The PGA Championship

[SJ76]

Best irons I ever hit were Wilson 1200 LT blades. Manufactured in 1985 and inherited those from my dad. Played them until the head snapped off on my PW and then my 7-iron.

I bought MP-37 blades after that and those things were to die for. Carried me to 6 consecutive Nebraska Amateurs qualifications. Eventually the grooves wore down and I had to upgrade.

Today I have Titleist AP2’s brand new, and I would do anything to have a new set of MP-37’s or those Wilson 1200 LT’s.

Again, technology is so overrated.

Irons are irons. Blades are similar today than what they were in the 80s maybe even 70s. Wilson blades ain’t no joke.

Whatever gives you the most accuracy and consistency.

Woods have definitely gotten better but irons yeah a little bit and putters?? Sure but whatever gets the balling rolling on line will work

 

[Cobrabit]

The newer technology helps the mid/high handicappers more than it really helps the scratch players. If you were a scratch player before, playing blades, then you may get a little more distance, but still should be accurate. Drivers have come a long way in helping those that don't hit the center of the face, but again, pro golfers are so consistent at doing that anyway.

Comparing eras in golf is just like comparing eras in any other major sport when discussing great players. Most likely, if you're great in your era, you'd be great in others.

So much has been said about Tiger's distance, but many lose sight that during his domination, he was also one of the best short game players out there. Tiger revolutionized golf in that the sport is now bringing in young athletes that would likely have played other sports. That is due to his physical work ethic and his popularity increasing the winnings.

 

[R.J. MacReady]

Maybe you guys missed it when Nick Faldo was talking about it. It's something you have to take into consideration when talking about golf then & now.

You see it every week on tour now. Ball gets hit into the rough, no direct line to the green. They just shape a shot around the tree line right onto the green. Just pitching out in today's game is just for worse case scenario's.

That did not happen 40 years ago. Sure they could shape a ball but they were nowhere near as efficient to make it an every day part of their game like the players today.




.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Maybe you guys missed it when Nick Faldo was talking about it. It's something you have to take into consideration when talking about golf then & now.

You see it every week on tour now. Ball gets hit into the rough, no direct line to the green. They just shape a shot around the tree line right onto the green. Just pitching out in today's game is just for worse case scenario's.

That did not happen 40 years ago. Sure they could shape a ball but they were nowhere near as efficient to make it an every day part of their game like the players today.




.

Actually the balls spun a lot more back in the day than they do now. A lot easier to curve the old high spinning balata ball from the FW. The biggest difference in equipment now vs 40 yrs ago...the launch angle on drivers allow for the massive carry distances, and the ball flies forever.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

What? I guarantee you Woods could not shoot 90 with the clubs and ball Nicklaus used. Don't forget Nicklaus not only won 18 Majors he finished second 17 times. he was the most dominant player ever.

Drive on 17, Choke or not...it really depends on how you define choke. Under pressure you can't execute a shot that you would otherwise execute without fail a high percentage of time...in a practice round Tiger probably keeps that ball on the course 9 out of 10 times...so if that's your angle...yes, he did choke.

To me...to truly choke you couple the failed execution example with having something to lose that you once had in your grasp...such as the lead or a simple shot/putt to win. Even if Tiger hit the FW and made birdie on 17...he was still going to be behind the leader so it was a huge mistake born out of pressing/chasing...that happens a lot more than we realize.

Equipment...90? C'mon...I think you need to remember Tiger won most of his early tournaments/majors playing an outdated Titleist driver when the field was playing max C.O.R. drivers...that's how the field closed the distance gap on him. One could argue that Tiger's driving actually got worse with the new equipment.

The golf media has long cited major titles was the benchmark, and that's why Snead is largely overlooked when the GOAT topic comes up, but Jack was not the most dominate player in the game by a long stretch. Nelson, certainly Hogan and Tiger were more dominate imo. Jack's career was extremely long and he went long spans without winning a major...several guys built HOF careers on Jack's watch. Casper, Trevino, Palmer...Watson. When you really research those 2nd place finishes, many were window dressing.

That's not to take anything away from him being GOAT, but he wasn't the most dominant.

 

[R.J. MacReady]

How in the hell can a bad drive on 17 be considered a choke for Tiger?

That has been his problem from day one of this year. And a huge issue for this entire tournament.
The bad drive on 17 was just like all of his drives or just about.

A choke is something that you normally could do in your sleep but in the heat of the moment you fail to execute.
Tiger probably had trouble hitting good drives on the practice tee so no way in hell was it a choke.

 

[SoCalWizFan]

Who in the fuck.....in their right mind......would ever try to say either Tiger or Jack is hands down better than the other.

I mean, you’re definitely a hack of a golfer if you think that.

And btw, my first set of clubs were made of wood. I inherited them from my grandpa. I shot in the 80’s with them in my teens and I’ll never be a professional golfer.

And you want to tell me Tiger is gonna play bogey golf with a set of Jack’s clubs? Sweet Jesus, that is a special kind of special there.

Well said. Great players transcend eras. Players like Nicklaus, Tiger & Arnie would do well in any era. Anyone who states differently is either clueless or a flat out hater. Great athletes know how to adjust to equipment & conditions.

If you want to hate Tiger - great - but please how about making some arguments that are at least somewhat based in reality.

 

[SoCalWizFan]

How in the hell can a bad drive on 17 be considered a choke for Tiger?

That has been his problem from day one of this year. And a huge issue for this entire tournament.
The bad drive on 17 was just like all of his drives or just about.

A choke is something that you normally could do in your sleep but in the heat of the moment you fail to execute.
Tiger probably had trouble hitting good drives on the practice tee so no way in hell was it a choke.

Now this is a choke. However I would not give Johnson too much grief over this - it happens. Love folks who are overly critical about things like this. I guess that they are 100% perfect in their own lives.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

How in the hell can a bad drive on 17 be considered a choke for Tiger?

That has been his problem from day one of this year. And a huge issue for this entire tournament.
The bad drive on 17 was just like all of his drives or just about.

A choke is something that you normally could do in your sleep but in the heat of the moment you fail to execute.
Tiger probably had trouble hitting good drives on the practice tee so no way in hell was it a choke.

That's right...Phil was known for his 2nd place finishes in majors until he broke through, but the only one he really choked away imo was Wing Foot in '06...he came to the tee of the 72nd hole with the lead...par wins it...not only did he not make par...he made dbl to lose it...that's a choke.

 

[Wazmankg]

When you really research those 2nd place finishes, many were window dressing.

I don't follow. For about dozen of those 2nd place finishes the only thing standing between him and another major was a guy named Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson or Seve.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

I don't follow. For about dozen of those 2nd place finishes the only thing standing between him and another major was a guy named Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson or Seve.

Window dressing meaning he was not really threatening to win.

Much like Tiger...yeah he was one shot back at one point, so he was in the hunt, but the reality is, he birdied 18 to get within two.

 

[R.J. MacReady]

Window dressing meaning he was not really threatening to win.

Much like Tiger...yeah he was one shot back at one point, so he was in the hunt, but the reality is, he birdied 18 to get within two.

If you are talking about dominance of an era ...48 top 3 finishes in majors speaks for itself.

It's irreverent how far he was from winning in the 2nd or 3rd places. It's the fact that he dominated the vast majority of the field so many times in majors not to mention how many legends he was always playing against.


.

 

[R.J. MacReady]

Window dressing meaning he was not really threatening to win.

Much like Tiger...yeah he was one shot back at one point, so he was in the hunt, but the reality is, he birdied 18 to get within two.

Tiger did lose but is not crystal clear how good his game is right now?

To me that is what 2nd places proves as opposed to somebody missing the cut.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

If you are talking about dominance of an era ...48 top 3 finishes in majors speaks for itself.

It's irreverent how far he was from winning in the 2nd or 3rd places. It's the fact that he dominated the vast majority of the field so many times in majors not to mention how many legends he was always playing against.


.

IDK about that. Is consistent dominant?

The Buffalo Bills were probably the most consistent team going to 4 consecutive SBs, a feat that will likely never be accomplished again, but going 0fer really killed their position in NFL history.

The Celtics of the 60s were dominant. Edwin Moses was dominant.

 

[ATL96Steeler]

Tiger did lose but is not crystal clear how good his game is right now?

To me that is what 2nd places proves as opposed to somebody missing the cut.

I agree a 100% on where his game may or may not be, but I think it's fairly safe to say he's trending up.

My point on the 2nd place was 20 yrs from when we're looking back on Tiger's career, this 2nd place finish will no doubt be part of his history, but it really just means that he played well that week.

 

[Montalban]

I guarantee you he would not shoot 90 as well.....

LOL! With those old steel shafts and persimmon heads and balls that don't go anywhere I guarantee he'd shoot 90

 

[Montalban]

Never. Lol. 600 yard par 5 and down 2 shots and you gonna hit 3 wood. No wonder you hate Tiger... you’re a pussy cat.


Tiger was thinking 3 on 17. Man you are a funny little guy

Geez, Cletus you really are a fool. have you ever played the game? You don't hit clubs yopu don't know how to hit with that much on the line.

 

[tabascojet]

ratings up almost 70% because of tiger.....lowest combined 3rd and 4th round in a pga championship ever. he most likely wil win another major but not sure he will pass jack though

 

[Montalban]

Drive on 17, Choke or not...it really depends on how you define choke. Under pressure you can't execute a shot that you would otherwise execute without fail a high percentage of time...in a practice round Tiger probably keeps that ball on the course 9 out of 10 times...so if that's your angle...yes, he did choke.

To me...to truly choke you couple the failed execution example with having something to lose that you once had in your grasp...such as the lead or a simple shot/putt to win. Even if Tiger hit the FW and made birdie on 17...he was still going to be behind the leader so it was a huge mistake born out of pressing/chasing...that happens a lot more than we realize.

Equipment...90? C'mon...I think you need to remember Tiger won most of his early tournaments/majors playing an outdated Titleist driver when the field was playing max C.O.R. drivers...that's how the field closed the distance gap on him. One could argue that Tiger's driving actually got worse with the new equipment.

The golf media has long cited major titles was the benchmark, and that's why Snead is largely overlooked when the GOAT topic comes up, but Jack was not the most dominate player in the game by a long stretch. Nelson, certainly Hogan and Tiger were more dominate imo. Jack's career was extremely long and he went long spans without winning a major...several guys built HOF careers on Jack's watch. Casper, Trevino, Palmer...Watson. When you really research those 2nd place finishes, many were window dressing.

That's not to take anything away from him being GOAT, but he wasn't the most dominant.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Much as I disliked Nicklaus and almost always rooted against him, like I do with Woods, he was the most dominant player the game has ever seen. In fact he revolutionized the game.

 

[Wazmankg]

ratings up almost 70% because of tiger.....lowest combined 3rd and 4th round in a pga championship ever. he most likely wil win another major but not sure he will pass jack though

I don't think he has a prayer to pass Jack. Aside from the competition at the top being deeper and stronger than ever, he'll be 43 when the Masters rolls around again. There are what.. 3-4 guys who have ever won a major at that age or older. I've been wrong about him before though.