From: Kyle T. Jones on
Looking for 80 wrote:
>> it's Jack and Tiger than everyone else, those two are
>> mutants.
>
> And one of those is a whoremonger.
>
>
>


Apparently - and yet still, so much better at golf than the next best
guy playing (changes year to year) that any attempt to make their skills
appear comparable, as golfers, is ridiculous.

John Daly has flushed several marriages, burned through millions of
dollars gambling, drinking, and gosh knows what else - to the point
where he now follows the tour round selling memorabilia out of his trunk
- and remains one of the most loved figures in golf. Most of us,
including myself, root for him to figure things out and make some kind
of life for himself, on or off the course.

Perception is an odd thing - we just seem to like some folks more - and
give them second, third, and fourth chances. My Dad will never give
Tiger a second chance - but he's a huge Jack fan and continues to hope
(irrationally, I believe) that something will stop Tiger from breaking
all his records. It wouldn't have taken much for him to write Tiger off
as reprehensible - although, I'll be the first to admit, Tiger kinda
handed him the ol' motherlode.

Cheers.
From: spicpussy on
Uh, are we being fed a line about Mickelson's wife Amy's cancer (and
perhaps his mother's) ?

When she greeted Phil at the final hole, I thought she was Elin Woods!

Never saw a cancer patient look so good! So well! So un-pale! So
un-
cancerous!

So what's up with this? Is there a cancer medication that only
wealthy people have access to?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/golf/8614726.stm
From: Howard Brazee on
On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 20:48:04 -0700 (PDT), Manco
<musefan2009(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>Phil has won 35 other PGA tour victories, 2005 PGA Championship, 2
>WGCs, 2 Tour Championships, 1 Players Championship, 1 Bay Hill and
>been #2 in the world for most of the last decade and is widely
>regarded as the most talented after Tiger.

Many of us tend to regard him as more talented than Tiger, if you
don't count the 5" between their ears.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
From: Kyle T. Jones on
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 20:48:04 -0700 (PDT), Manco
> <musefan2009(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Phil has won 35 other PGA tour victories, 2005 PGA Championship, 2
>> WGCs, 2 Tour Championships, 1 Players Championship, 1 Bay Hill and
>> been #2 in the world for most of the last decade and is widely
>> regarded as the most talented after Tiger.
>
> Many of us tend to regard him as more talented than Tiger, if you
> don't count the 5" between their ears.
>

That certainly arguable, but I disagree.

There's a reason Phil has such artistry around the greens, and it has a
lot to do with being fairly erratic with his irons. When he's on, he's
*really* on - but I've seen him go through long spells where he's
mediocre at best with his approach shots.

He's the ultimate birdie/boogie player - and I just don't think that
kind of play gets it done, particularly in the two Opens. I say that
well aware that he has quite a few 2nd's in the US Open, to go with his
four majors. Phil and, say, Ernie Els seem about equivalent in that
regard (not being a birdie/boogie player, but having roughly similar #
of wins/success, especially in Majors - Els with 3, but I wouldn't be
surprised, without doing any research, if he has more seconds).

As for Manco's claim that Phil has been #2 in the world for most of the
last decade - is that even close to accurate (I have no idea)?

As for majors, which is the largest component of how these guys end up
being measure historically - it's Nicklaus (18), Woods (14 and
counting), and everyone else. Phil has less major wins than John Henry
Taylor, James Braid, and Peter Thomson (each with five) - not exactly a
collection of household names - and two less than Nick Faldo, who's
great, but not *great*, if you know what I mean.

Besides, the Springtime Puttin' Challenge and PGA Championship are
barely Majors to begin with (I joke, I kid - sorta). If you look at
just the Opens, it's Nicklaus, Vardon, and Jones (tied with 7), Woods,
Watson, and Hagen (each with 6), and then everyone else. That's a
pretty good list, and it nullifies the fact that folks like Jones didn't
play in the Masters and PGA Championships. Uhh, that measure would give
Phil zero.

I don't think you can even enter the conversation of being *great* until
you've won a few Opens. You win six or seven, you're on the "all time
great" list. Ben Hogan, who wrote *the* book on golf, had five and just
misses. Tiger wins two more Opens, he's unparalleled at eight.

Cheers.
From: mianderson on
On Apr 12, 11:08 pm, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...(a)realdomain.net> wrote:
> Howard Brazee wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 20:48:04 -0700 (PDT), Manco
> > <musefan2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Phil has won 35 other PGA tour victories, 2005 PGA Championship, 2
> >> WGCs, 2 Tour Championships, 1 Players Championship, 1 Bay Hill and
> >> been #2 in the world for most of the last decade and is widely
> >> regarded as the most talented after Tiger.
>
> > Many of us tend to regard him as more talented than Tiger, if you
> > don't count the 5" between their ears.
>
> That certainly arguable, but I disagree.
>
> There's a reason Phil has such artistry around the greens, and it has a
> lot to do with being fairly erratic with his irons.  When he's on, he's
> *really* on - but I've seen him go through long spells where he's
> mediocre at best with his approach shots.
>
> He's the ultimate birdie/boogie player - and I just don't think that
> kind of play gets it done, particularly in the two Opens.

phil has a game *made* for augusta........

I think he's a better masters player than woods(even though woods has
a 4 to 3 edge)......

but i agree with your general post. 4 majors isn't going to get you
to elite status.

That said, phil I *do* think will win some more majors, and I think he
will get to 7 or so and be considered an all time great(which
considering his other accomplishments would be more than legit).......

I think phil and tiger are both incredibly talented, but tiger is more
sound in every phase of the game. Sometimes phils irons completely
desert him, whereas tiger's irons are legendary.



 I say that
> well aware that he has quite a few 2nd's in the US Open, to go with his
> four majors.  Phil and, say, Ernie Els seem about equivalent in that
> regard (not being a birdie/boogie player, but having roughly similar #
> of wins/success, especially in Majors - Els with 3, but I wouldn't be
> surprised, without doing any research, if he has more seconds).
>
> As for Manco's claim that Phil has been #2 in the world for most of the
> last decade - is that even close to accurate (I have no idea)?
>
> As for majors, which is the largest component of how these guys end up
> being measure historically - it's Nicklaus (18), Woods (14 and
> counting), and everyone else.  Phil has less major wins than John Henry
> Taylor, James Braid, and Peter Thomson (each with five) - not exactly a
> collection of household names - and two less than Nick Faldo, who's
> great, but not *great*, if you know what I mean.
>
> Besides, the Springtime Puttin' Challenge and PGA Championship are
> barely Majors to begin with (I joke, I kid - sorta).  If you look at
> just the Opens, it's Nicklaus, Vardon, and Jones (tied with 7), Woods,
> Watson, and Hagen (each with 6), and then everyone else.  That's a
> pretty good list, and it nullifies the fact that folks like Jones didn't
> play in the Masters and PGA Championships.  Uhh, that measure would give
> Phil zero.
>
> I don't think you can even enter the conversation of being *great* until
> you've won a few Opens.  You win six or seven, you're on the "all time
> great" list.  Ben Hogan, who wrote *the* book on golf, had five and just
> misses.  Tiger wins two more Opens, he's unparalleled at eight.
>
> Cheers.