PGA Tour (sort of): Dog-Eared Crackers from the Ballwasher

First topic message reminder :

Nothing happening in golf right now, other than a sneaky plan to redesign the 12th hole at TPC Sawgrass into a driveable Par-4, instead of a precision Par-4 - don't see the point of that, but haven't seen the plans yet.

So let's be having you with a motley cru of PGA/Champions Tour-related trivia, some old chesnuts, but some new conkers, if not stonkers:


1).He beat two Hall Of Famers (and the other arguably would've been) in a 100% winning individual, albeit short, Ryder Cup career, but missed out in his first attempt at a Champions Tour card. From I'm never wrong: Paul Broadhurst.

2).The only Presidents Cup player from Lebanon. And Mac correctly called Baddeley, born in Lebanon, NH, when his Dad was working in NASCAR.

3).Tom Purtzer, Jim Thorpe and Bob Tway have something unique in common. What?

4).This PGA Tour veteran has at least two (and possibly as many as four, can't be bothered to count) more "podium finishes" in the past four seasons than anyone else who hasn't registered a win during that time.
GPB with the correct answer: Jason Bohn.

5).The only Major Champion of the past 30 years, and probably longer, who was educated in Greece. Jeff Sluman, GPB making an educated choice.

6).What do Bob Estes, Carl Pettersson and John Senden have in common?

7).Seven of the PGA Tour golfers who will turn 50 in 2016 will be eligible for an immediate two-year exemption into all Champions Tour events. One of them will have a lifetime membership (subject to the scoring average which applies to all Champions Tour members). Who? pedro: Olazabal. Correct!

8).Since 1998, not many golfers have earned their first victory in one year, scored another later that year, and won two the following year. But these two have done, though neither ever won again after those first four.
Who are they? GPB again, with Notah Begay and Robert Allenby.



That's enough. All answers should reference the number of the question. Any partial answers not 100% correct will be considered 100% incorrect!

Good luck, and Happy New Year!

Robert Rock. So like you Mac, felt that Purtzer, Tway and Thorpe not unique in this case as I didn't think Kwini meant only on the PGA Tour....

I didn't know the answer, I just thought it would be a decent bit of extra trivia and follow up question. Kwini was pretty clear several times that it was PGA tour related.

I think Aguilar, Ross McGowan and a Japanese golfer cashed in when Danny Lee won as an amateur a few years ago . . . . .

...and somebody else when Pablo Martin won Portuguese Open

When Tiger first won the masters who was the best placed white golfer ready to pick up the 1st prize cheque?

Tommy Tolles. Tom Kite was second but his face is red.

Tom Kite, the only man with a worse complexion than Niki Lauda

The missing link between Ian Woosnam and tortoises.

I'm sure Big Phil climbs on kwini's sh!t list after this..

https://mobile.twitter.com/PGATOUR/status/681954096316858368

Trouble is pedro, you can imagine 100% of the Tour pros would have the same sh1t eating grin on their face with the war criminal - the ones who recognized him anyway.

We have the leading Republican loudmouth in our little town on Thursday. Imagine he'll slag off Bernie who actually lives here. My son sat behind Bern at the Big Short last week - Bernie probably wrote some of it.

Kwini, do you think Obama's proposed restructuring of the gun laws are going to push more bible thumping, red neck Americans toward the Trump?

Who knows? Cruz will probably win the Iowa Caucus which is the first litmus test, and he may be more dangerous yet. Keeping his powder dry right now, but $gazillions of Texas fracking money behind him.

Not completely clear what the President will really do, other than enforcing laws that are already on the books. Our State has just about the loosest gun laws in the country and no-one here seems to give a damn - gang-related murder Downtown on Boxing Day and you'd think that would shake 'em up, but not a bit of it.

Went to a City Council Meeting a couple of years ago where they were discussing local gun ordinances and every NRA member from the proverbial forty counties turned up - most intimidating/scariest mob I've ever witnessed. Worse than Millwall in the 70's.

kwinigolfer wrote:
Went to a City Council Meeting a couple of years ago where they were discussing local gun ordinances and every NRA member from the proverbial forty counties turned up - most intimidating/scariest mob I've ever witnessed. Worse than Millwall in the 70's....

