Will Tiger Need His Driver at the British Open?

Mr. 1 Iron, your posts are rather incredible for so many reasons. 

They are well written, well researched, informative, topical, logical and mean spirited.  Whereas I do enjoy being corrected and learning, your posts to me, and to others that I’ve read, are often condescending and insulting.  I do understand that the point of these boards is to have heated discussions with various points of view and opinions.  I also understand that talking trash is part of the game and adds to the fun.  However the term "friendly banter" seems more appropriate in contrast with your tone and style.  You seem to start off with a putdown of someone's post and then go into a long diatribe of information presumably designed to overwhelmed us and make us mentally bow down to your obvious superior intelligence.  Wow! 

That being said let me apologize to you if I’m way off base here.  I’m new to this forum thing so it is possible I just don’t understand.   I not trying to insult you or challenge you to a verbal joust.  I guess I’m just trying to understand why you seem so angry.   You are a great poster in that you really provide tons of documented information so I do look forward to reading them, but if your going to beat us up all the time, would you at least consider not always using the 1 iron?  Maybe a putter with the head cover still on occationally?

Baby G, thanks again for your informative post and the rebuttal to 1 iron’s arguments.  I like your style in that I notice you start with a positive comment, and often a compliment, to others before providing your arguments.  Good job!

1IRON,

Great lesson!  (golf clapping in background)

Statistics can prove anything the author wants them to prove.  You display an eloquent art of massaging the facts and data to say what you want them to say.  The data you provide, none the less, usually has been arranged and selected by yourself to be skewed towards your stance.

The truth is that your "sledgehammer" technique is boring and childish.  You are like an older dropped-out kid hanging around the school yard trying to bully the younger students out of their lunch money.

I have yet to read a post, authored by you, where you don't step out on a weak limb as a platform for a rebuttal and try to shim it with false data reporting.  I think you genuinely disagree with those here because you are a USGA blue nose and not because there is sufficient reason that anything which was said is wrong, just that it makes the USGA and golf in general look poor and lacking. 

The general populous does not see the USGA as a governing body which publishes the Bible of golf.  I for one have discovered, in my particiption over the years, it to be a bureaucratic organization which interferes greatly with the common-sensical approach to every day decisions faced by the average golfer.

I get a sense that you have been able to hide yourself in the USGA your whole career and now feel a deep allegiance to thrust your might in any way you deem fit, to defend this organization of misguided fellow blue noses.

The USGA is predominately a “blue-blooded” organization of a small clique of old, established golf clubs in the northeast who sought to control the world of golf in the US.  It is not an inclusive organization. And it is not an organization that lives in the “real world”.  It steeps itself in the past and its traditions and it assumed all things would continue as they always had.

I have known more than a fair number of USGA "club Pros" and other than finishing a six week course in basic accounting and bookkeeping and passing a playing test which any 5 handicapper could pass on an average day, they are college drop-outs and lethargic wanna-be's. 

They usually started out aspiring to be "real" playing professionals but get stuck in the USGA rut of running the cart tickets every night.  It is an easy life to be a club pro and that is where the lathargy kicks in.  After their mid-life crisis kicks them in the rear, they decide to actually do something meaningful with their lives and so they become a board member on their local USGA Member Club council.  This is where the real damage is done for the "sake of the game!"

Read the first section of the article I reference with the link below.  I couldn't have said it better myself.

You really ought to throw out your affiliation and years involved with the USGA, more often Mr 1iron, it is a real respect getter.  Yeah!!!!  You're smarter than all of us, too!!!  That is why you spent 30 years in the USGA trades, or so you say?

http://www.progolftalk.com/usga.htm

So true, ever so true.

One of your best quotes!!!

I've read his references to using Excel files to computate his "stats" and "data".  I work with it every day and while it is handy, it doesn't even come close to a program such as MathCAD or the ilk.  He is just making a fool of himself trying to, again, impress us with his "learned mind".

You bring up some very interesting points about his career timeline.  You can' t get paid as a professional instructor and remain an amateur player.  USGA regional rules dictate: 

"Any financial gain!"  Being paid to teach golf lessons would be using his golf skill for financial gain wouldn't it?  I'm asking and leaving it to your interpretation.  Unless he was teaching "goff"?

LMFAO!!!!

Hopefully I will be able to add something to the stat analysis debate this weekend...but you guys are obviously holding down the fort.

The numbers don't help if ya don't know what their sayin.  Maybe Mrs1iron should stick to doing the research (collecting the data) and leave the analysis up to someone else.

Good stuff guys!

Mr. 1 iron,

I looked at your stats and found them interesting, although I do not understand why you want to look at variance, unless you want to look at consistency.  Since the question of club used would be pivotal in this, it really won't answer anything useful to this discussion.  In the same manner, I believe that range would be better indicator only if you knew what club was being used.  The variable of club used would be extremely important, correct?

A hypothesis would be that if variance was high, then the diference between clubs used would be greater.  In other words, someone always using driver would probably have smaller variance than say someone hitting driver, 5 wood, 2 iron, etc.

In regards to the study you mentioned, when I was in grad school years ago, we did a statistical analysis related to the "drive for show, putt for dough" adage you ofter hear.  After a careful analysis of the putting statistics as related to position finished per tournament, we found that putting was the number one factor, and significant, and driving accuracy and driving distance were not in regards to finish.