Bubba Watson - Can He Carry the Torch?

[Tadashi70]

When he was on the Nationwide Tour he was notorious for not being able to keep his cool when it came to patron chit chat. I actually think he has an OCD problem or something.

GC ran a piece on him tonight! He seems to have turned the corner with his anger issues. Watch the piece if you get a chance


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tadashi70]

I see Bubba as falling back closer to the pack in the not too distant future. His swing is idiosyncratic, and that usually leads to inconsistency. He may continue to make a good living on Tour, but I don't see him as climbing to superstar status.

I have two words for you, Lee Trevino. Crazy swing, free spirit, lots of demons and one if the best to play the tour.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wicked Cool Bearded Man]

There's another guy who everyone said had an awkward swing, his name was Arnold Palmer....

 

[Goins]

Two words, Padraig Harrington! I think this is just Bubbas 15 minutes. I like him and enjoy watching him play, I just think his crazy swing is going to be his downfall.

 

[Tadashi70]

There's another guy who everyone said had an awkward swing, his name was Arnold Palmer....

+1 the king! Nuff said


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tadashi70]

Two words, Padraig Harrington! I think this is just Bubbas 15 minutes. I like him and enjoy watching him play, I just think his crazy swing is going to be his downfall.

26 wins and 3 majors over a 14 year pro career, I'll take that 15 minutes. That would make Bubba's time more 2 minutes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[checkered]

I like bubba, and would love to see him win more. I think he'll always be a bit streaky though. I do hope he proves me wrong with that though.

 

[pjcedog]

26 wins and 3 majors over a 14 year pro career, I'll take that 15 minutes. That would make Bubba's time more 2 minutes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree with this - Paddy Harrington is a terrific player, has been for a long time, he is not a flash in the pan at all. If Bubba is still winning tournaments in 5 years I will be very surprised, his body has got to wear down from that high velocity swing. If he loses on tiny nerve's worth of feel too he will not be able to control it any more, lets hope he stays healthy and playing well because it is fun to watch. He may just be a late bloomer and win 10 or 15 more events in the next few years, that would be great.

 

[Vegan702]

Three wins in 19 starts, flash in the pan? Then who is your pick of the younger set?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't consider Bubba part of the younger set. In all honesty, I don't see a player currently on the tour who can dominate like Phil or Tiger right now. Sure you will get a guy who has a good year or two, but I don't see anybody who will win multiple times year after year and for a lengthy period of time. So for me a flash in the pan is Bubba, as he will have a good year and maybe next year, but don't see him winning more than 10 times on tour. As someone else stated, there is either too many talented players so someone winning like Tiger or Phil won't happen anytime soon, or as I think the current crop of players just isn't as talented as they were/are and they will all win here and there, but nobody will distinguish themselves from the pack and dominate.

 

[Smallville]

I don't consider Bubba part of the younger set. In all honesty, I don't see a player currently on the tour who can dominate like Phil or Tiger right now. Sure you will get a guy who has a good year or two, but I don't see anybody who will win multiple times year after year and for a lengthy period of time. So for me a flash in the pan is Bubba, as he will have a good year and maybe next year, but don't see him winning more than 10 times on tour. As someone else stated, there is either too many talented players so someone winning like Tiger or Phil won't happen anytime soon, or as I think the current crop of players just isn't as talented as they were/are and they will all win here and there, but nobody will distinguish themselves from the pack and dominate.

I had a post all ready to go but you pretty much took it out from underneath me! I'm not sure I totally agree with what you said, but I was definitely thinking it.

MY post was:

Several have mentioned there is a lot more talent on tour now so it's harder to dominate. I'd like to throw out this hypothesis: Could it be that there is a lot LESS talent out there now which is why so many more people win or have a chance to win? Whether it's true or not, if people are saying the first thing, this has to be considered. Perhaps when Jack was winning, there was more talent, but because he won so much, they obviously didn't. Same with Tiger when he was good. Now that there isn't someone dominant, now these lesser players are just taking turns winning.

Just playing devil's advocate here.

 

[Tadashi70]

I don't consider Bubba part of the younger set. In all honesty, I don't see a player currently on the tour who can dominate like Phil or Tiger right now. Sure you will get a guy who has a good year or two, but I don't see anybody who will win multiple times year after year and for a lengthy period of time. So for me a flash in the pan is Bubba, as he will have a good year and maybe next year, but don't see him winning more than 10 times on tour. As someone else stated, there is either too many talented players so someone winning like Tiger or Phil won't happen anytime soon, or as I think the current crop of players just isn't as talented as they were/are and they will all win here and there, but nobody will distinguish themselves from the pack and dominate.

Great points, I agree with you on TW and Phil. They spoiled us all!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mardin]

I really like Bubba and think he is good for the game in the long run. He will win a a bunch more tourneys in his carreer and I think he will win at least one major. Rickie Fowler is also a player like Bubba. Entertaining, fun, good for the game, but still need to prove himself (more so than Bubba).

 

[Lukey719]

I wouldn't mind seeing Bubba be a powerhouse for a while. He's a great golfer and definitely fun to watch, but can he do it...?
I think he can do it, but he has to keep his mind in check. I feel like he lets his game get too mental sometimes and messes up a good round.
I hope he does carry the torch for a while I'd love to see him win a lot and maybe even win a major!

 

[pjcedog]

I have been watching and playing golf for over 40 years and my opinion is that the average player today is longer, straighter, is a better putter and overall just has better training and more talent than the average player from the 1960s or 70s. Part of it is the talent coming in from all over the world, the larger the pool of talent the better the players, why Florida, California and Texas produce so many great football players, larger talent pools. The development of players at a younger age is also a factor. There were guys playing against Palmer and Nicklaus every week back in the 50s and 60s that wouldn't be able to make cuts regularly on the Nationwide tour today. Just my opinion.

 

[Tadashi70]

I have been watching and playing golf for over 40 years and my opinion is that the average player today is longer, straighter, is a better putter and overall just has better training and more talent than the average player from the 1960s or 70s. Part of it is the talent coming in from all over the world, the larger the pool of talent the better the players, why Florida, California and Texas produce so many great football players, larger talent pools. The development of players at a younger age is also a factor. There were guys playing against Palmer and Nicklaus every week back in the 50s and 60s that wouldn't be able to make cuts regularly on the Nationwide tour today. Just my opinion.

So what your saying is Watson, Player, Hogan,Chi Chi, Weiskop, Miller, Watkins, Kite, Trevino, Irwin, Floyd, Sifford, Pete could make the cut in a Nationwide event? Just wanted to be clear.
You know what is remarkable about the old timers, they played with the equipment of the day and crushed it. They played on green that are like some modern day fairways. They drove to alot of their events, had second jobs but still managed to Win a few events and majors.
Todays player is longer in great part to the advancement in golf equipment. Today's player would have fits playing with an old wooden headed driver or blades from the past. equipment has made some average player good. good players great.
The talent pool is deeper now because of those boys that played back when you where a younger man.

 

[Vegan702]

But they weren't playing 7800yd courses back then either. Equipment matched the courses and times they played back then as it does now to a degree. I will say now they do probably have a slight advantage with length vs the old timers when comparing equipment against the course length.

 

[pjcedog]

So what your saying is Watson, Player, Hogan,Chi Chi, Weiskop, Miller, Watkins, Kite, Trevino, Irwin, Floyd, Sifford, Pete could make the cut in a Nationwide event? Just wanted to be clear.
You know what is remarkable about the old timers, they played with the equipment of the day and crushed it. They played on green that are like some modern day fairways. They drove to alot of their events, had second jobs but still managed to Win a few events and majors.
Todays player is longer in great part to the advancement in golf equipment. Today's player would have fits playing with an old wooden headed driver or blades from the past. equipment has made some average player good. good players great.
The talent pool is deeper now because of those boys that played back when you where a younger man.