..although not as well armed..

. . . . certainly not with The Den sense of humour.

kwinigolfer wrote:Who knows? Cruz will probably win the Iowa Caucus which is the first litmus test, and he may be more dangerous yet. Keeping his powder dry right now, but $gazillions of Texas fracking money behind him.

Not completely clear what the President will really do, other than enforcing laws that are already on the books. Our State has just about the loosest gun laws in the country and no-one here seems to give a damn - gang-related murder Downtown on Boxing Day and you'd think that would shake 'em up, but not a bit of it.

Went to a City Council Meeting a couple of years ago where they were discussing local gun ordinances and every NRA member from the proverbial forty counties turned up - most intimidating/scariest mob I've ever witnessed. Worse than Millwall in the 70's.

They certainly hang onto their constitution like a badge of stupidity at times Kwini.

Remember super, it's not the gun that pulls the trigger. Guns have more rights than people . . . . . . . and it will only get worse.

The fourth amendment (or rather the way people hide behind it) is also ridiculous.

The thing about Americans is that they seem to think that a Constitution is something unique to them, that only they have one and only they are free because of it.

Thing is, most western countries have one, are just as free, if not more free, but don't hang onto old, antiquated, outdated, irrelevant "amendments" like some sort of gun on their hip.

Actually applying the constitution to the letter, makes America less free and safe than they actually claim to be.

Makes everyone less safe though, super. The entire world has to pay for this moronic mentality.
Oil and guns; if you listen closely, that's about all the people behind the rhetoric care about. Oh, and not paying taxes.

You often hear that America had the worlds oldest constitution and that the Americans are pretty chuffed with that. It is no wonder America is 200 years behind Europe in certain social respects.


On a related note is anyone hoping that the Oregon jihadis suffer a few wolf or bear attacks?

What Oregon jihadi's? Have I missed something?

BBC Report Click Here

Strange, I've been to Oregon. One of the nicer states there.

Not sure what is going on super, I think these guys hate the equivalent to the national trust or something.

You know, this constitutional "right to bear arms" argument did not limit itself to guns. Arms were any sort of weapon. So, I ask the NRA, why limit your fight to guns alone? Why not bazookas, bombs and flame throwers? Absurd, moronic thinking by too many.

Bandon Dunes is nice in Oregon.

I like the Family Guy episode where the guy writing the constitution has a pair of bear arms hanging on the wall and asks, "how could that possibly be misconstrued?".

raycastleunited wrote:I like the Family Guy episode where the guy writing the constitution has a pair of bear arms hanging on the wall and asks, "how could that possibly be misconstrued?".

The incident in Oregon is as much due to government (not quite sure at what level, probably State) incompetence as anything else.
The two landowners who were returned to prison had been released by the authorities when some judge woke up from his siesta and decided they hadn't served enough time when they were set free.
That was the cause celebre for anti-government woodchucks to reactivate past grievances and decide to occupy a federal building.

The blokes who have returned to the pokey are not dangerous, relatively speaking, and the authorities should probably have dealt with the whole thing with common sense, not compound their mistake with another one.

May not be quite as simple as that, but certainly more than enough blame to go around, and not just for the jihadists.

Kwini

That may be true but it hardly justifies terrorism does it?

Maybe not, and I'm not saying that it does.
But sometimes the law really is an ass, and a little diplomacy might have helped here. And hopefully still will.

One of the many complaints about America I hear from non Americans is that the USA should stay out of other countries' business.

Ironic, isn't it?

GPB

That does not mean that it isn't possible to interject in other countries business just that the USA is really bad at it.

McLaren wrote:GPB

That does not mean that it isn't possible to interject in other countries business just that the USA is really bad at it.

Because WWI and WWII was going so well before US got involved?

GPB wrote:

McLaren wrote:GPB

That does not mean that it isn't possible to interject in other countries business just that the USA is really bad at it.

Because WWI and WWII was going so well before US got involved?

Actually, they were both going quite well. America's attendance in total in both wars was a dismal 50%.

