PGA Tour: Ian Poulter - Overachiever or Underachiever?: Notes from the Ballwasher

First topic message reminder :

1).With the PGA Tour season still in its infancy, and golfing galacticos in Abu Dhabi, in Palm Desert or still in hibernation, two people who can't get out of the headlines made news again last week with resumption of rhetorical love/hate between Ian Poulter and Johnny Miller.
Once the "Johnny miller why don't you come and interview me live and say that stuff straight to my face . . . . Was you watching a different channel" twitterage over inferences that Poults was a drama queen had been resolved, they get in to it again over whether IJP is an "overachiever" (Miller) or an "underachiever" (Poults).

2).Not the first time of course that Poults has taken umbrage at Miller's commentary - it was just three years ago that Miller was scorning Poulter's "ball striking" whereupon the player responded by forwarding Miller the Genworth stat's for the E.T., which showed him leading the ball-striking way.

3).Miller was a great player, probably a better golfer than his two-Major record would suggest: watched an old film once of him striping long irons on the Harbour Town range - left-handed!
A genius, at least until he reached the putting green. But he has made his fortune from broadcasting and Steve Eubanks' piece, linked here, is revealing and interesting:

http://www.pga.com/news/eubanks/miller-feud-fizzling

I liked Azinger's zinger from the 1991 Ryder Cup at Kiawah, calling Miller "the biggest moron". Then, backtracking, he offered that what he meant to call Miller was "the biggest Mormon".

4).Perhaps because he tends to favour American golfers, or perhaps it's that he prefers to take cheap shots and Europeans won't take it, it seems to be guys like Casey, Poults and Westwood who take exception these days.
But perceptions about "achievement" are interesting, what do you think about Poults?

5).Has he overachieved to have two WGC titles in his locker, not to mention a hatful of other titles outside America? He also has three highly creditable runners up finishes in The Open and The Players (possibly unlucky there, getting caught in some nonsense in Round 3 and losing strokes) and an Amex WGC.
Or should he have done more, on the PGA Tour at least? He's yet to reach the Tour Championship despite having an enviable record of consistency including not having a missed cut since September 2011.

6).He's been consistently outstanding in the Ryder Cup, but has seldom contended in Majors, his runner-up to Harrington and his flash of front-nine brilliance at Kiawah notwithstanding. His PGA Tour record is:
Tournaments played: 149
Cuts made: 115 (77%)
Top 25's: 57 (38%)
Top 10's: 26 (17%)
Top 3's: 8: (5%)

7).Was Miller right about Poults's "ball striking' (total driving plus greens in reg)? Miller tends to forget there's golf outside the States except for Ryder and Pres.Cup jollies, so in his myopic eye he's right. Poulter's Tour rank these past eight years has been mediocre at best:171st in his first year (2005) and since then: 29th, 185th, 194th, 164th, 174th, 118th and 131st.
Not exactly anything to Tweet home about. But his European Tour record has been consistently better. Perhaps an undue proportion of "Tour" outings are on more difficult courses than for the average player? Quite probably.

8).What's the Poulter outlook looking forward then? He'll continue to play the biggest tournaments so that his chances of winning are somewhat diminished. (Hartford suits him down to the ground, though.)
Unless he wins, he's not likely to play enough to prosper in the FedEx Play-Offs. But he'll still be a MatchPlay genius, the Piggott-, Woods-like will to win, especially at Ryder Cup level will cause him to stand apart. And continue to be a golfing enigma.

9).Ross Fisher and David Lynn embark on their PGA Tour odyssey this week, at the "Humana Challenge", where they'll be joined by Messrs Davis and Owen (bad missed cuts for both last week) and Martin Laird (who?). Laird finished 14th last year, but how much rust has crept in to his game? We'll see soon enough, but The Laird needs a good finish or five, or he'll be watching the Majors on TV.
Very good to see Brett Quigley and Lucas Glover back in action.
Difficult to have strong feelings about likely winners here, but perhaps unwise to ignore the most recent form of Tim Clark, my very lukewarm fancy who has two second-place finishes here.
But if Russell Henley (Snedeker-like?) putts like he did last week he may win 25 times this year.

10).And the Champions Tour season revs up this week, only in first gear as the "Mitsubishi Electric Championship" has just forty runners, many of them there by invitation rather than merit. But that didn't diminish the quality of shot-making three years ago when Watson just edged out Couples.
All the Russell Henleys in the world couldn't compete with that exhibition.

I agree with you Doon!