What I said was the greats would still be great, almost none of those players you mention were average players in their time. That is like saying there is no difference today between Ernie Els and Briny Baird. There are hundreds of players from that time period who were filling out fields of 70 or 80 players, players that you can't name and never heard of because they didn't ever win then either. The players you mention here were all good or even great players in their day but ask any of them if they could win today like they did then and very few of them would tell you it would not be much, much harder today to win. I know exactly how the equipment has changed, I played with persimmon woods and balata balls for 20 years and I hit the ball 250-275 with that equipment and no I don't score significantly better or worse today than I did in 1975, partly because I am older but also because the golf courses are longer and the greens are much more difficult to putt and to hold. People tend to want to diminish what is going on today for some reason, I am not sure why. You send Padraig Harrington or Ernie Els or Vijay in his prime back to 1960s golf land and even with that old equipment they are going to be winning 4 or 5 tournaments a year, every year.

 

[the_paulo]

What I said was the greats would still be great, almost none of those players you mention were average players in their time. That is like saying there is no difference today between Ernie Els and Briny Baird. There are hundreds of players from that time period who were filling out fields of 70 or 80 players, players that you can't name and never heard of because they didn't ever win then either. The players you mention here were all good or even great players in their day but ask any of them if they could win today like they did then and very few of them would tell you it would not be much, much harder today to win. I know exactly how the equipment has changed, I played with persimmon woods and balata balls for 20 years and I hit the ball 250-275 with that equipment and no I don't score significantly better or worse today than I did in 1975, partly because I am older but also because the golf courses are longer and the greens are much more difficult to putt and to hold. People tend to want to diminish what is going on today for some reason, I am not sure why. You send Padraig Harrington or Ernie Els or Vijay in his prime back to 1960s golf land and even with that old equipment they are going to be winning 4 or 5 tournaments a year, every year.

Just for the record, I tend to agree with this.

 

[Tadashi70]

But they weren't playing 7800yd courses back then either. Equipment matched the courses and times they played back then as it does now to a degree. I will say now they do probably have a slight advantage with length vs the old timers when comparing equipment against the course length.

The equipment didn't allow for it. Today's equipment makes it imperative that golf courses are long. Hartford, Harbour town and other short tracks are becoming relics.

 

[Tadashi70]

What I said was the greats would still be great, almost none of those players you mention were average players in their time. That is like saying there is no difference today between Ernie Els and Briny Baird. There are hundreds of players from that time period who were filling out fields of 70 or 80 players, players that you can't name and never heard of because they didn't ever win then either. The players you mention here were all good or even great players in their day but ask any of them if they could win today like they did then and very few of them would tell you it would not be much, much harder today to win. I know exactly how the equipment has changed, I played with persimmon woods and balata balls for 20 years and I hit the ball 250-275 with that equipment and no I don't score significantly better or worse today than I did in 1975, partly because I am older but also because the golf courses are longer and the greens are much more difficult to putt and to hold. People tend to want to diminish what is going on today for some reason, I am not sure why. You send Padraig Harrington or Ernie Els or Vijay in his prime back to 1960s golf land and even with that old equipment they are going to be winning 4 or 5 tournaments a year, every year.

In all fairness you did say average, I stand corrected. But how many nationwide tour players can you name? I ask because the same average players have been present through out golf. Longer, straighter does not produce wins. I know 50 guys that hit long and straight and putt well that will never win on any tour.
This debate has been going on forever. Would the old timers play well today with today's equipment, I say yes. Would today's average player play well with old school equipment, I say no. Why? Today every pro on tour has access to state of the art technology. The golf ball is matched to your swing speed for maximum performance. The shafts, heads are all matched. Back in the day they my have made a tweak here or there but for the most part they hit what they liked and won. Based on this the average player today has every advantage but never gets out of the shadow of average. I'll take old school average over new school.

 

[the_paulo]

In all fairness you did say average, I stand corrected. But how many nationwide tour players can you name? I ask because the same average players have been present through out golf. Longer, straighter does not produce wins. I know 50 guys that hit long and straight and putt well that will never win on any tour.
This debate has been going on forever. Would the old timers play well today with today's equipment, I say yes. Would today's average player play well with old school equipment, I say no. Why? Today every pro on tour has access to state of the art technology. The golf ball is matched to your swing speed for maximum performance. The shafts, heads are all matched. Back in the day they my have made a tweak here or there but for the most part they hit what they liked and won. Based on this the average player today has every advantage but never gets out of the shadow of average. I'll take old school average over new school.

