Rory as #1

[PGArox]

[quote name='HCEG1' timestamp='1330281089' post='4380473']
Rory will be the most naturally talenetd golfer ever to be number 1, IMO

Some say there are no 'natural' golfers, but, to me, Rors makes a nonsense of that

Once he stops missing one or more 2-3 footers per tournament, he will be practically invincible for a decade or more.
[/quote]

Folks had better get used to seeing Rory atop the OWGR. Whether he gets there this afternoon, or sometime during the run-up to Augusta, once he gets there he will own that spot for the majority of the next 10 years.

[HCEG1]

.

 

Rose-tinted specs?

 

Jack was amazing in many ways, but nothing came naturally to him in golf

 

Rory, on the other hand looks and acts like he was born with a 5 iron in his hand. He exudes effortless skill, grace, power & finesse

 

Ok....we'll agree to disagree.

 

 

Its sad how short term a memory many have...

 

Look back at his earlier years. Jack Nicklaus was not only "naturally gifted", but had one of the most athletic moves EVER in the game of golf...

 

Is that why he never appears in any 'Players with great golf swings' threads?

[puttingmatt]

This could be the start of Tiger's long road back
to become the worlds number two !!

[UngiftedGolfer]

I agree, Rory would be the best possible player to be sitting in the #1 spot. He has a great attitude on the course and with the media. He's proven that he can handle adversity in a positive way and be very humble about it.

I don't know if anyone will ever be as popular or as globaly known as Tiger was, but Rory has the ability to draw the largest range of fans around the world right now, IMO. I think he can draw more young people to the game, more women as well, and I think that a lot of people in the game like him already. Plus, he can set a good example for those that are new to the game. I would much rather see beginning golfers act like Rory on the course than how Tiger acts some of the time.

At the same time, I also think that Rory as #1 will have a little bit of the same effect on other players as when Tiger was at #1. I think as a whole the players on tour today are amazing, and part of that is because of how amazing Tiger was. Tiger set the bar very high in the early part of his career, and the only way others were going to reach that bar was to push themselves to get a lot better. If Rory continues on the path he is on it will force others to improve at the same rate in order to keep pace, and I think that will be great for the game.

I've always been a huge fan of Tiger, and now I've been a huge fan of Rory for the past 3 or 4 years. I think someone like Rory at the top could be just the spark that Tiger needs to get everything moving in the right direction. Rory reminds me a lot of Tiger when he was younger, and I'll bet Tiger sees that too and believes he can get back there.

[jaskanski]

[quote name='hogans71' timestamp='1330286183' post='4380951']
[quote name='jaskanski' timestamp='1330282699' post='4380593']
Point of order: there is nothing "natural" about an overbearing father grooming his son to be a professional golfer from the age of 2. And possibly making up for lost time after his untimely demise either. Tiger is to natural as garden sheds are to aerodynamics.
[/quote]

Look- I'm indifferent as far as RM is concerned and have NEVER been a TW's fan...

But what does his TW's upbringing have to do with his level of "natural talent"? I don't feel as if golfers as a whole should be deemed "athletic" but damn, he was the epitome of such. FFS, he changed his swing dramatically three times. Who gives a g0d damn whether or not he's raised in such a fashion as he was...
[/quote]

i would of thought it is fairly self-explanatory. Natural ability has nothing to do with being groomed from an early age to accomplish something such as Tiger. If he picked up a set of clubs at age 10 and decided to play golf, then that could be argued would be a natural progression. Being pushed into golf by an equally pushy parent does not sound like natural to me - in hindsight, Tiger had little choice in the matter. Earl Woods actually hired an attorney and a member of the USGA executive committee to streamline his sons rise to professional status. Let's not forget that the road to golf was probably born from Earl's own interest in golf at around that time anyway. Any of that sound "natural" to you? I tend to call it "manufactured". What's does a swing matter? Uglier techniques have won majors several times over. Rory is cut from the same cloth too somewhat. YMMV.

[hogans71]

.

 

Rose-tinted specs?

 

Jack was amazing in many ways, but nothing came naturally to him in golf

 

Rory, on the other hand looks and acts like he was born with a 5 iron in his hand. He exudes effortless skill, grace, power & finesse

 

Ok....we'll agree to disagree.

 

 

Its sad how short term a memory many have...

 

Look back at his earlier years. Jack Nicklaus was not only "naturally gifted", but had one of the most athletic moves EVER in the game of golf...

 

Is that why he never appears in any 'Players with great golf swings' threads?

 

Yup...

 

The end all be all to golf info is the threads here regarding "best swings ever"...

[HCEG1]

.

 

Rose-tinted specs?

 

Jack was amazing in many ways, but nothing came naturally to him in golf

 

Rory, on the other hand looks and acts like he was born with a 5 iron in his hand. He exudes effortless skill, grace, power & finesse

 

Ok....we'll agree to disagree.

 

 

Its sad how short term a memory many have...

 

Look back at his earlier years. Jack Nicklaus was not only "naturally gifted", but had one of the most athletic moves EVER in the game of golf...

 

Is that why he never appears in any 'Players with great golf swings' threads?

 

Yup...

 

The end all be all to golf info is the threads here regarding "best swings ever"...

 

OK, more specifically:

 

'In 1967 Jack Nicklaus won the US Open at Baltusrol GC. Twelve majors and more than three years would come and go before Nicklaus would win the 1970 Open Championship at St Andrews.

 

In the late 1960’s Nicklaus was giving up on golf swing of his youth. The big powerful lateral move off the ball that characterized his back swing was traded in for a more centered swing. By keeping more weight on the left side of his backswing Nicklaus gained greater control over the golf shot and lost only a little of his power . It took Jack Nicklaus until 1972 to truly perfect that swing.

 

The changes did not come easy to Jack Nicklaus. Golf video and pictures from the late sixties shows Jack Nicklaus fighting a reverse pivot and swinging over the top on far too many swings'.

[hogans71]

[quote name='jaskanski' timestamp='1330287236' post='4381063']
[quote name='hogans71' timestamp='1330286183' post='4380951']
[quote name='jaskanski' timestamp='1330282699' post='4380593']
Point of order: there is nothing "natural" about an overbearing father grooming his son to be a professional golfer from the age of 2. And possibly making up for lost time after his untimely demise either. Tiger is to natural as garden sheds are to aerodynamics.
[/quote]

Look- I'm indifferent as far as RM is concerned and have NEVER been a TW's fan...

But what does his TW's upbringing have to do with his level of "natural talent"? I don't feel as if golfers as a whole should be deemed "athletic" but damn, he was the epitome of such. FFS, he changed his swing dramatically three times. Who gives a g0d damn whether or not he's raised in such a fashion as he was...
[/quote]

i would of thought it is fairly self-explanatory. [b][i][u]Natural ability has nothing to do with being groomed from an early age [/u][/i][/b]to accomplish something such as Tiger. If he picked up a set of clubs at age 10 and decided to play golf, then that could be argued would be a natural progression. Being pushed into golf by an equally pushy parent does not sound like natural to me - in hindsight, Tiger had little choice in the matter. Earl Woods actually hired an attorney and a member of the USGA executive committee to streamline his sons rise to professional status. Let's not forget that the road to golf was probably born from Earl's own interest in golf at around that time anyway. Any of that sound "natural" to you? I tend to call it "manufactured". What's does a swing matter? Uglier techniques have won majors several times over. Rory is cut from the same cloth too somewhat. YMMV.
[/quote]

I don't disagree with your breakdown of TW's "upbringing" but again, I fail to see where it comes into play regarding "natural talent"...

All the money in the world and poking and prodding from one's parents does not result in any level of success if the kid has two left feet and can't keep his balance if propped up against a wall. It's irrelevant if TW's old man "hires" anyone- if he downright sucks, its as good as flipping a coin as far as success is concerned...

TW had it- natural ability. And AGAIN- I cheer for anyone else but the petulant one. But to suggest anything different regarding his "natural ability" is a quite a stretch to say the least...

One would think that your rationale suggests RM just SHOWS up and wins- with no help from his folks. Is that realistic? Of course not...

[hogans71]

.

 

Rose-tinted specs?

 

Jack was amazing in many ways, but nothing came naturally to him in golf

 

Rory, on the other hand looks and acts like he was born with a 5 iron in his hand. He exudes effortless skill, grace, power & finesse

 

Ok....we'll agree to disagree.

 

 

Its sad how short term a memory many have...

 

Look back at his earlier years. Jack Nicklaus was not only "naturally gifted", but had one of the most athletic moves EVER in the game of golf...

 

Is that why he never appears in any 'Players with great golf swings' threads?

 

Yup...

 

The end all be all to golf info is the threads here regarding "best swings ever"...

 

OK, more specifically:

 

'In 1967 Jack Nicklaus won the US Open at Baltusrol GC. Twelve majors and more than three years would come and go before Nicklaus would win the 1970 Open Championship at St Andrews.

 

In the late 1960's Nicklaus was giving up on golf swing of his youth. The big powerful lateral move off the ball that characterized his back swing was traded in for a more centered swing. By keeping more weight on the left side of his backswing Nicklaus gained greater control over the golf shot and lost only a little of his power . It took Jack Nicklaus until 1972 to truly perfect that swing.

 

The changes did not come easy to Jack Nicklaus. Golf video and pictures from the late sixties shows Jack Nicklaus fighting a reverse pivot and swinging over the top on far too many swings'.

 

 

All fine and well..

 

That puts him in his late 20's with 6 Majors and clearly many more PGA Tour victories...

 

What's your point?

 

Do you believe RM is impervious to such changes? After all, the kid is all of 22 years old with just five victories under his belt...

 

 

[spooky]

[quote name='HCEG1' timestamp='1330283557' post='4380655']
Jack spent a gozillion hours with jack Grout holding his head still, beating balls into the sunset for years. His painstaking, scientific over analysis of every part of his game was truly painful to watch, nay endure. As for his putting technique
[/quote]

[quote name='HCEG1' timestamp='1330284883' post='4380807']
Jack was amazing in many ways, but nothing came naturally to him in golf
[/quote]

Utter nonsense. Gary Player and many others would disagree with your assessment.

[c5driver]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1330289491' post='4381347']
[quote name='HCEG1' timestamp='1330283557' post='4380655']
Jack spent a gozillion hours with jack Grout holding his head still, beating balls into the sunset for years. His painstaking, scientific over analysis of every part of his game was truly painful to watch, nay endure. As for his putting technique
[/quote]

[quote name='HCEG1' timestamp='1330284883' post='4380807']
Jack was amazing in many ways, but nothing came naturally to him in golf
[/quote]

Utter nonsense. Gary Player and many others would disagree with your assessment.
[/quote]


For anyone to say that Jack did not have "natural ability" is unreal; just as it is for anyone to say that Tiger or Rory has none. Just because one practices or has a coach does not take anything away from natural ability.

Personally I do not like Tiger but I wouldn't say he doesn't have natural ability. And as far as his father forcing him to play? That just shows his dad was a pushy a$$ that wanted to live through his son. With that being said, if his dad didn't force him into golf, who to say he would have even chosen it?

This whole natural ability thing I just can't wrap my head around I guess. And if said by a close friend a wager would be put into place.

Go find me a guy on the street that has never played golf and has no "natural ability". Get him a set of clubs and 2 years full of lessons and see how well he does. Then re-evaluate any comment that states a player with no natural ability can play this game we all love well.

[jaskanski]

A lot of people probably confuse natural ability with achievements - it's understandable. There are many players that are nothing like the sort of professional role models that we aspire to emulate, but have a certain amount of natural ability. "Talent" may be another way of putting it perhaps, in the way or manner in which a player plays a particular style or shot within a given circumstance. You have to possess a keen eye to spot it - Rory has it, but Tiger doesn't. I wish I could explain it better, but I don't have the natural ability to articulate in quite the same manner as others who patrol these boards.

[hogans71]

[quote name='jaskanski' timestamp='1330292249' post='4381711']
A lot of people probably confuse natural ability with achievements - it's understandable. There are many players that are nothing like the sort of professional role models that we aspire to emulate, but have a certain amount of natural ability. "Talent" may be another way of putting it perhaps, in the way or manner in which a player plays a particular style or shot within a given circumstance. You have to possess a keen eye to spot it - Rory has it, but Tiger doesn't. I wish I could explain it better, but I don't have the natural ability to articulate in quite the same manner as others who patrol these boards.
[/quote]

Agree to disagree...

