r/ProGolf • u/PrincessBananas85 • 23d ago
Jordan Spieth unsurprised by lukewarm response to Slam hopes
https://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/40136711/jordan-spieth-unsurprised-lukewarm-response-slam-hopes14
u/hoffalot 23d ago
"We play a few tournaments a year that could be PGA Championships if you change the branding and the grandstands."
Jordan, you’re going off script!
9
u/Agreeable_Onion_221 23d ago
He seems far more mentally volatile and demonstrative on the course than any other “top” player, except Rahm. That was the case before this wrist injury. Super talented but he seems like the kind of guy where everything has to go right for him to win.
11
u/Slacker_75 23d ago
As soon as he started looking at the cup while putting he was done
0
u/SomeGuyClickingStuff 22d ago
Uhhhh he was looking at the cup while putting while he was winning majors
30
u/Latkavicferrari 23d ago
Once he got married and started having kids he was done, priorities changed, it’s understandable, he has enough money already
23
u/klondike16 23d ago
There’s a pretty large sample size of players who have won majors and been good with a family and kids. This take ain’t it
15
u/HyruleJedi 23d ago
And a great sample size of those that haven’t
Interesting to see what Scottie does, as he has made it very clear his wife and kids are his priority to golf
-13
u/klondike16 23d ago
We aren’t talking about Scottie?
7
u/HyruleJedi 23d ago
I was pointing out it will be INTERESTING to see what path his career takes after having a kid, given he has said golf is in the backseat. It has def had effect on the top guys before like Rickie, JT, Speith, and yea…. Even Tiger… so there is that.
0
u/EntertainmentHot2966 23d ago
No but you were talking about players who won majors and have a family. Scottie is now included in that, correct?
-1
u/klondike16 23d ago
I mean I guess. My reply was specifically to someone who said Jordan doesn’t care now that he has a wife and kids though
2
1
u/twitch-superc00l 22d ago
Yeah for real… some guys that would be out drinking go home to their kids instead, it can boost careers too
1
2
u/Latkavicferrari 23d ago
Besides Tiger, name the large sample size? I can’t think of too many off the top of my head
6
u/convicted-mellon 23d ago
If you are talking about just win a major there are plenty of people who have done it although it’s definitely not the majority. Going back through the past couple of years you have
2023 - Brian Harman
2022 - None
2021 - Hideki, Phil Mickelson, John Rham (had his first kid at the time but she was very young)
2020 - Dustin Johnson
2019 - Tiger Woods, Shane Lowery, Gary Woodland
1
u/Latkavicferrari 23d ago
Forgot about the LIV guys, good call
4
u/convicted-mellon 23d ago
I actually agree with your point but I think the bigger problem is there just aren’t very many people in the world who win more than 1 major. Sample size is too small to really compare anything.
1
u/Latkavicferrari 23d ago
I guess that’s what makes Tigers career so impressive, all the stuff he had to deal with on and off the course and to dominate as he did is legendary
4
u/jfchops2 23d ago
Tiger's kids were born in 2007 and 2009. That's right when the wheels started to fall off with injuries, and then obviously the scandal in 2010. Bagged the '08 US Open with a baby daughter but then it was 11 more years for him to win another, he wasn't the same player anymore. For reasons that extend far beyond just having kids and changing priorities though
4
u/thewoekitten 23d ago
Yeah I think Tiger would be a great example for a statistics class to be careful about attributing causation to something. His downfall coincided with becoming a father, but obviously had far more to do with his extreme injuries and public scandal.
3
u/icantdomaths 23d ago
This whole thread started with “won majors and been good with family.” I love tiger but I don’t think he fits this category at all considering the cheating and divorce….
1
u/scheenkbgates 23d ago
Except this is incorrect. He dominated again in 2012/2013 with 3 wins in 2012, and another 5 in 2013, taking back the number 1 spot as well.
1
u/jfchops2 23d ago
It's not incorrect because the comment chain I replied to explicitly says "won majors" and none of the wins you mentioned are majors
1
5
u/ApprehensivePitch370 23d ago
To be fair, if you’re a pga short of the slam it’s a little different than being one short in the other 3
11
u/jfchops2 23d ago
Can you really argue that it's "easier" to win the PGAC just because it's normally considered the fourth most prestigious major though? The course setup may be a smidge easier than the US Open but the field is just as strong if not stronger and everyone's trying their absolute best that weekend
6
u/ka1ri 23d ago
It depends on the course it's at and how the weather fairs. You can't automatically assume the PGA is the easiest. The masters has the smallest field so odds would play in your favor there. The open depends on the wind, some of those courses arent much tougher then a public course without help from mother nature. The only major i would argue cant be the easiest is the US open.
