Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
Everyone knows that Dechambeau is smart the same way rocket scientist Matt Patricia is smart, right?
Decheambeau probably wouldn't be a professional golfer if it wasn't for his scientific methods. He realized early on that he doesn't have the "feel" like his peers. So he breaks it down to things he can manage. I respect that because as a golfer this has always been my bugaboo as well. Whatever feel other players as good as me. I just never had it. The more mechanical, robotical, and scientific I am the better I perform. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mosbonian:
I enjoyed it....just because a group on the leader board let the pressure get to them when it didn't for Scheffler didn't make for a boring Masters.
Actually I enjoyed watching Aberg climb his way into 2nd place
Aberg is going to be really, really good. Obviously. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BWillie:
Decheambeau probably wouldn't be a professional golfer if it wasn't for his scientific methods. He realized early on that he doesn't have the "feel" like his peers. So he breaks it down to things he can manage. I respect that because as a golfer this has always been my bugaboo as well. Whatever feel other players as good as me. I just never had it. The more mechanical, robotical, and scientific I am the better I perform.
On that point, the Masters prohibits green-reading books which I believe he relies on pretty heavily normally. I doubt this will ever be one of his favorite places to play. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BWillie:
Decheambeau probably wouldn't be a professional golfer if it wasn't for his scientific methods. He realized early on that he doesn't have the "feel" like his peers. So he breaks it down to things he can manage. I respect that because as a golfer this has always been my bugaboo as well. Whatever feel other players as good as me. I just never had it. The more mechanical, robotical, and scientific I am the better I perform.
Taking a few physics classes at Cocaine U doesn't mean he knows anything about scientific methods. [Reply]
