.      

"If anyone can handle that along with the pressures of competitive golf, I believe Scottie can do it.  He just seems so grounded and keeps everything in perspective.  I hope it lasts.  Like I said, we really need more role models like him."

 

We must control our excitement and not get too giddy🤣 over Scheffler's escapades.  Remember Rahm looking us in the eye and declaring that 54 hole team golf was not for him only to change his mind after a 1/2 Billion dollar offer.     

Edited March 18 by Titleist99

[Obee]

Just came here to say that the last two days of that golf tournament were absolutely fantastic to watch.

[Hawkeye77]

1 minute ago, Obee said:

Just came here to say that the last two days of that golf tournament were absolutely fantastic to watch.

 

Add up all the golf I've watched since last fall and it doesn't total the time I spent parked watching it yesterday and it was worth it!

[PedronNiall]

17 minutes ago, ike31197 said:

My guy, I never mentioned Jack, but do you have any statistics to back up this comment?  Would love to see 3-5 years pre-Tiger and 3-5 years pre-Scottie.

 

The rest of your post is wholly subjective and irrelevant.    

 

My post that data has changed strategy, brought parity, and shows statistically that fields are tighter on average now in comparison to the past is subjective and irrelevant? My post stating that the somewhat unknowns of Tiger's winning are now knowns available to all players and are reflected in their scoring & strategy is subjective in irrelevant? Those are facts, my guy. I'm not going to pull up the stats and numbers for you; if you want to doubt what I'm saying and what has been shown by many posters on here as well as via studies & articles then that's your prerogative. 

[the bishop]

58 minutes ago, PedronNiall said:

 

He doesn't need the swagger of Woods to make other players afraid, his game does that for him. 

Tiger:

 

Scottie

[goalie]

5 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

"If anyone can handle that along with the pressures of competitive golf, I believe Scottie can do it.  He just seems so grounded and keeps everything in perspective.  I hope it lasts.  Like I said, we really need more role models like him."

 

We must control our excitement and not get too giddy🤣 over Scheffler's escapades.  Remember Rahm looking us in the eye and declaring that 54 hole team golf was not for him only to change his mind after a 1/2 Billion dollar offer.     

And whether I'm happy or not he did take that much money and go, he would have been an idiot not to.  Instant generational wealth isn't something most people ever have a shot at obtaining by signing a piece of paper, and most who do get that shot earned it, either though excelling at a sport, and spending countless hours building a business.  

[ike31197]

6 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

"If anyone can handle that along with the pressures of competitive golf, I believe Scottie can do it.  He just seems so grounded and keeps everything in perspective.  I hope it lasts.  Like I said, we really need more role models like him."

 

We must control our excitement and not get too giddy🤣 over Scheffler's escapades.  Remember Rahm looking us in the eye and declaring that 54 hole team golf was not for him only to change his mind after a 1/2 Billion dollar offer.     

I mean, that's why I keep mentioning how early in the process it really is for him but I stand by my statements about his potential and status as a role model.   Could he pull a Rahm and bend the knee for a billion dollars?  Maybe.  I don't think he will, but anything is possible.  All the defectors proved that already.  Money means different things to different people and it can certainly be a factor in decision making processes, but I'm not one to believe everyone has a price.  Most do, not all.    

[ike31197]

4 minutes ago, PedronNiall said:

 

My post that data has changed strategy, brought parity, and shows statistically that fields are tighter on average now in comparison to the past is subjective and irrelevant? My post stating that the somewhat unknowns of Tiger's winning are now knowns available to all players and are reflected in their scoring & strategy is subjective in irrelevant? Those are facts, my guy. I'm not going to pull up the stats and numbers for you; if you want to doubt what I'm saying and what has been shown by many posters on here as well as via studies & articles then that's your prerogative. 

No, reread my post.  I asked for the "data" showing fields are tighter on average.  The rest of the stuff you posted about the air around Tiger and toughness and is wholly subjective.  

[ike31197]

5 minutes ago, goalie said:

And whether I'm happy or not he did take that much money and go, he would have been an idiot not to.  Instant generational wealth isn't something most people ever have a shot at obtaining by signing a piece of paper, and most who do get that shot earned it, either though excelling at a sport, and spending countless hours building a business.  

FWIW, Rahm already had what many to be considered generational wealth.  He was crushing it on the PGA money list and the sponsorship money was off the charts.  I simply hate his hypocrisy.   

[goalie]

4 minutes ago, ike31197 said:

FWIW, Rahm already had what many to be considered generational wealth.  He was crushing it on the PGA money list and the sponsorship money was off the charts.  I simply hate his hypocrisy.   

I get it, but no, he had nowhere near what he got from LIV.  Generational wealth is when you can put it somewhere at 4% with zero risk and still not be able to spend the interest every year despite mansions and a jet.  

 

4% of 500mil yearly is $20,000,000 a year to live off of without ever touching the principle.  So in 20 years of doing that, you've spent 400,000,000 and never touched the half billion principle.  

Edited March 18 by goalie

[Titleist99]

5 minutes ago, ike31197 said:

I mean, that's why I keep mentioning how early in the process it really is for him but I stand by my statements about his potential and status as a role model.   Could he pull a Rahm and bend the knee for a billion dollars?  Maybe.  I don't think he will, but anything is possible.  All the defectors proved that already.  Money means different things to different people and it can certainly be a factor in decision making processes, but I'm not one to believe everyone has a price.  Most do, not all.    

Fair point. LOL! at "bend the knee" though.🤣

[Pepperturbo]

Everyone at the house enjoyed The Players, especially Sunday finish.  I somehow knew my guy, Scottie would take it.

 

Amazing how some people conveniently overlooked "NO LIV" discussions.

Edited March 18 by Pepperturbo

[Titleist99]

4 minutes ago, goalie said:

I get it, but no, he had nowhere near what he got from LIV.  Generational wealth is when you can put it somewhere at 4% with zero risk and still not be able to spend the interest every year despite mansions and a jet.  

 

4% of 500mil yearly is $20,000,000 a year to live off of without ever touching the principle.  

"4% of 500mil yearly is $20,000,000 a year to live off of without ever touching the principle."  

 

Well, he did lose his moral principles. 🤣