GPB wrote:

McLaren wrote:GPB

That does not mean that it isn't possible to interject in other countries business just that the USA is really bad at it.

Because WWI and WWII was going so well before US got involved?

GPB wins the internet!

As soon as a 'merkin mentions WWI or WWII you know they batting on a sticky wicket (to use a lovely colonial colloquialism)

It's true, both wars may have ended differently without the US intervention. But both would have ended far earlier and far better if they hadn't taken their time getting to the party. Hollywood of course has different ideas - which is where most Americans get their idea of history from.

Davie wrote:

GPB wrote:

McLaren wrote:GPB

That does not mean that it isn't possible to interject in other countries business just that the USA is really bad at it.

Because WWI and WWII was going so well before US got involved?

GPB wins the internet!

As soon as a 'merkin mentions WWI or WWII you know they batting on a sticky wicket (to use a lovely colonial colloquialism)

It's true, both wars may have ended differently without the US intervention. But both would have ended far earlier and far better if they hadn't taken their time getting to the party. Hollywood of course has different ideas - which is where most Americans get their idea of history from.

Precisely what I was going to say. America's biggest contributions to the war were as part of the supply route across the Atlantic and as a lender of money, both self serving reasons.

Jeeze -- My father (may he RIP) saw action at the Battle of the Bulge. (On the Continent from '42 - '45.)

Had his superiors known things were going "quite well" (a sentiment I don't think Churchill properly conveyed to Roosevelt), he could have avoided that whole mess and instead worked the Pacific Front!

It was a response to the much mooted response from our colonial cousins that they came in and saved the day, when it was in fact other allies, namely Russia who could take most credit for their involvement.
America, played a part, just as every allied country involved did, but, unlike GPB's insinuation, they did not come in and snap their fingers and finish the war for everyone.

Shotrock - of course your father paid his dues, and possibly a price, for the US involvement. We don't forget the foreign forces that helped out - my own father fought all 6 years of the way, the latter part in the far east which ultimately proved to be the cause of his early death years later.

No one is taking away from you (the US) the effort that was put in - but super nails the crucial point.


USA didn't really enter the fray with any great seriousness until after Pearl Harbor - the war in Europe had already raged for 2+ years by that time

EDIT: we should have a sweepstake on who invokes Godwin's law first. My money is on GPB

Davie wrote:Shotrock - of course your father paid his dues, and possibly a price, for the US involvement. We don't forget the foreign forces that helped out - my own father fought all 6 years of the way, the latter part in the far east which ultimately proved to be the cause of his early death years later.

No one is taking away from you (the US) the effort that was put in - but super nails the crucial point.


USA didn't really enter the fray with any great seriousness until after Pearl Harbor - the war in Europe had already raged for 2+ years by that time

EDIT: we should have a sweepstake on who invokes Godwin's law first. My money is on GPB

Not to mention many of the crucial and vital actions didn't have any American input.
We've all got/had (most will be dead I imagine) relatives who fought in WW2 I presume, but that doesn't change the fact that America didn't win either war. I know they aren't great at team events, but that's exactly what they were in both of them, and late substitutes at that.

If things were going "quite well" why, on Earth, would any US involvement be needed?

If you think Super "nails the crucial point" with that specific language ... well, there you have it!

Super's "crucial point" was that there were many other allies critical to the result, and in some cases far more influential (and suffered greater losses). Russia was one mentioned but there were others.

That part was actually left as an exercise to the reader but clearly missed the mark. Gorkywood was never as influential as Hollywood

Shotrock wrote:If things were going "quite well" why, on Earth, would any US involvement be needed?

If you think Super "nails the crucial point" with that specific language ... well, there you have it!

The allies were stretched, but Nazi Germany had already made the fateful mistake of a third front which was denuding Nazi Germany of their ability to fight effectively in Europe. They were already losing ground before America entered.

The war went the Allies way following that for a great many reasons, America's involvement was only one of many of those reasons, not the sole one as Hollywood and poorly educated Americans would have us believe.

The issue is not that American help wasn't welcome, it was that it wasn't decisive.