If you feel as if TW ( or JN for that matter) did not have superior "natural ability", then we seem to be at an impasse. It's frightening to me that someone such as yourself feels as is RM possess something that the two best golfers EVER did not. I find it utterly mind boggling that anyone would feel that the two greatest in history are somewhat lacking in natural talent- as if legal help and teaching ability somehow willed those two to 32 Majors...

But hey- we cant always pass it along in print, can we?

[spooky]

I don't see someone with a relative lack of natural ability being able to hit such creative shots and play such impressive recovery shots as Woods has done over the years.

Nicklaus had a more than healthy dose of natural sporting ability.

[jaskanski]

[quote name='hogans71' timestamp='1330292983' post='4381805']
[quote name='jaskanski' timestamp='1330292249' post='4381711']
A lot of people probably confuse natural ability with achievements - it's understandable. There are many players that are nothing like the sort of professional role models that we aspire to emulate, but have a certain amount of natural ability. "Talent" may be another way of putting it perhaps, in the way or manner in which a player plays a particular style or shot within a given circumstance. You have to possess a keen eye to spot it - Rory has it, but Tiger doesn't. I wish I could explain it better, but I don't have the natural ability to articulate in quite the same manner as others who patrol these boards.
[/quote]

Agree to disagree...

If you feel as if TW ( or JN for that matter) did not have superior "natural ability", then we seem to be at an impasse. It's frightening to me that someone such as yourself feels as is RM possess something that the two best golfers EVER did not. I find it utterly mind boggling that anyone would feel that the two greatest in history are somewhat lacking in natural talent- as if legal help and teaching ability somehow willed those two to 32 Majors...

But hey- we cant always pass it along in print, can we?
[/quote]

See what I mean? The "natural" assumption (sic) is to align natural talent with achievements. I dare say there are probably guys at the local municipal with natural ability, but are somehow (according to the stretched logic ) bereft of any major trophies in their lockers.

[Chief Illiniwek]

[quote name='jaskanski' timestamp='1330292249' post='4381711']
A lot of people probably confuse natural ability with achievements - it's understandable. There are many players that are nothing like the sort of professional role models that we aspire to emulate, but have a certain amount of natural ability. "Talent" may be another way of putting it perhaps, in the way or manner in which a player plays a particular style or shot within a given circumstance. You have to possess a keen eye to spot it - Rory has it, but Tiger doesn't. I wish I could explain it better, but I don't have the natural ability to articulate in quite the same manner as others who patrol these boards.
[/quote]

Depends on which aspect of golf you are saying TW lacks natural talent. Was or is TW a naturally gifted driver of the golf ball- no, at least not the highest level of talent. But in his prime did he have one of the most talented short games ever- yes.

[HCEG1]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1330289491' post='4381347']
[quote name='HCEG1' timestamp='1330283557' post='4380655']
Jack spent a gozillion hours with jack Grout holding his head still, beating balls into the sunset for years. His painstaking, scientific over analysis of every part of his game was truly painful to watch, nay endure. As for his putting technique
[/quote]

[quote name='HCEG1' timestamp='1330284883' post='4380807']
Jack was amazing in many ways, but nothing came naturally to him in golf
[/quote]

Utter nonsense. Gary Player and many others would disagree with your assessment.
[/quote]

I assume you are too young to have seen Nicklaus play in person. If so, please watch a lot of footage of him playing. He was mechanical, clinical, industrious and, as I mentioned previously, rather painful to watch.

Please don't tell me what Gary would say, as you have no idea of the number of times I see him in a year and I can tell you categorically that you're wrong. If we were discussing Hogan, however, it would be a whole lot different.

[hogans71]

[quote name='jaskanski' timestamp='1330293420' post='4381869']
[quote name='hogans71' timestamp='1330292983' post='4381805']

A lot of people probably confuse natural ability with achievements - it's understandable. There are many players that are nothing like the sort of professional role models that we aspire to emulate, but have a certain amount of natural ability. "Talent" may be another way of putting it perhaps, in the way or manner in which a player plays a particular style or shot within a given circumstance. You have to possess a keen eye to spot it - Rory has it, but Tiger doesn't. I wish I could explain it better, but I don't have the natural ability to articulate in quite the same manner as others who patrol these boards.
[/quote]

Agree to disagree...

If you feel as if TW ( or JN for that matter) did not have superior "natural ability", then we seem to be at an impasse. It's frightening to me that someone such as yourself feels as is RM possess something that the two best golfers EVER did not. I find it utterly mind boggling that anyone would feel that the two greatest in history are somewhat lacking in natural talent- as if legal help and teaching ability somehow willed those two to 32 Majors...

But hey- we cant always pass it along in print, can we?
[/quote]

See what I mean? The "natural" assumption (sic) is to align natural talent with achievements. I dare say there are probably guys at the local municipal with natural ability, but aresomehow (according to the stretched logic ) bereft of any major trophies in their lockers.




Sadly for those you mention, their natural ability was clearly not enough...


If only they had proper legal representation or their father was buddy buddy with someone in the USGA.

We'd be looking at someone with how many wins...

[spooky]

[quote name='jaskanski' timestamp='1330293420' post='4381869']
See what I mean? The "natural" assumption (sic) is to align natural talent with achievements. I dare say there are probably guys at the local municipal with natural ability, but are somehow (according to the stretched logic ) bereft of any major trophies in their lockers.
[/quote]
Nobody has said they are talented purely based on achievement, so your point is not made.

[quote name='HCEG1' timestamp='1330293634' post='4381907']
I assume you are too young to have seen Nicklaus play in person. If so, please watch a lot of footage of him playing. He was mechanical, clinical, industrious and, as I mentioned previously, rather painful to watch.

Please don't tell me what Gary would say, as you have no idea of the number of times I see him in a year and I can tell you categorically that you're wrong. If we were discussing Hogan, however, it would be a whole lot different.
[/quote]

You know what they say about assuming don't you?

You have stated that Nicklaus was not naturally gifted and used examples of how he approached the game in support of that. I don't see the relationship and I also know that Nicklaus was a naturally gifted individual at a number of sports. He had an analytical approach to the game but that does not preclude him being naturally gifted - both mental and physical assets produced the results that we all know. Painful to watch? First time I have heard that and a rather bizarre thing to say.

I can also categorically tell you that you are wrong. Easily done! Neither of us will convince the other though so it's best to leave it there and agree to disagree.

[HCEG1]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1330294699' post='4382053']
[quote name='jaskanski' timestamp='1330293420' post='4381869']
See what I mean? The "natural" assumption (sic) is to align natural talent with achievements. I dare say there are probably guys at the local municipal with natural ability, but are somehow (according to the stretched logic ) bereft of any major trophies in their lockers.
[/quote]
Nobody has said they are talented purely based on achievement, so your point is not made.

[quote name='HCEG1' timestamp='1330293634' post='4381907']
I assume you are too young to have seen Nicklaus play in person. If so, please watch a lot of footage of him playing. He was mechanical, clinical, industrious and, as I mentioned previously, rather painful to watch.

Please don't tell me what Gary would say, as you have no idea of the number of times I see him in a year and I can tell you categorically that you're wrong. If we were discussing Hogan, however, it would be a whole lot different.
[/quote]

You know what they say about assuming don't you?

You have stated that Nicklaus was not naturally gifted and used examples of how he approached the game in support of that. I don't see the relationship and I also know that Nicklaus was a naturally gifted individual at a number of sports. He had an analytical approach to the game but that does not preclude him being naturally gifted - both mental and physical assets produced the results that we all know. Painful to watch? First time I have heard that and a rather bizarre thing to say.

I can also categorically tell you that you are wrong. Easily done! Neither of us will convince the other though so[b] it's best to leave it there and agree to disagree[/b].
[/quote]

No. Sorry. I'm right & you're grasping at straws

[geesecougar2]

It really irks me to see Earl's name sullied like this. He was not the prototypical helicopter parent; he encouraged Tiger to follow his passion and gave him the tools and resources to maximize his potential. It's not like Agassi, who hated his father because he set up a machine and had him return millions of serves in their backyard. It's not like O'Hair's father who made him run a mile for every bogey and sign a contract promising 10% of lifetime earnings. Earl would actually drop Tiger off at the golf course and leave him to his own devices all day. Earl nurtured Tiger's passions and always kept it fun for him, never letting him burn out. He did it the right way, and the most telling thing is that they were best friends as father and son.