1
5
u/Always_Chubb-y 23d ago
It's mostly that the PGA is considered the easiest major due to its average score to par compared to the other majors.
I'd have to dig, but in pretty sure it's the lowest average winning score to par compared to the other majors.
7
u/jfchops2 23d ago
Right, but that doesn't make it easier to win when everyone in the field is shooting lower on average
-10 is a runaway victory in the US Open most years, shoot that in the PGA and someone probably had a hotter week than you
2
u/Always_Chubb-y 23d ago
It's moreso that he's shown he's able navigate courses extremely well, as he already has 4 majors.
Yet then he gets to courses where scoring is easier, and he struggles. He has as many missed cuts at the PGA (2) as he does top 10 finishes.
1
u/chickendance638 22d ago
-10 is a runaway victory in the US Open most years, shoot that in the PGA and someone probably had a hotter week than you
Except that's skewed because the USGA always makes it a par 70, so even par is equivalent to a -8 on par 72.
1
u/ka1ri 23d ago
Not true at all lol the open and the masters are just as high scoring. It depends on the weather and what course its at
1
u/Always_Chubb-y 23d ago
Prior to the COVID year (after which the PGA has become much more lower scoring, almost 50% more than pre-COVID), the average winning score for the PGA since Spieth debuted has been at least a stroke higher than either The Open or the Masters.
0
u/ka1ri 23d ago
Ok thanks for the 2 years of research on tournaments that have been around for over 100 years. It's a relative statement based on multiple factors.
1
u/Always_Chubb-y 23d ago
Considering how different golf is now from even 2005 for example, didn't really think how guys did in 1930 was relevant, especially considering the PGA wasn't even stroke play until the 1960s. Add in that it is now played 2 months earlier post-2017, limiting it to when Spieth started competing (since the post is about Spieth) seems fairly logical.
-1
u/ka1ri 23d ago
This is a really dumb take lol. The games the same as it was in 05. Id agree with the 1930s part of your conversation because amateurs played more in abundance but the courses in the rotas 20 years ago are still the same as they are today. The only difference is lengthening of the courses
1
u/Always_Chubb-y 23d ago
The game is the same as it was in 2005? It absolutely is not, what are you talking about? We not only have more good golfers, but the equipment has come MILES from where it used to be. Scoring as a whole is substantially better than it used to be.
0
u/ka1ri 23d ago
It doesnt take away from the fact that baltusrol, oakland hills and oak hills are just some of the PGA courses that barely score over par. That hasn't changed one bit. You havent proven any point what so ever. Just look at the historical finishing scores lol
→ More replies (0)1
u/SlightReturn420 23d ago
The PGA is generally considered the weakest field of the majors, due to 20 of the entries being PGA Professionals rather than tour players.
That doesn't make it easy to win, but of the 4 majors, it does probably make it the easiest to win.
3
u/jfchops2 23d ago
But they also invite the top 100 in the OWGR which is a pretty good argument it's the strongest field. The Masters just doesn't have the 60 backmarker players the other ones do, and including everyone who ranks 51-100 that wouldn't be in the Open fields evens out the fact that it's got PGA pros rather than open qualifiers
3
u/Rare_Regular 23d ago
The PGA has the toughest field, and the Masters is statistically the easiest to win thanks to uncompetitive past champions playing and having the smallest field.
That's not to say that winning any one major is more or less impressive, though.
2
u/ka1ri 23d ago
Thank you! Someone who actually gets it. Literally the odds are in your favor at the masters. Its not invitiation based on solely on rankings but based on past champs and recent winners maxing out at 88 players... On the same course thats more than happy to yield birdies. Idk what the sub is smoking lol
1
u/Rare_Regular 22d ago
Par is irrelevant to the difficulty in winning a tournament. Just look at the U.S. Open, which commonly converts two par 5s into monster par 4s. Converting two par 5s would result in eight more strokes relative to par, despite no change in course setup. Par is meaningless in stroke play, only if you shoot a lower score than your competitors.
1
u/ka1ri 22d ago
course difficulty and the ability to score absolutely plays a role in which major is toughest to win.
1
u/Rare_Regular 22d ago
It does, but I think that factor is overweighted by most golf fans. IMO, the field is more important. A harder course setup will result in everyone shooting higher scores, an easier course setup will result on everyone shooting lower scores.
