http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/chris.baldwin?disp=comments en-US-utf8 http://backend.userland.com/rss 60 Thu, 23 Aug 2007 03:03:15 +0000 Frasier [Visitor] c54573@http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/ To be honest the argument is moot anyway, because there is no way any two of the 63s can be compared - they are all either on different courses or in different eras. I would say it was one of the greatest rounds I have ever seen in golf, not only because Tiger was in contention and didn't shoot the round when he could not win the tournament. It was also in a major. That is pretty special. I would say, for example, Tiger's round was better than Bjorn's 63 at the PGA 2 years ago, and I saw that one live and on television, because he didn't win the championship. <br /> <br /> All I am going to say is that I think it was one of the greatest I've seen. If you don't agree, that's fine, but it's all semantics anyway - we all agree it was an incredible round.
All I am going to say is that I think it was one of the greatest I've seen. If you don't agree, that's fine, but it's all semantics anyway - we all agree it was an incredible round.]]> http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/chris.baldwin/2007/08/13/even_after_13th_major_tiger_woods_63_at_#c54573 Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:20:27 +0000 Rick Montenegro [Visitor] c54398@http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/ Ok, we'll just call it one of the "greater rounds" of golf we've all seen. http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/chris.baldwin/2007/08/13/even_after_13th_major_tiger_woods_63_at_#c54398 Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:35:34 +0000 Judge Smails [Visitor] c54395@http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/ Rick,<br /> <br /> Yes, I was going to mention that it depends on what parameters you set for "greatest rounds." However, I'd venture to say that most people who would brand it as such aren't placing it in the context of the 72,000 rounds of the last four decades; rather, I think their frame of reference is defined by the stellar rounds that stand out in people's minds. <br /> <br /> Again, there's a difference between a "great" round and one of the "greatest" ones.
Yes, I was going to mention that it depends on what parameters you set for "greatest rounds." However, I'd venture to say that most people who would brand it as such aren't placing it in the context of the 72,000 rounds of the last four decades; rather, I think their frame of reference is defined by the stellar rounds that stand out in people's minds.

Again, there's a difference between a "great" round and one of the "greatest" ones.]]> http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/chris.baldwin/2007/08/13/even_after_13th_major_tiger_woods_63_at_#c54395 Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:28:06 +0000 Joe Cool [Visitor] c54392@http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/ Chris Critical,<br /> Tell me dude...when was the last time you shot 63? on a putt, putt? Tell me dude...when was the last time you shot 63? on a putt, putt?]]> http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/chris.baldwin/2007/08/13/even_after_13th_major_tiger_woods_63_at_#c54392 Thu, 16 Aug 2007 00:15:09 +0000 Rick Montenegro [Visitor] c54387@http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/ Oh, I read it.<br /> <br /> If we go with 150 golfers (80 after the cut) and 4 majors per year over the last 40 years alone..... 150x2x4x40 + 80x2x4x40= 72,000 rounds of golf.<br /> <br /> That means 99.97% of the rounds have been higher (with 23 rounds at 63).<br /> <br /> If being in the top 3 hundreths of one percent doesn't get you kudos I don't know what would.<br /> <br /> Fortunately, the "great round" tag is mostly subjective so we can all feel free to have differing opinions.
If we go with 150 golfers (80 after the cut) and 4 majors per year over the last 40 years alone..... 150x2x4x40 + 80x2x4x40= 72,000 rounds of golf.

That means 99.97% of the rounds have been higher (with 23 rounds at 63).

If being in the top 3 hundreths of one percent doesn't get you kudos I don't know what would.

Fortunately, the "great round" tag is mostly subjective so we can all feel free to have differing opinions.]]> http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/chris.baldwin/2007/08/13/even_after_13th_major_tiger_woods_63_at_#c54387 Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:28:08 +0000 Judge Smails [Visitor] c54385@http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/ Rick,<br /> <br /> You should read my analysis of a few days ago; I used hard facts to demonstrate that it was not, in fact, one of the "greatest rounds." That is, unless you would include at least 30 rounds in that category.
You should read my analysis of a few days ago; I used hard facts to demonstrate that it was not, in fact, one of the "greatest rounds." That is, unless you would include at least 30 rounds in that category.]]> http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/chris.baldwin/2007/08/13/even_after_13th_major_tiger_woods_63_at_#c54385 Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:09:13 +0000 Rick Montenegro [Visitor] c54383@http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/ Someone's going to have to give some credentials before they can say that wasn't one of the greatest rounds. You're in a major, fast greens, fairways as narrow as bowling alleys....<br /> <br /> Are rounds like this common for you?<br /> <br /> A single digit handicapper like myself would do well to break 100 there. 63 is amazing enough by itself but when you are talking about doing it in a Major... that's one of the greatest rounds.
Are rounds like this common for you?

A single digit handicapper like myself would do well to break 100 there. 63 is amazing enough by itself but when you are talking about doing it in a Major... that's one of the greatest rounds.]]> http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/chris.baldwin/2007/08/13/even_after_13th_major_tiger_woods_63_at_#c54383 Wed, 15 Aug 2007 07:36:58 +0000 Judge Smails [Visitor] c54372@http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/ merrin,<br /> <br /> No one said it wasn't a great round of golf, for it certainly was. It's just that it wasn't one of the greatest.
No one said it wasn't a great round of golf, for it certainly was. It's just that it wasn't one of the greatest.]]> http://www.travelgolf.com/blogs/chris.baldwin/2007/08/13/even_after_13th_major_tiger_woods_63_at_#c54372