It's a flawed argument though, since the players nowadays learned with the new equipment. You can't say what they might have done had they been given the old equipment from the start.

 

[pjcedog]

In all fairness you did say average, I stand corrected. But how many nationwide tour players can you name? I ask because the same average players have been present through out golf. Longer, straighter does not produce wins. I know 50 guys that hit long and straight and putt well that will never win on any tour.
This debate has been going on forever. Would the old timers play well today with today's equipment, I say yes. Would today's average player play well with old school equipment, I say no. Why? Today every pro on tour has access to state of the art technology. The golf ball is matched to your swing speed for maximum performance. The shafts, heads are all matched. Back in the day they my have made a tweak here or there but for the most part they hit what they liked and won. Based on this the average player today has every advantage but never gets out of the shadow of average. I'll take old school average over new school.

Not sure what forever means to you, I don't remember hearing this discussed until big head drivers and 2 piece balls became widely used on tour. That was all less than 15 years ago, not long in my opinion. Without looking at last weekend's leaderboard before posting I seem to remember that Harrison Frazar, Brendan Todd, Brett Wetterich, Cameron Percy, Nicholas Thompson all have played Nationwide Tour his year. I am responding to this however only to make another point : Questioning another's competence to state their own opinion about a subject when they know nothing about that person is of questionable value in any conversation. I know there is a lot of it going around these days in all walks of life. I also know that if I can't make a reasonable argument in favor or against someone else's opinion without questioning that person's competence to state their own opinion then it really just says to me that I have a weak argument in support of my own opinion. Golf is just as hard from 100 yards and in as it was 30 or 40 years ago, in fact I believe it is harder with super fast greens everywhere. Yes the equipment has made the game easier for average people who wouldn't likely have been able to play and enjoy it 30 years ago, but winning on tour is as much about not choking today as it was 40 years ago, the main reason Jack won is because he never choked, ever. Not because he was the longest hitter.

 

[pjcedog]

It's a flawed argument though, since the players nowadays learned with the new equipment. You can't say what they might have done had they been given the old equipment from the start.

Good point, hadn't thought about it that way.

 

[Sean]

The equipment didn't allow for it. Today's equipment makes it imperative that golf courses are long. Hartford, Harbour town and other short tracks are becoming relics.

I don't know about that. -12 was the winning score at The Heritage. -14 won the Masters. A course doesn't have to be long to be challenging.

 

[Tadashi70]

Not sure what forever means to you, I don't remember hearing this discussed until big head drivers and 2 piece balls became widely used on tour. That was all less than 15 years ago, not long in my opinion. Without looking at last weekend's leaderboard before posting I seem to remember that Harrison Frazar, Brendan Todd, Brett Wetterich, Cameron Percy, Nicholas Thompson all have played Nationwide Tour his year. I am responding to this however only to make another point : Questioning another's competence to state their own opinion about a subject when they know nothing about that person is of questionable value in any conversation. I know there is a lot of it going around these days in all walks of life. I also know that if I can't make a reasonable argument in favor or against someone else's opinion without questioning that person's competence to state their own opinion then it really just says to me that I have a weak argument in support of my own opinion. Golf is just as hard from 100 yards and in as it was 30 or 40 years ago, in fact I believe it is harder with super fast greens everywhere. Yes the equipment has made the game easier for average people who wouldn't likely have been able to play and enjoy it 30 years ago, but winning on tour is as much about not choking today as it was 40 years ago, the main reason Jack won is because he never choked, ever. Not because he was the longest hitter.

If I'm reading this right I have offended you, for that I am sorry it was not my intention. I respect all
That you wrote and it's good food for
Thought. I was trying to offer my point of view not to win but just to share. Again if I spoke out of turn please accept my humble apology.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk