Phil shows the way for older athletes....

.....months short of his 51st birthday on a ludicrously hard golf course Mickelson takes the PGA. Incredibly the old man regularly whipped his drives past 31 year old muscle man Koepka, showing old guys can live athletically with younger opponents.

This was a master class, one of the great golfing wins, one for the ages, leaving the youth brigade in tatters. One stunning statistic is the top 7 players, those with a chance of pulling it off averaged almost 40 years old....39.7 actually. Harry Hicks was the only player in his twenties in the group of seven.

Mickelson accomplished this because  he refused to accept he was done. He played 2 or 3 rounds a day to ensure he could sustain his concentration for a full round. Guys like Ernie, equally talented, were mentally retired in their mid 40s.

As Feder, Nadal and now Mickelson have shown....with modern health aids careers can be extended. The Lions team at almost 30 is another example of this undeniable trend. 

But today was a great day for all sportsmen....sporting life doesn’t end at 30.

Not exactly what I would call athletes, golf is much more a skill sport than an athletic sport. 

If they had to run the course and put time limits on it I don't think you would see so many of the older players featuring on the winners podium.

Yes you need to be fit and flexible to play but you don't need to be a top athlete to compete do you.

Would you be going on as much if an 80 year old took out the world tiddlywinks tournament because according to you he would be classified as an athlete as well.

Mozart - the age maniac is at it again.   Even though what he wrote has nothing to do  with rugby and should be posted elsewhere he raise the issue of aging  players  in individual sport in a place where rugby  as a team sport is discussed.    

He even in that got it wrong,   Federer has done nothing this year and was embarrassed in the three games he did play,    Compared to previous years both Nadal's and Djokovic's performances this year was below par.    Since October last year the two lost games in virtually all tournaments  they played in and the fact is that Nadal won only two tournaments and Djokovic only one.    Even in the tournaments they won  they struggled in matches and was lucky to win -

*    Djokovic was taken to five sets in the Aussie Open by Taylor Fritz who is ranked as the number  33 player in the  world at present md won the fifth set by the skin of his teeth; and

*    Nadal  was taken to three sets in Rome by Shapovalov with  the latter having two match points in the third set -which he fouled up giving Nadal the chance to beat him.

Must be seen in context though -  Shapovalov was easily beaten by Ruud  in the  Geneva final on Saturday.    The former is by a long shot not the best player around..

Mozart will always be  desperate to somewhere  find  rare examples he could use where aged players win in anything  to support his crazy idea that age does not affect performances of players..                   .        

Sader.....golf is the most skilled sport, requiring incredible hand eye coordination. Driving the ball over 300 yards is akin to a 100 mph fast ball, a 50 yard goal kick or a 140 mph serve......all of which are regarded as phenomenal athletic feats. Or if you like throwing the javelin or the discus....are those events not athletic events?

Pervie those arguments against the big three in tennis are pathetic. Come back when your hero Medvedev finally wins a Grand Slam event. But what about me.....at age 73 I apparently beat Tsitsipas, explain that one to us..,,,bwaaaaaaaaaahahahaha!

I have to agree with Mozart. In order to hit the ball over 300 yards, you have to be able to swing the club at 120 mph. Not easy, when you have to  connect a little ball and then try to control it. 

Also, golf is one of the few sports that actually burns a lot of calories. Although, the biggest problem that golfers have is normally with the 19th hole. Once the get stuck in there, it is hard to leave and it has a massive impact on their body. 

Mickelson is probably one of those unfortunate gifted golfers that had to make way for Tiger woods. 

Woods who had one of the longes drives suffered from back injuries from a young age as his swing meant that he would not be able to cary on as he did. 

It is okay for ammeters to go and flop around, but golf at pro level is extremely taxing. 

Ernie els wasted his talent with way to much drinking and not looking after himself

Aye, Rodgers and Brady, more athletes showing up the young guns. 43 year old Brady just ended 25 year old Mahome's legacy . 

Brady is an amazing athlete...we should put Mornè on his diet.

In all seriousness, we should. That's assuming Morné isn't very efficient in maintaining his body. What's amazing about Brady is that every season tests are run on players not to see how well they perform, but to detect regression. Brady has gotten a little quicker and stronger every year as he has aged. He started this in 2004, well ahead of the trendies.

I'd say the greatest athlete of all time is Alexandre Karelin, the legendary Greco-Roman wrestler. His training would kill the average human. 

Corn I once accessed some putting data that showed for as long as the data was available (more than 10 years I believe) Els gave up half a stroke a round to the field putting. By contrast Woods gained half a stroke on the field.

Meaning Ernie was giving up 4 strokes to Tiger just on the greens. If Ernie could have putted like Tiger he would have won many more Majors....the 2004 Masters for example which he lost to Phil by one shot. In all his majors Ernie was in the top five 23 times and he won 4 times. Give him 4 strokes and he would have won a number of the other 19.

