Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RickyHarris I know I'm young but youngsters are starting to get more and more overrated. Michelle Wie I am starting to find, isn't actually that good. Philip Francis from the USA isn't actually that good.
Aronn Badely, Ty Tyron, Charles Howell are all not as good as what everyone made out they were. None of them can compete on tour. Well very rarely. |
I agree. Especially in the case of Ty Tryon - it was a bad move to be pushed on tour so young.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RickyHarris It's about there handicaps trust me. When they were like 16, 17 I bet they all had these really low handicaps that they could never play to. |
What? The USGA figures that you'll play to your handicap 1/4 of the time. If they honestly could not play to their handicap regularily, it would go up. That's the point of the handicap system.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RickyHarris And because they were off like +3 +2 everyone thought WOW we have to get ahold of this young player. I play with a few boys in my county who aren't actually good at all but are off 2,3,4 handicaps. I can compete with them SO SO easily and I'm off 10. |
I'm willing to bet wet fish that the difference between the few boys and you is short game.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RickyHarris My club pro is pretty strict on our handicaps and never lets them get too low for us. |
I'm really, really interested in how he does this. Where I come from, keeping your handicap high
intentionally is known as sandbagging - a less than honest practice. Be careful, Ricky.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RickyHarris And guess what they all play for wales. And if some welsh coaches saw me maybe they would think i have good potential but because my handicap is 10 they think. NO GOOD.
And another thing you will see is all the young players who everyone thinks is gona be AMAZING have developed a lot quicker than all the other juniors. SO they are stronger taller and more mature. So obviously they have an advantage with distance and stuff. But then all the juniors who aren't standing out so much. And maybe with higher handicaps catch them all up with size and distance. SO then their short game and iron game is twice as good as the supposed AMAZING POTENTIAL players and just kick all thier asses. Then they find that they are no where near good enough to compete on tour. |
That's a pretty succinct concept of trying to pick out 'the best of the bunch' in early teen years. However, the caveat is that the physically 'undeveloped' players
must have killer short games to be able to compete. If one of these 'developed' players has a killer short game, and now has distance to boot, just growing up wouldn't put you in an ass-kicking position.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RickyHarris That's why I think maybe I can be a very good player. I am very small and lightweight for my age. And although I don't stand out much in competitions and county events because there are like 13 year olds off stupid handicaps I feel I can soon kick all their butts.
Anyone agree? Aabout the developing and sometimes the handicap business.
Rick |
The old saying goes - a good putter is a match for anyone. You could be very good, as long as when you miss greens, your opponents don't start thinking 'now he's done'. In other words, your short game has to be able to get you close enough to the pin to one putt (this generally means inside of 6').
Generally I agree with the developing thing, but I totally disagree with the handicap thing. In golf, assuming they're honest about their handicap, and that they're submitting ALL their scores, then I would take a +3 player over a 10, too. It's the easiest and most visible indicator of your golfing ability.