[/quote]

As for sportsmen, actors or musicians getting involved in politics like Sean Penn, Bonio , etc. What they know about politics can probably be written on the back of a postage stamp. They should stay out of it.[/quote]

Super, funny, thats exactly what most people say about politicians as well.
Politics is life, life is politics, everyone is entitled to have a view and say their piece in society. The more people who are politically active and have a say and put forward opinions the better, you have just given your views on how the tax system should work but you arent an economist, dosesnt stop you having an opinion which is fine. Just accept everyone else is entitled to one and if they have a voice people choose to listen to thats up to them. Though Id rather they didnt use Twitter to do it.....

yeah i suppose i reakon SR would be happy enough if Salmond was taken over by Sean connery... well maybe i dunno..

Or lets be honest- who has/had more influence mel gibson or alex salmond..

Sean Penn needs to worry about the us states of hawai and alaska before he gets invloved in the falklands me thinks.. Love his acting skills though

Here's the rub with the "celebrity" politician ... what I desire most from those that aspire to and achieve political office is a strong intellect. It's a complex world out there and balancing goals with limited resources, voting on measures of austerity v infusion, anticipating the downstream consequences of decisions made today, etc. should require some critical thinking. Sound bite yelping almost never helps the cause, and it's why the likes of Rush Limbaugh stays miles away from any serious head-to-head debate. He would be squashed.

Now I'm not saying a person like Phil, who has genius level skill at hitting a golf ball, couldn't also have a strong intellect, but I sure need more proof.

Leff, $1M a year in taxable income won't get you a comfortable living? I can't imagine not living well on that salary regardless of where you live in these United States.

I think there is a big difference between being a celebrity politician and running for office....say Arnie, Reagan... and being a celebrity who happens to be politically active.

oakey,
I don't mind the likes of Penn having his say, but at least he could be informed better.
Using their fame as a platform for their often crazy views is what annoys me.

FIGJAM gets more attention on this matter! (Aw shucks, I can almost see his plastic smile and bobbing head ...)

http://blogs.golf.com/presstent/2013/01/phil-mickelson-apologizes-for-comments-on-taxes.html

super_realist wrote:oakey,
I don't mind the likes of Penn having his say, but at least he could be informed better.
Using their fame as a platform for their often crazy views is what annoys me.

Better informed...or have views which you are more inclined to agree with ?

Not at all, Penns reasons regarding the Falklands are riddled with historical innacuracies and are hypocritical in regard to his own countries geographical outposts.

Surely if it weren't for people being differently informed there'd be no politics?

Im sure he has his own views on Americas global policy, doesnt mean he cant have a few elsewhere as well.
As for the history, well none of us was around 150-200 years ago to ratify exactly what happened so everything is open to interpretation. Whose to say the British version is 100% accurate ?

Diggers, I was thinking more of his wording about The Falklands being given back to Argentina when they have never "owned" them.

Shotrock wrote:FIGJAM gets more attention on this matter! (Aw shucks, I can almost see his plastic smile and bobbing head ...)

http://blogs.golf.com/presstent/2013/01/phil-mickelson-apologizes-for-comments-on-taxes.html

Oh FFS! What on Earth is he issuing an apology for??? Pathetic.

Diggers wrote:Im sure he has his own views on Americas global policy, doesnt mean he cant have a few elsewhere as well.
As for the history, well none of us was around 150-200 years ago to ratify exactly what happened so everything is open to interpretation. Whose to say the British version is 100% accurate ?

diggers...

The point is very simple in this case.. Penn isnt making any political statements about the USA. however he has been making many about the falklands and that imperialism needs to stop...

If he was campaigning that america should give hawaii back to the islanders then fine he can say what the hell he wants.. But the fact he isnt- he really needs to understand how hypocritical he is..

It doesnt matter how accurate anything is from the past.;. The present is all that matters..

Hawaii and alaska are probally very happy to be part of the US.. the falklands is very happy to be part of the Crown, it doesnt want to be on its own or part of argentina. If the falklands wants indepenadance they can have it- But what we cant do is give something to the argentinia which isnt theres in the first place!!

So penn is arguing against imperialism - even though he is arguing that argentina should have the falklands- its pretty stupid and very hypocritical because it still is imperialism!!


If canada was to ask for alaska would penn think that is fair?

basically- Worry about your own house before you critize others..

Precisely Oakey, It would be very much like the UK asking for The Faroes.

Wouldn't have anything to do with oil would it Argentina?

just to add- i meant colonialism rather than imperialism!!

mystiroakey wrote:

Diggers wrote:Im sure he has his own views on Americas global policy, doesnt mean he cant have a few elsewhere as well.
As for the history, well none of us was around 150-200 years ago to ratify exactly what happened so everything is open to interpretation. Whose to say the British version is 100% accurate ?

diggers...

The point is very simple in this case.. Penn isnt making any political statements about the USA. however he has been making many about the falklands and that imperialism needs to stop...

If he was campaigning that america should give hawaii back to the islanders then fine he can say what the hell he wants.. But the fact he isnt- he really needs to understand how hypocritical he is..

It doesnt matter how accurate anything is from the past.;. The present is all that matters..

Hawaii and alaska are probally very happy to be part of the US.. the falklands is very happy to be part of the Crown, it doesnt want to be on its own or part of argentina. If the falklands wants indepenadance they can have it- But what we cant do is give something to the argentinia which isnt theres in the first place!!

So penn is arguing against imperialism - even though he is arguing that argentina should have the falklands- its pretty stupid and very hypocritical because it still is imperialism!!


If canada was to ask for alaska would penn think that is fair?

basically- Worry about your own house before you critize others..

Im not really sure I see your point about Hawaii. Nobody else is making a claim for it so a completely different scenario. Also I would imagine if you spoke to an Argentinian regarding the history of the islands they would tell a completely different story in regard to having a claim, whether they owned it or not.
As for Penn not having a view on American foreign policy Penn had plenty to say about the Bush administration and their involvement in the middle east.

It's a ridiculous position though, Argentina have no right to it at all. Geographical location seems to be their only argument, and as it's well outside the maritime boundary they can get stuffed.
The UN are happy for the Islanders to choose, and as 2/3 are British, there isn't going to be a successful Argentine transfer. Argentina barely even existed when UK claimed ownership.

Diggers.. Penns stance is that he hates colonization.. He is then with the other hand saying that the falklands should be part of argentina.

Isnt that simple enough as it is still colonization but just from another country.

I am not trying to get into the rights or wrongs here between the UK's or argentonas case. Just penns crazy stance on it.. And that if he has a problem he should also look into georgraphical terrortoies that arnt local to the US...

Which no he doesnt..

Hate colonization? Is Penn not aware of what America did to the Native Americans over the past 200 years? Sheesh ...

To add if any overseas british terratory wants indepedance we give it to them these days. We are not holding on to anything that isnt wanted by the other side..

Imagine we did give the falklands to argentina and they then wanted indepedance.. Do we belive they would give it back to them?

Shotrock wrote:Hate colonization? Is Penn not aware of what America did to the Native Americans over the past 200 years? Sheesh ...

there is offcourse that as well...

mystiroakey wrote:

Shotrock wrote:Hate colonization? Is Penn not aware of what America did to the Native Americans over the past 200 years? Sheesh ...

there is offcourse that as well...

Im a bit baffled about the I like in a country that has colonised to I have no right to comment on anywhere else in the world argument ? I mean its not like Penn was around to complain back in the day was it. Im sure even the tiniest countries have invaded someone else at one time or another...apart from maybe the cowardly Swiss....
I dunno, we moan about Americans taking no interest in what goes on outside their country...and guess what we moan when one of them does show an interest. Sheesh.

That's why, because they know nothing about it.
I've more claim on a house I used to own than the Argentines on the Falklands.

He should stick to what he knows, being ugly and acting.

Don't know why he's so bothered about it anyway. Not as if Argentina is suffering because of it.

It's not like anyone in Argentina, or indeed this country was around when we 'nicked' the Falklands either, so surely that's as moot a point?

Penn. Because britain knicked the usa first does that mean we can have it back

Diggs I tjink your missing my point.. firstly anyone making judgement calks needs to judge themselves or own surrondings first.. secondly you wont find argentina using his argument for them owning the falklands.. argentina claims to have colonised the nation first... thats there argument.. penns argument is that all colonisation is wrong therefore britain give argentina the falklands. Its bat crazy is what it is..

But Penn has criticised US foreign policy. Are you saying he should actually have to leave to prove his point ? I live in the UK but I was and am utterly opposed to the Middle East invasions and occupations. But I'm not going to emigrate because of it.
Anyway , the Malvinas sounds much nicer than the Falklands....

No I am not saying that in the slightest diggers..

A hypicrite is someone that judges others even though they may have benefited from that same ituation. He benefits from a rich colonised country..

Before he wants to judge others i suggest he gives all his land back to indian americans..

The next point is that he clearly has no idea what the heck he is talking about- this is the problem. He is banging on about colonisation in his argument and that it needs to stop, even though argentinas argument is that they have also colonised it!!!(i keep mentioning this- but i dont think its sinking in tbh)

The reason he is in a postion to talk on such senstive matters is that he is famous and has a platform to speak to the world.. This is dangerous because he clearly does not have the first clue about the situation. That is prooved by his argument.

Its like me talking to the world about how good SRL is (even though i thought he was SRR earlier!!)

Penn needs to start talking sense on this or shut up.

Either state his problems are colonisation and that the flaklands should be given back to the islanders (and every other island or terroty in the world by the way)

Or back Argentina up with the argument they actually use for claiming rights to the islands!!

Again you are assuming every colonised state is on dispute...they aren't so again pointless comparisons. native Anericans aren't asking for the whole of the USA...again not really relevant.
The debate is do you accept the UK and current Islanders have a right to sovereignty, clearly Penn and Argentina believe not. We say it was never theirs , they argue differently.
It's all about how you present and interpret history.
On a positive front, good to see we are finally getting our army down to a more reasonable size though Id have been a lot more drastic in those cuts.

There is an issue as to whether Shetland will remain part of Scotland should Fat Salmond get his mad way, many of them apparently feel Norwegian, it seems that if they want to go that way and if Norway want them, they would be allowed to leave.
The Falkland Islanders have the same choice, however they don't want to be Argetinian, and nearly two hundred years of history and the UN are completely against them obtaining them.

I really don't understand, why Argentina, think that they should have the Islands or that they have any more right to them than the UK, other than there may be substantial oil reserves there. Geographical location isn't a good enough reason as where do you stop, plenty of countries border or are near to others, doesn't mean they can just choose to take them.

The reason why indians and aboriginals don't claim their land back, is because the colonialists (settlers) killed most of them and bribed the rest with booze.

Btw. does anybody think Argentina would surrender the land to the indians, if asked for?

Also, do we have anybody in here in favour of a Falklander referendum re. dependency, but against a Scottish?

PS. Please don't mention Palestine!

The result of a Falkland referendum would be a foregone conclusion, sadly there are a significant number of brain dead indoctrinated, bitter, sweaties who cloud such an outcome in the forthcoming Scottish referendum. Hopefully there are enough normal people up here to vote in the negative.

Shotrock wrote:
Now I'm not saying a person like Phil, who has genius level skill at hitting a golf ball, couldn't also have a strong intellect, but I sure need more proof.
Leff, $1M a year in taxable income won't get you a comfortable living? I can't imagine not living well on that salary regardless of where you live in these United States.

SR, Phil is well above the average golfer in the intellect department

No, $1M is not adequate when you are left with <400K after Fed, State, and County property taxes, have a second home elsewhere, send your children to elite private schools, keep your wife happy and not cringe when she blows away 60K in a hour in a SoHo boutique, pay for gymnastics, piano and acting lessons for your kids, participate in celebrity charity events, vacation in Bora Bora, fly in first class.....
Of course, some are happy and content without all these. IMO, $1M does not provide comfy living in affluent locations.

Left dude. Not sure what you are arguing but tbh I doubt any of us care.. Well I certainly don't. What the poor little rich family can't fly first class anymore.. Come on mate!!!

Leff wrote:...No, $1M is not adequate when you are left with <400K after Fed, State, and County property taxes, have a second home elsewhere, send your children to elite private schools, keep your wife happy and not cringe when she blows away 60K in a hour in a SoHo boutique, pay for gymnastics, piano and acting lessons for your kids, participate in celebrity charity events, vacation in Bora Bora, fly in first class.....
Of course, some are happy and content without all these. IMO, $1M does not provide comfy living in affluent locations.

Of course, all of those things you list are luxury choices. Actually, I think I need at least £50M p/a as I need a boat in Monaco, a private plane etc etc...

Gonna be honest Navy i thought i was reading a blog from paris hilton or something!

mystiroakey wrote:Gonna be honest Navy i thought i was reading a blog from paris hilton or something!

I do have some online content from Paris I occasionally look at...but it's not a blog.

Diggers wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:Gonna be honest Navy i thought i was reading a blog from paris hilton or something!

I do have some online content from Paris I occasionally look at...but it's not a blog.

So one day maybe you will also end up with 1M in your hand...

1 metre?

1 millimetre?

million

Leff - How do you know Phil is well above the average (for a professional golfer) in the intellect department?

You're joking about all the "must do's" for $400k ... right?

Compared to Woods, Overton, Daly, Zach Johnson, Watson, Weekley, Ben Crane, Fowler etc he comes across like a genius.

Leff wrote:IMO, $1M does not provide comfy living in affluent locations.

Don't live in affluent locations then?

Seems Woods, as expected, agrees:
"I moved out of (California) in 1996 for that reason. I enjoy Florida but it was also, I understand what (Phil) was, I think, trying to say."

We shouldn't be surprised. Not paying taxes is an American institution.

Not surprsingly, Phil further backpaddled at yesterdays pre-tourney gig:
http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/phil-mickelson-compares-tax-comments-winged-foot-gaffe

kwinigolfer wrote:Seems Woods, as expected, agrees:
"I moved out of (California) in 1996 for that reason. I enjoy Florida but it was also, I understand what (Phil) was, I think, trying to say."

We shouldn't be surprised. Not paying taxes is an American institution.

Get your facts right, all Americans pays federal taxes, including Phil & Tiger, what they disagree about is the state taxes imposed.

neutral - you t0ssp0t, I bloody live here.

I was pleased to welcome a new name to the Board but you need to return from whence you came.

What I'm trying to convey is that no-one wants to pay their fair share, the more they earn the less they want to pay.

Kwin - No one? That's not true. Silly stereotype!