But you’re right Ernie liked the amber  nick, that and his injury boating really hurt his career.

So perhaps we can actually put a number on competitiveness....the number of wins divided by the number of seconds.....showing ability to close the deal when in contention. Outright capability is probably best shown by firsts and seconds divided by the number of majors played.

But the competitiveness index and it’s inverse the chokers index if you read it from the lowest number,  is interesting. Here are most of the post WW2 greats:

Nicklaus won 18/ runner up 19 times...... index 0.95

Phil won 6 times/runner up 11 times.... index 0.54

Arnie won 7 times/runner up 9 times... index 0.78

Tom Watson won 8 times/ runner up 8 times....index 1.0

Tiger won 15/ runner up 6 times..... index 2.5

Ernie won 4/ runner up 6 times... index  0.67

Snead won 7/runner up 8 times.... index 0.87

Norman won 2 /runner up 8 times... index 0.25

Ben Hogan 9 majors/ runner up 6 times .... index 1.5

Gary Player 9 majors/ runner up 6 times... index 1.5

Your top four competitors are Woods at 2.5, Player and Hogan at 1.5 and Watson at 1.0.....Nicklaus at 0.95 is essentially tied with Watson

Your top three chokers are Norman at 0.25, Phil at 0.54, Ernie at 0.67 and Palmer at 0.78.

And these findings do fit with intuition....Woods, Hogan and Player as steely competitors. But Tiger is in a league of his own here...the inverse of Els and Mickelson....just another angle that says he is the GOAT.

Norman as the biggest choker in the history of the game. But choking need not be forever as Phil showed us yesterday with his brave win.

Sure individual games and team games are similar so it is possible got players to be the same in all codes of sport.     Is golf a contact sport like rugby dim fool?     Why is this discussion of golf on the rugby forum.   It belongs under an appropriate forum and can be debated there,

Denny open a discussion of  Phil's win under "Other Sports" where it belongs?   Why is this discussion   cluttering  up the rugby forum? 

Ah, Lügnerin, just like Herr Omlett, loses the argument and now becomes a hypocrite for demanding the offending topic be moved in the correct category. Hilarious! 

Since you are totally ignorant  when to comes to rugby  I assume that you agree with Mozart that the only thing required from players is to keep fit and that they can do in garages,.    No team coaching is necessary according to him and no game plans either,   That is obviously why  the two of you support the coaching of  the disastrous Meyer and Coetzee and cannot stand Erasmus, 

Lets say like birds total idiots flock together,.        

What Argentina showed was courage and personal responsibility to be game day ready. As per gameplan? What do you suppose the Argies defeated the All Blacks with? Strong people overcome obstacles, weak people use them as excuses. I guess I know what you are... 

I know you are a complete rugby illiterate  - so les keep that as the absolute truth.   There is zero chance that Morne would ever be selected by experts like Erasmus to destroy the Springbok team.             

John Daly

https://youtu.be/KKkwim3w8I0

On current form, Morné is better than Jantjies. There are no alternatives, not unless you want Bosch or Willemse to face the Lions. Nothing would surprise me at this point, you were thee one after all who listed Pienaar at 6 once upon ago 

PS - "Under no chances will Erasmus selct the hasbeen (Schalk Brits) for the (WC) squad".

Careful Lügnerin, you're not always as in sync with Josè as you think. The Josè who exists in your mind, and in your perverted dreams, doesn't exist in reality. 

Nicklaus is the greatest of all time with 18 majors.

I love the hypocrisy of the Old Queen. How many postings has he put on the Rugby section about his family and their farm....but a posting about a golf win which has possible implications for all sports, including rugby is out of bounds.

I don’t particularly admire Tiger on a personal basis HasBeen. But I have had dinner with Jack and he isn’t exactly warm and fuzzy. So the comparison is best left on a golfing basis. Both have claims. 

As the above analysis shows Tiger, when in position, converted more often. Ultimately Jack still has those extra majors having played in many more majors than Tiger,  whose back curtailed his career. Still number of majors is the purest metric.

That said I don’t believe anybody has ever played better golf than Tiger did between 2000 and 2007.

Liar - liar, your pants are on fire.    As per normal BS alert is necessary.   

Wehe . . . ou Maaik, the low-class proven liar . . . calling someone else a liar!

What next?

Number of majors might seem like the purest metric but Nicklaus, Palmer and Player won their majors when there were a small number of true golf professionals (by today's standards) capable of winning majors whereas in Tiger's generation there were probably hundreds. 

Factor in Tiger's injuries and his collapse that followed the intense social scrutiny after his marriage fell apart . . . followed by his incredible comeback Masters victory in 2019 and I make him the greatest ever.

PS Well done to Phil Mickelson. Never my favourite and I was pulling for Louis all the way but credit where it's due, a phenomenal achie vement that may not be repeated for decades.