As for Tiger's natural talent, the one thing he has always been able to do better than anyone is get in a great impact position regardless of the swing he was using. When he was working with Haney, even the people around golf who didn't like the swing had to acknowledge that his impact position was the best on Tour (they did a survey on this subject in Golf Digest a few years back).

[hogans71]

[quote name='HCEG1' timestamp='1330293634' post='4381907']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1330289491' post='4381347']
[quote name='HCEG1' timestamp='1330283557' post='4380655']
Jack spent a gozillion hours with jack Grout holding his head still, beating balls into the sunset for years. His painstaking, scientific over analysis of every part of his game was truly painful to watch, nay endure. As for his putting technique
[/quote]

[quote name='HCEG1' timestamp='1330284883' post='4380807']
Jack was amazing in many ways, but nothing came naturally to him in golf
[/quote]

Utter nonsense. Gary Player and many others would disagree with your assessment.
[/quote]

I assume you are too young to have seen Nicklaus play in person. If so, please watch a lot of footage of him playing. He was mechanical, clinical, industrious and, as I mentioned previously, rather painful to watch.

Please don't tell me what Gary would say, as you have no idea of the number of times I see him in a year and I can tell you categorically that you're wrong. If we were discussing Hogan, however, it would be a whole lot different.
[/quote]

That doesn't take away from the fact that he was an all around athlete growing up and carried himself in such fashion. We are comparing JN and RM at ripe ol age of 22- just because you suggest he was "painful" to watch doesn't make it so. I've met and played behind JN - does that make my opinion more or less valid than yours? Of course not. The bottom line is that the suggestion there is some massive "natural ability" difference between the three we are discussing is somewhat laughable annnd I find it shocking that this is actually I legit discussion...

[hogans71]

[quote name='HCEG1' timestamp='1330294956' post='4382093']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1330294699' post='4382053']
[quote name='jaskanski' timestamp='1330293420' post='4381869']
See what I mean? The "natural" assumption (sic) is to align natural talent with achievements. I dare say there are probably guys at the local municipal with natural ability, but are somehow (according to the stretched logic ) bereft of any major trophies in their lockers.
[/quote]
Nobody has said they are talented purely based on achievement, so your point is not made.

[quote name='HCEG1' timestamp='1330293634' post='4381907']
I assume you are too young to have seen Nicklaus play in person. If so, please watch a lot of footage of him playing. He was mechanical, clinical, industrious and, as I mentioned previously, rather painful to watch.

Please don't tell me what Gary would say, as you have no idea of the number of times I see him in a year and I can tell you categorically that you're wrong. If we were discussing Hogan, however, it would be a whole lot different.
[/quote]

You know what they say about assuming don't you?

You have stated that Nicklaus was not naturally gifted and used examples of how he approached the game in support of that. I don't see the relationship and I also know that Nicklaus was a naturally gifted individual at a number of sports. He had an analytical approach to the game but that does not preclude him being naturally gifted - both mental and physical assets produced the results that we all know. Painful to watch? First time I have heard that and a rather bizarre thing to say.

I can also categorically tell you that you are wrong. Easily done! Neither of us will convince the other though so[b] it's best to leave it there and agree to disagree[/b].
[/quote]

No. Sorry. I'm right & you're grasping at straws
[/quote]

Wow...

Sad...

[spooky]

No. Sorry. I'm right & you're grasping at straws

 

Ok, if you say something it is a fact and not just your opinion. I will try and remember that in future.

 

You might like to improve your reading comprehension skills though, as there was nothing I said that could be construed as grasping at straws - I had simply said that we should leave it there as the conversation was not going to go anywhere. That seems to have proven to be correct.

[Woodridge]

[quote name='HCEG1' timestamp='1330293634' post='4381907']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1330289491' post='4381347']
[quote name='HCEG1' timestamp='1330283557' post='4380655']
Jack spent a gozillion hours with jack Grout holding his head still, beating balls into the sunset for years. His painstaking, scientific over analysis of every part of his game was truly painful to watch, nay endure. As for his putting technique
[/quote]

[quote name='HCEG1' timestamp='1330284883' post='4380807']
Jack was amazing in many ways, but nothing came naturally to him in golf
[/quote]

Utter nonsense. Gary Player and many others would disagree with your assessment.
[/quote]

I assume you are too young to have seen Nicklaus play in person. If so, please watch a lot of footage of him playing. He was mechanical, clinical, industrious and, as I mentioned previously, rather painful to watch.

Please don't tell me what Gary would say, as you have no idea of the number of times I see him in a year and I can tell you categorically that you're wrong. If we were discussing Hogan, however, it would be a whole lot different.
[/quote]

I saw Jack a number of times in person, starting at the 1978 U.S. Open. I don't recall him fighting with his body or being painful to watch. To each their own. Rory has a pretty swing for sure...

[HCEG1]

[quote name='hogans71' timestamp='1330295202' post='4382115']
[quote name='HCEG1' timestamp='1330293634' post='4381907']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1330289491' post='4381347']
[quote name='HCEG1' timestamp='1330283557' post='4380655']
Jack spent a gozillion hours with jack Grout holding his head still, beating balls into the sunset for years. His painstaking, scientific over analysis of every part of his game was truly painful to watch, nay endure. As for his putting technique
[/quote]

[quote name='HCEG1' timestamp='1330284883' post='4380807']
Jack was amazing in many ways, but nothing came naturally to him in golf
[/quote]

Utter nonsense. Gary Player and many others would disagree with your assessment.
[/quote]

I assume you are too young to have seen Nicklaus play in person. If so, please watch a lot of footage of him playing. He was mechanical, clinical, industrious and, as I mentioned previously, rather painful to watch.

Please don't tell me what Gary would say, as you have no idea of the number of times I see him in a year and I can tell you categorically that you're wrong. If we were discussing Hogan, however, it would be a whole lot different.
[/quote]

That doesn't take away from the fact that he was an all around athlete growing up and carried himself in such fashion. We are comparing JN and RM at ripe ol age of 22- just because you suggest he was "painful" to watch doesn't make it so. I've met and played behind JN - does that make my opinion more or less valid than yours? Of course not. The bottom line is that the suggestion there is some massive "natural ability" difference between the three we are discussing is somewhat laughable annnd I find it shocking that this is actually I legit discussion...
[/quote]


OK. let's change 'painful' to 'laborious' Having played behind him, you'll know that to be true

Natural born golfers are not, and have no need to be, laborious,

[spooky]

I've met and played behind JN - does that make my opinion more or less valid than yours? Of course not.

 

Wrong again - of course your opinion is less valid than his!!

[HCEG1]

[quote name='hogans71' timestamp='1330295376' post='4382139']
[quote name='HCEG1' timestamp='1330294956' post='4382093']
[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1330294699' post='4382053']
[quote name='jaskanski' timestamp='1330293420' post='4381869']
See what I mean? The "natural" assumption (sic) is to align natural talent with achievements. I dare say there are probably guys at the local municipal with natural ability, but are somehow (according to the stretched logic ) bereft of any major trophies in their lockers.
[/quote]
Nobody has said they are talented purely based on achievement, so your point is not made.

[quote name='HCEG1' timestamp='1330293634' post='4381907']
I assume you are too young to have seen Nicklaus play in person. If so, please watch a lot of footage of him playing. He was mechanical, clinical, industrious and, as I mentioned previously, rather painful to watch.

Please don't tell me what Gary would say, as you have no idea of the number of times I see him in a year and I can tell you categorically that you're wrong. If we were discussing Hogan, however, it would be a whole lot different.
[/quote]

You know what they say about assuming don't you?

You have stated that Nicklaus was not naturally gifted and used examples of how he approached the game in support of that. I don't see the relationship and I also know that Nicklaus was a naturally gifted individual at a number of sports. He had an analytical approach to the game but that does not preclude him being naturally gifted - both mental and physical assets produced the results that we all know. Painful to watch? First time I have heard that and a rather bizarre thing to say.

I can also categorically tell you that you are wrong. Easily done! Neither of us will convince the other though so[b] it's best to leave it there and agree to disagree[/b].
[/quote]

No. Sorry. I'm right & you're grasping at straws
[/quote]

[b]Wow...

Sad...
[/quote][/b]

but true....

[spooky]

No, just sad.

[HCEG1]

[quote name='spooky' timestamp='1330295805' post='4382195']
No, just sad.
[/quote]

A question to anyone with a handicap under 24, who has been around golf for more than 3 decades

Nicklaus was a cautious, conservative, methodical, painstaking, deliberate player. Yes or No?