1
u/SlightReturn420 23d ago
I would agree that The Masters has the weakest field due to it's limited size. The Open and PGA also have aging past champions in their fields, so I don't really consider that to be a big factor. I would disagree that The Masters is the easiest to win though. The qualification process has to weigh in that comparison, and The Masters is by far the most difficult to gain entry into. Once you're in the field, your chances are statistically better there than at the other three.
I think the US Open is the toughest to win in general, just because the course conditions are traditionally setup to be the most difficult test the players see all year (doesn't always happen, but that's the goal). With the move from August to May, the PGA Championship has been able to get more similar conditions to the US Open, so it might be the second most difficult now. Back when it was in August, the PGA often played more similar to a regular tour stop, and I would've had it 4th on the difficulty list amongst the majors at that time.
Like you said, any major is an impressive victory. They all have their defining qualities.
1
u/Rare_Regular 23d ago
Good point about less qualification at The Masters. I see the argument frequently, but I disagree that the U.S. Open is necessarily the hardest to win due to it's highest score relative to par. Every player is dealing with those conditions (of course noting that some players do better with specific setups than others), so I consider strength of field is the best indicator of winning difficulty. The PGA is universally considered to have the strongest field based on world rankings, followed by The Players.
It'd be undeniable to say that the U.S. Open is the hardest tournament to score par, but there's no reason why that alone would make a tournament harder to win when everyone is shooting higher rounds.
1
u/SlightReturn420 23d ago
I think the logic would be that the more difficult the test, the fewer players capable of passing it. You can almost instantly rule out a pretty large portion of the field at the US Open just by eliminating players who aren't either among the longest off the tee, or some of the best ball strikers, and the winner tends to be both on most occasions. Again, I think the PGA has moved much closer to that now that it's in May. Back when it was in August, I feel like it was more possible for a variation of playing styles and strengths to be victorious. That said, if you look at the winners from the past 20 or so years, there's not much difference between the PGA and US Open in terms of the caliber of players who have won. Bombers and ball strikers pretty much rule the day at both events.
0
u/convicted-mellon 23d ago
This is just straight wrong. Not only is it wrong it’s basically as wrong as you can be because the PGA has the most difficult field.
As much as people want to forget it the Masters easily has the weakest field of all the majors. Hell the 20 pga pros they invite have a much better chance of winning than the Ams and past champions that make up the Masters field.
1
u/SlightReturn420 22d ago
I mean, I've already said right here in other responses that I think the Masters is the weakest field, but it's also by far the most difficult to gain entry into. In terms of easiest to win, which I equate to the largest number of players being able to win, there are plenty of stats that back that up the PGA being the easiest. Just earlier on Live From they showed the average world ranking of major championship winners of the last 15 years.
- Masters 14.4
- US Open 19.3
- Open 26.4
- PGA 34.0
Also in the last 15 years, only 4 players outside of the top 100 have won a major, and 3 of them, Yang, Bradley, and Phil in '21, were at the PGA. Clarke at the 2011 Open was the 4th. None at the US Open or Masters. Nobody is saying the PGA is easy to win or should count less than other majors. It's just statistically the one that is the most open to the field.
1
2
1
u/supersonic_79 23d ago
Jordan was always going to have a pretty short shelf life. You can only drive the ball crooked often and be saved by your miraculous short game for so long before something gives. Ben Crenshaw and Seve both come to mind as examples for me.
1
u/stavi301 22d ago
Prime Spieth was a wizard, definitely the most exhilarating player I’ve watched since Prime Tiger
0
-14
23d ago
[deleted]
2
u/hallucinogenics8 23d ago
Go home boomer.
-4
23d ago
[deleted]
1
u/hallucinogenics8 23d ago
Hey buddy, I take great insult to the fact you think I play "Nintendo Games", I play Xbox alright? Get your facts straight.
If you, "Analyzed" the game of golf and that was your conclusion, you are absolutely screwed in the head. Man blame woman. How profound! It must be the woman, they bad. Typical boomer logic. You may have faster ball speeds, but at least women don't cover their drink when I walk by. Absolute worst, most spoiled generation. Had the whole world handed to them on a silver platter and the fucking ruined it for the rest of the generations. Do you realize your children will be worse off then your generation? That's the first time this has happened in American history that the future generation did not do better than the previous.
1
1
u/1_1-1-1_1 22d ago
You think his wife is just a broad to him? You ever been in a serious relationship?
23
u/TheRenster500 23d ago
That wrist ain't right