Germanys resources in the latter part of WWII were split 90/10 btw the Eastern and Western front. Of course Germany would rather be invaded by the Western allies, but Germanys biggest c0ck up was definitely (the timing of) Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of Russia).

In WWI America only joined in late 1917 when it was all but over. Until then it was mainly assistance with supplies.

Still we have to be grateful to the US, eventhough their partake was not entirely out of altruism.

The ongoing situation in various parts of the Middle East is a result of the outcome of WWI and II. The West (UK in particular) gave false promises to the Arabs if they'd revolt against the Ottoman Empire and the whole situation got worse after the creation of Israel.

In fact, had the Central Powers won WWI we wouldn't have had WWII, the mess in the Middle East, and would all just live in a happy dictatorship - probaly a socialist paradise (eh kwini?).

And none of it means that most British people, or those of any other well-thinking country, thinks that it's a good idea that there is a roughly 50 times more chance of dying via gunfire in the US than in, say Great Britain. The US is losing a small (33,600 in 2013) town's worth of population every year.
All anyone is saying is, is that acceptable to Americans and, if not, when are Americans going to do something about it?

(Nothing wrong with striving for a bit of equality, a little less inequity, pedro . . . . . . . . !)

It even made The Drone King (Obama) cry today..

Goldielocks theory. this bed was too soft and this bed was too hard.

Yep, the USA gets criticized when it is Proactive in trying to keep world peace.  (Gulf Wars etc)

And gets criticized when it is 2 years too late in getting involved (WWII).

Maybe we should get a bunch of Monday Morning Quarterbacks from GB&I to advise the the President, the Secretary of State and Congress the exact right time to dive into a war.  This porridge is too cold, and this porridge is too hot

And incidently, my father enlisted in the Navy shortly after he graduated High School in 1939.  He was on the aircraft carrier Yorktown when it was lost at the Battle of Midway and he was also on Tours of Duty in the North Atlantic and Mediterranean.  All five of his brothers served in WWII.  Fortunately all survived and were (relatively) injury free.  One brother was a D-Day and another was in the Battle of Bulge.

And FWIW, I didn't dismiss the Russians at all (as was insinuated) Certainly, they crippled and decimated the Germans on the Eastern Front.

Gulf War 1: thumbsup:

Invasion of Iraq: (facilitated more than somewhat by the quisling Blair):

GPB wrote:Goldielocks theory. this bed was too soft and this bed was too hard.

Yep, the USA gets criticized when it is Proactive in trying to keep world peace.  (Gulf Wars etc)

And gets criticized when it is 2 years too late in getting involved (WWII).

Maybe we should get a bunch of Monday Morning Quarterbacks from GB&I to advise the the President, the Secretary of State and Congress the exact right time to dive into a war.  This porridge is too cold, and this porridge is too hot

And incidently, my father enlisted in the Navy shortly after he graduated High School in 1939.  He was on the aircraft carrier Yorktown when it was lost at the Battle of Midway and he was also on Tours of Duty in the North Atlantic and Mediterranean.  All five of his brothers served in WWII.  Fortunately all survived and were (relatively) injury free.  One brother was a D-Day and another was in the Battle of Bulge.

And FWIW, I didn't dismiss the Russians at all (as was insinuated) Certainly, they crippled and decimated the Germans on the Eastern Front.

Yes, but you did insinuate that the US late coming was the decisive factor in both wars by stating "Because WWI and WWII was going so well before US got involved?" (or something along those lines) as if it only started going well after they finally got involved. It demonstrably wasn't the decisive factor. It was simply one of a great many reasons.

It's like saying someone won a golf tournament because of one shot, when in fact it's the combination of all shots. See, I kept it golf.

Like I said, everyone at the time was grateful for the help of any and every nation involved, even the Italians when they engaged reverse gear in 1943, but no nation can claim victory on its own, despite the common belief held by many Americans.

Well that escalated quickly - from "some dufus is wrong for occupying a federal building" to world wars and bogus invasions of (very) far off lands in one page. Got to be some sort of record even for this board.

Without pointed reference to the Emerald Isle (or it's inhabitants), any kind of deity or even some manufactured claim of discrimination.

Happy new year 606V2!