http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/chris.baldwin?disp=comments en-US-utf8 http://backend.userland.com/rss 60 Sun, 07 Jan 2007 05:44:47 +0000 tom [Visitor] c46025@http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/ You hit it just right Bob http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/chris.baldwin/2006/01/08/vijay_singh_the_least_compelling_star_in#c46025 Tue, 20 Jun 2006 23:45:10 +0000 bob [Visitor] c23265@http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/ vijay is awesome. he is one hell of a funny guy, a great golfer and more of a human being than some jackball who blogs about golf. you are way off on this one. you must assume that because he doesn't endorse buicks or fear tiger and kiss is tush that vijay doesn't fit your mold. you are an idiot. http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/chris.baldwin/2006/01/08/vijay_singh_the_least_compelling_star_in#c23265 Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:53:56 +0000 phil [Visitor] c10222@http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/ get a life you sad man vijay is a great player and just because he isnt an arrogent prat like tiger doesnt mean he isnt a great golfer when you get to his level then you can critcise http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/chris.baldwin/2006/01/08/vijay_singh_the_least_compelling_star_in#c10222 Thu, 12 Jan 2006 01:14:33 +0000 Under Par [Visitor] c9765@http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/ David,<br /> <br /> I wasn't arguing about Hogan -- he very well might have been able to take them on. After all, he was a prodigy. However, the overall depth of the field is a different matter altogether.
I wasn't arguing about Hogan -- he very well might have been able to take them on. After all, he was a prodigy. However, the overall depth of the field is a different matter altogether.]]> http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/chris.baldwin/2006/01/08/vijay_singh_the_least_compelling_star_in#c9765 Thu, 12 Jan 2006 00:33:58 +0000 David [Visitor] c9755@http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/ >> However, to say that the skills of the average tour player today aren't better than those of the average of Hogan's day is ridiculous.<br /> <br /> Nope, my fault; I misread it. :)<br /> <br /> (I still think Hogan could take on some top PGA Tour players. :)<br /> <br /> I also didn't plan on ending up in a debate with someone who seems to be an expert in social science.<br /> <br /> David > However, to say that the skills of the average tour player today aren't better than those of the average of Hogan's day is ridiculous.

Nope, my fault; I misread it. :)

(I still think Hogan could take on some top PGA Tour players. :)

I also didn't plan on ending up in a debate with someone who seems to be an expert in social science.

David]]> http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/chris.baldwin/2006/01/08/vijay_singh_the_least_compelling_star_in#c9755 Wed, 11 Jan 2006 23:58:07 +0000 Under Par [Visitor] c9752@http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/ David,<br /> <br /> Your analogy proves my point! The argument didn't involve whether or not they are more talented today, only whether or not they're better today. If people find math easier today than thousands of years ago, they're better, plain and simple. WHY they're better is a different matter.<br /> <br /> Having said this, the talent pool HAS to be better today. Why? Because the best 100 out of a million will be better than the best 100 out of a thousand. And the fact is that there are far more people playing and competing today.<br /> <br /> Please don't tell me that I have to explain it more in depth than that.
Your analogy proves my point! The argument didn't involve whether or not they are more talented today, only whether or not they're better today. If people find math easier today than thousands of years ago, they're better, plain and simple. WHY they're better is a different matter.

Having said this, the talent pool HAS to be better today. Why? Because the best 100 out of a million will be better than the best 100 out of a thousand. And the fact is that there are far more people playing and competing today.

Please don't tell me that I have to explain it more in depth than that. ]]> http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/chris.baldwin/2006/01/08/vijay_singh_the_least_compelling_star_in#c9752 Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:07:15 +0000 David [Visitor] c9719@http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/ 'Under Par', I think you're wrong. To say modern-day pros are far better than in, say, Hogan's day, is pretty absurd. Talent is talent. The modern pros merely look better due to the improvements in course maintenaince and equipment technology.<br /> <br /> An analogy is the ancient mathematicians. There were mathematical geniuses in the year 2000 B.C., and there are mathematical geniuses today. Mathematicians thousands of years ago found division very difficult (now, 6 year olds find this easy!), but place Euclid in the year 2006, let him teach himself modern maths, and he would still be as clever as any living mathematician today.<br /> <br /> A genius is a genius, just as TALENT is TALENT. However, a genius can never, to a large extent, overcome the social limitations he/she inherits; just as a Hogan-era golfer could not smack the ball 400 yards with a pathetic wooden-headed club, or roll the ball perfectly over a then-furry green (with a silky smooth, pendulum stroke with no 'wrists').<br /> <br /> Golfers do not get more 'talented' - a talented person is superb no matter what; it depends on the state of the game as to what he/she can do with those skills. It's the same with everything else, really.<br /> <br /> Just think about it.
An analogy is the ancient mathematicians. There were mathematical geniuses in the year 2000 B.C., and there are mathematical geniuses today. Mathematicians thousands of years ago found division very difficult (now, 6 year olds find this easy!), but place Euclid in the year 2006, let him teach himself modern maths, and he would still be as clever as any living mathematician today.

A genius is a genius, just as TALENT is TALENT. However, a genius can never, to a large extent, overcome the social limitations he/she inherits; just as a Hogan-era golfer could not smack the ball 400 yards with a pathetic wooden-headed club, or roll the ball perfectly over a then-furry green (with a silky smooth, pendulum stroke with no 'wrists').

Golfers do not get more 'talented' - a talented person is superb no matter what; it depends on the state of the game as to what he/she can do with those skills. It's the same with everything else, really.

Just think about it. ]]> http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/chris.baldwin/2006/01/08/vijay_singh_the_least_compelling_star_in#c9719 Wed, 11 Jan 2006 05:25:05 +0000 Under Par [Visitor] c9695@http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/ David,<br /> <br /> Of course Woods is a better player, by more than just a little bit, too, I might add.<br /> <br /> However, to say that the skills of the average tour player today aren't better than those of the average of Hogan's day is ridiculous. Ever hear of talent pools and depth?
Of course Woods is a better player, by more than just a little bit, too, I might add.

However, to say that the skills of the average tour player today aren't better than those of the average of Hogan's day is ridiculous. Ever hear of talent pools and depth?]]> http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/chris.baldwin/2006/01/08/vijay_singh_the_least_compelling_star_in#c9695