Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Masters 2020

Options
1…192021222325»

Comments

  • Options
    #722
    DuckSlice
    Registered Users Posts: 2,885 ✭✭✭DuckSlice


    Tiger is one lucky person so!! is it 82 times he has been lucky now?


  • Options
    #723
    tyivpc5qjx0f2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 289 ✭✭tyivpc5qjx0f2b


    I think Roger007's point -correct me if I'm wrong- is that major's only account for a relatively small proportion of tournaments throughout the year. Luck/Variance/Volatility whatever you want to call it plays a factor in every tournament but generally evens itself out more and more over time which is why you see DJ, Rory, Rahm etc consistently rank so highly.

    By happenstance it may simply be that certain players outperform -get lucky- at more prestigious events rather than more run of the mill tournaments.
    This "luck" factor tends to arise less often in other individual sports like Men's Tennis because the format is more conducive to better players ie 5 sets vs 3 sets so variance is less of a factor.

    I see the point he's trying to make and there is some validity to it but majors are more difficult to win because players prepare more for them and courses are generally tougher.
    I do think that variance plays a role and that variance can lead to certain players overachieving in more prestigious events and better players underachieving.


  • Options
    #724
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,163 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Dustin Johnson has four wins and three runner-up finishes, including losing a playoff, since lockdown. That's out of the thirteen tournaments he has played in.

    He is playing great golf, no doubt about it.
    I was talking more about anyone winning anything, there is usually a stroke of luck (good or bad) involved in someone winning a tournament.


  • Options
    #725
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,163 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Calliope Billions Snooper wrote: »
    but majors are more difficult to win because players prepare more for them and courses are generally tougher.

    I dont get this bit tbh, I think they are trying to win everything they enter (other than a handful of events where they are playing in Dubai for sponsorship reasons)


  • Options
    #726
    newport2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,598 ✭✭✭newport2


    Calliope Billions Snooper wrote: »
    I see the point he's trying to make and there is some validity to it but majors are more difficult to win because players prepare more for them and courses are generally tougher.

    I think it was Nicklaus who said they are easier to win than normal events because 90% of the field don't believe they can win them (something along those lines) So I guess you could say for 90% of players they are harder, but not for the other 10%!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #727
    blue note
    Registered Users Posts: 4,559 ✭✭✭blue note


    newport2 wrote: »
    I think it was Nicklaus who said they are easier to win than normal events because 90% of the field don't believe they can win them (something along those lines) So I guess you could say for 90% of players they are harder, but not for the other 10%!

    That's spot on. The pressure is greater in them than in any other event. But like every other event, 1 guy will win them at the end of the day.

    Brooks said something similar - half the field are out of contention before they hit a ball, because they don't have the bottle for it. Sounds harsh, but it's true.


  • Options
    #728
    tyivpc5qjx0f2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 289 ✭✭tyivpc5qjx0f2b


    newport2 wrote: »
    I think it was Nicklaus who said they are easier to win than normal events because 90% of the field don't believe they can win them (something along those lines) So I guess you could say for 90% of players they are harder, but not for the other 10%!

    Seems like he and maybe Tiger are probably the only people who could actually make that claim.

    GreeBo wrote: »
    I dont get this bit tbh, I think they are trying to win everything they enter (other than a handful of events where they are playing in Dubai for sponsorship reasons)

    I never said they're not trying to win everything they enter but for elite players their goal is to peak at certain events.

    When other players are entering the Houston Open in order to gain ranking points, the likes of Rory is afforded the luxury of taking time off to gear themselves up for The Masters.

    Similarly as mentioned, Brooks has dismissed the value of other tournaments in order to prepare for Majors.

    No elite golfer isn't trying to win every event they enter but majors are more difficult to win because many golfers build their game around peaking at that time.


  • Options
    #729
    zf0wqv9oemuasj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 117 ✭✭zf0wqv9oemuasj


    I think a lot of the time majors are won by the best golfers but like any tournament a player can be lucky enough to peak for a major rather than some run of the mill tournament. While they are harder to win physiologically and are sometimes more difficult they are not that much more challenging than many non-majors. They even use the same courses as normal comps in many cases.


    Danny Willet winning the masters comes to mind in this conversation, a very average pro by any measure who just happened to get it right at the right time. DJ on the other hand I would not say had much luck, if anything he is fighting a lot of bad look throughout majors with questionable rules decisions, one poor shot getting punished and so on.


  • Options
    #730
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 38,520 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Ariya Stale Soul wrote:
    Danny Willet winning the masters comes to mind in this conversation, a very average pro by any measure who just happened to get it right at the right.
    Danny Willett was no.11 in the world entering the 2016 Masters.


  • Options
    #731
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,163 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Danny Willett was no.11 in the world entering the 2016 Masters.

    I always think of Shaun Micheel and Beemer


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #732
    Augme
    Registered Users Posts: 5,983 ✭✭✭Augme


    The difference between the majors and other tournaments is pressure. So people thrive under pressure while some people buckle. It is the same in every sports and area of life really. Mostly the difference between GOATs in most individual sports in their ability to handle the pressure and how they perform when the pressure is on.


  • Options
    #733
    yaboya1
    Registered Users Posts: 4,610 ✭✭✭yaboya1


    Calliope Billions Snooper wrote: »
    Seems like he and maybe Tiger are probably the only people who could actually make that claim.

    Koepka makes the same claim all the time. He's been in contention and won more majors than he has regular tournaments.


    For people saying that it comes down to luck, I'll leave you with another Nicklaus quote:

    "The harder I practice, the luckier I get."


  • Options
    #734
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,163 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    yaboya1 wrote: »
    Koepka makes the same claim all the time. He's been in contention and won more majors than he has regular tournaments.


    For people saying that it comes down to luck, I'll leave you with another Nicklaus quote:

    "The harder I practice, the luckier I get."

    Everyone has good and bad luck on the course, especially throughout 72 holes, the difference is that having great luck when you are in contention is much more useful than having great luck when you are not. (or rather it seems that way)

    Personally it would be rare enough that I win something by having a perfect round of golf, there is always some shot that could have gone much, much worse.


  • Options
    #735
    tyivpc5qjx0f2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 289 ✭✭tyivpc5qjx0f2b


    yaboya1 wrote: »
    Koepka makes the same claim all the time. He's been in contention and won more majors than he has regular tournaments.


    For people saying that it comes down to luck, I'll leave you with another Nicklaus quote:

    "The harder I practice, the luckier I get."

    I don't think anyone thinks that winning "comes down to luck" but to deny luck/variance is often a factor is simply untrue.

    Also, that isnt a Nicklaus quote, maybe he said it at some point but it's usually attributed to Palmer.


  • Options
    #736
    yaboya1
    Registered Users Posts: 4,610 ✭✭✭yaboya1


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Everyone has good and bad luck on the course, especially throughout 72 holes, the difference is that having great luck when you are in contention is much more useful than having great luck when you are not. (or rather it seems that way)

    Personally it would be rare enough that I win something by having a perfect round of golf, there is always some shot that could have gone much, much worse.

    That's the point he's making.
    If you're always in contention, when the good luck falls your way it can be the winning of the tournament.
    It's not going to make a difference to somebody languishing in 45th place.


  • Options
    #737
    yaboya1
    Registered Users Posts: 4,610 ✭✭✭yaboya1


    Calliope Billions Snooper wrote: »
    I don't think anyone thinks that winning "comes down to luck" but to deny luck/variance is often a factor is simply untrue.

    Also, that isnt a Nicklaus quote, maybe he said it at some point but it's usually attributed to Palmer.

    As above, good luck will have a bigger impact if you're in contention. If you work hard/practice, you're more likely to be in contention more often, hence the good luck will matter more than if you weren't.
    Nicklaus was 2nd in 19 majors, so didn't have things fall his way on those occasions but he was there to take advantage if they did.


    Re: the quote, you're probably right but I'm sure I've heard Nicklaus use it even if it's not his.


  • Options
    #738
    tyivpc5qjx0f2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 289 ✭✭tyivpc5qjx0f2b


    yaboya1 wrote: »
    As above, good luck will have a bigger impact if you're in contention. If you work hard/practice, you're more likely to be in contention more often, hence the good luck will matter more than if you weren't.
    Nicklaus was 2nd in 19 majors, so didn't have things fall his way on those occasions but he was there to take advantage if they did.


    Re: the quote, you're probably right but I'm sure I've heard Nicklaus use it even if it's not his.

    Largely I agree, I think that's a fair way of describing it.

    It's relative to your ability. An amateur making a cut, a web.com player getting a tour card, an elite player winning a major, the margins are often so small.

    The difference with Nicklaus is that he was so far ahead that no matter how his luck may have broke, he'd still have won his fair share.


  • Options
    #739
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,163 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    yaboya1 wrote: »
    As above, good luck will have a bigger impact if you're in contention. If you work hard/practice, you're more likely to be in contention more often, hence the good luck will matter more than if you weren't.
    Nicklaus was 2nd in 19 majors, so didn't have things fall his way on those occasions but he was there to take advantage if they did.

    Ah but he didnt win those 19 majors, maybe it was just because he didnt have any luck those days (or the other guys had more)

    note that I am not *in any way* saying that everyone is equal and some are just luckier than others, but in every round of golf played there is luck involved, its an imperfect game played in imperfect conditions.


  • Options
    #740
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,163 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Calliope Billions Snooper wrote: »

    The difference with Nicklaus is that he was so far ahead that no matter how his luck may have broke, he'd still have won his fair share.

    Thats the point I was making when I said that baring the guys who win at a canter (like DJ last week and Tiger has done a few times)

    It doesnt matter what luck you have if you are 5 ahead of everyone else!


  • Options
    #741
    yaboya1
    Registered Users Posts: 4,610 ✭✭✭yaboya1


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Ah but he didnt win those 19 majors, maybe it was just because he didnt have any luck those days (or the other guys had more)

    That's exactly what I'm saying?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #742
    blue note
    Registered Users Posts: 4,559 ✭✭✭blue note


    yaboya1 wrote: »
    As above, good luck will have a bigger impact if you're in contention. If you work hard/practice, you're more likely to be in contention more often, hence the good luck will matter more than if you weren't.
    Nicklaus was 2nd in 19 majors, so didn't have things fall his way on those occasions but he was there to take advantage if they did.


    Re: the quote, you're probably right but I'm sure I've heard Nicklaus use it even if it's not his.

    From a golfing sense it's attributed to Gary player. But I'm pretty sure even he says he didn't invent it.

    It's a good line though.


  • Options
    #743
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 38,520 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    GreeBo wrote:
    Personally it would be rare enough that I win something by having a perfect round of golf, there is always some shot that could have gone much, much worse.

    The real difference has nothing to do with luck it's about consistency in every area. The better you are the better your bad shots are, the better you are the more putts you hole from ten feet, the more chips you put stone dead etc.
    Dustin Johnson had four bogeys in the tournament, that wasn't down to luck, it was down to great play.


  • Options
    #744
    Roger_007
    Registered Users Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭Roger_007


    eagle eye wrote: »
    The real difference has nothing to do with luck it's about consistency in every area. The better you are the better your bad shots are, the better you are the more putts you hole from ten feet, the more chips you put stone dead etc.
    Dustin Johnson had four bogeys in the tournament, that wasn't down to luck, it was down to great play.

    I agree that you have to play well to be in a position to avail of a bit of good luck. When Fred Couples won the Masters, (his one and only major), he had a huge bit of luck at the 12th when his ball ran down the bank towards the water but stopped half way down the bank. Nobody had ever seen a ball stop there before or since. He made a par and went on to win.
    Nobody could deny that Couples deserved a major but he needed that bit of luck to do it.


  • Options
    #745
    fearruanua
    Registered Users Posts: 737 ✭✭✭fearruanua


    Only 141 days to the Masters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


  • Options
    #746
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,163 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    eagle eye wrote: »
    The real difference has nothing to do with luck it's about consistency in every area. The better you are the better your bad shots are, the better you are the more putts you hole from ten feet, the more chips you put stone dead etc.
    Dustin Johnson had four bogeys in the tournament, that wasn't down to luck, it was down to great play.

    I think we have all agreed (several times now!) that there are scenarios where someone just beats everyone else significantly and its down to skill that week, they may have had some luck but it didnt determine the outcome of the event.


  • Options
    #747
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Can anyone figure out why masters wont allow more TV coverage. It makes very little sense to me. Particularly when they have an online feature allowing you to watch each shot a player hits anyway.

    The lack of early coverage has been annoying me increasingly over the last few years. To the point it has become the least enjoyable major for me now.


  • Options
    #748
    zf0wqv9oemuasj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 117 ✭✭zf0wqv9oemuasj


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Can anyone figure out why masters wont allow more TV coverage. It makes very little sense to me. Particularly when they have an online feature allowing you to watch each shot a player hits anyway.

    The lack of early coverage has been annoying me increasingly over the last few years. To the point it has become the least enjoyable major for me now.

    They basically say they don’t want a saturation of coverage and they feel only allowing a few hours is better for that or some nonsense along them lines.

    The masters app is a thing of beauty though, especially run through a USA vpn as you can watch all the coverage on the app but even without that showing every shot and so on is great.

    I wonder is there any hope of the pga tour app ever getting this good, surely they would have most of the shots covered to show them and so on if they had the desire.


  • Options
    #749
    eagle eye
    Registered Users Posts: 38,520 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Ariya Stale Soul wrote:
    I wonder is there any hope of the pga tour app ever getting this good, surely they would have most of the shots covered to show them and so on if they had the desire.
    Problem is tv coverage rights around the world.


  • Options
    #750
    zf0wqv9oemuasj
    Closed Accounts Posts: 117 ✭✭zf0wqv9oemuasj


    eagle eye wrote: »
    Problem is tv coverage rights around the world.

    That is true but I don’t see the shot tracker shot replays as being a risk to tv coverage. It’s not really able to replace live coverage but rather for following a particular player (I suppose those of us who have a bet really appreciate it or seeing a player that’s not in main coverage much and so on).

    Even a shot tracker as good as the masters without the videos would be much appreciated.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement