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.

But that's the overall narrative, just louder from the Republican pulpit.

Why is the gas tax so artificially low?
Why is the tobacco and alcohol tax so low - just to incent unhealthy behaviour and satisfy the special interests.

Time to tax bullets but even the Dems won't combat the gun lobby.


As a friend of mine who's a State Senator calls it.
It's the opposite of Robin Hood: rob the poor to make the poor poorer.

"American institution" is about right.

Robin Hood fought the government and its taxes on common people!

Taxes on alcohol and tobacco wil hit the poorer hardest. Also as the poorer tend to smoke and drink more. The rich, however, will always get along. But if you want to educate people, it another story of course.

pedro,
Sadly the "sin" taxes are lowest in many of the poorest States and where access to quality health care is out of reach of so many.
With the result that life expectancy in some of these States is lower than some nations once thought of as "third world".

And, of course, the Congressional representatives of those same States are the most vehement anti-universal health care initiatives.

So we have the spectre not only of the poor growing poorer, but dying prematurely also, almost being incented to die early.

pedro wrote:Robin Hood fought the government and its taxes on common people!

Taxes on alcohol and tobacco wil hit the poorer hardest. Also as the poorer tend to smoke and drink more. The rich, however, will always get along. But if you want to educate people, it another story of course.

I've never understood this. Poor(er) people, always seem to have booze and fags. If you were that poor, you wouldn't smoke and you would drink less. Its a case of priorities.

Cigarettes should be £50 a packet, there is no need for anyone to smoke.

true - at 50 quid i might be tempted to give up...


but at that price gonna be honest there would be alot of thefts/smuggling and alot of black market sales. They might as well be illegal drugs and tobacco would become a massive orgainsed crime commoditiy

.not to mention full sky subscription, top of the market phone with contract, multiple games consols, eating out at mac'y d's every day. working alongside those on working tax credis is an eye opener. their entire income is treated as disposable income

Giving up smoking is preposterously easy, IF you really want to do it.
If you don't want to really give up, you'll continue to use the excuse of "addiction" as a reason as to why you haven't stopped.

Even beggars in the street are smoking.

excuse of addiction?

SR i am not in favour of any nanny state..its kind off ridiculas to tell people what to do- however as barragan points out there are people that abuse the system.. Thats what we need to sort out

Nor am I Oakey, I just think people make excuses for not giving up, but you have to really want to give up to do it.

Too many people are too half hearted, same with being fat etc too.

mis use of funds.
i'm all for working tax credits, but in practice those receiving seem to be incapable of spending it wisely.
i reckon i save approx £400 a month against their nights out, fast food lunches, fags, and tv subs alone. very worrying indeed when most of them also have young families to support.

Is there any case for the state providing the staples rather than abusable cash based benefits? Housing, food, clothing, heating, transport etc either physically (here's a box of your clothes for the next X weeks Mr Smith) or in the form of non transferable vouchers (Aldi vouchers for groceries not usable for tabs n booze)?

super_realist wrote:Nor am I Oakey, I just think people make excuses for not giving up, but you have to really want to give up to do it.

Too many people are too half hearted, same with being fat etc too.

your right in this case i know you are.,.,...

barragan wrote:mis use of funds.
i'm all for working tax credits, but in practice those receiving seem to be incapable of spending it wisely.
i reckon i save approx £400 a month against their nights out, fast food lunches, fags, and tv subs alone. very worrying indeed when most of them also have young families to support.

did these credits or benefits used to be given out in food stamps and stuff like that?

I smoke, I dont want to give up, I like it!

I also dont claim or have ever claimed any benefits.

I have a decent job (which I pay 40% tax on most of it), private health care and a private pension

I'll do what I want, thanks!

oh and Im a tiny bit overweight, which Im not bothered about

That's fine Gun, You can do what you want with your money, I don't see why as a tax payer though I should be supporting the smoking and drinking addictions of those living a life on benefit.

"Sin" taxes has nothing to do with the Repuclican favouring the "rich" in America, as initially indicated. The rich will find a way, no matter what you do. Dodging taxes might be an American sport, just as it is Italian or Greek, but the reason behind is different and should be seen in the context of the pioneering spirit of American society.

Whether we should try to guide and nanny those unfortunate people who do not take as wise decisions for their life as we of course do, is a different and maybe more political question. But who are we to decide what's right or wrong for an individual (as long as the person doesn't burden the society with his actions)? Aren't we going down a religious findamentalist road then, making Zach Johnson proud? Of course these people burden society with lung cancer etc., but on the other hand they die earlier, saving society another burden. Which they know.

One could even argue that a loser remains a loser no matter whether you take the fags from him or not. At least in welfare Europe in seems. I remind that social mobility in the socalled welfare states in northern Europe are much lower than in the US. Despite the fact that "poorer" people are given more equal access to welfare and possibilities in life than in the US. And I'm not talking about those scores of people entrenched in poverty as you see in the US (who you could argue are forced to do something - and we don't want to go that way) - I'm talking about normal working class people (with or without work!). Apparently they keep on smoking and drinking no matter how much you tax the fags and booze. Although decreasing the gap between the very rich and the very poor (which is good if the poorer becomes richer), the welfare state is the perfect means to retain a class society as it simply bribes the working and lower middle class people to stay where they are.

Therefore, the "goal" is not to tax the rich as such (for the sake of taxing them), or to promote equality for equalitys sake. The goal should be to raise the living standard of the really poor, i.e. those not having access to basics in life. Fortunately there are not too many of those in Europe, whereas it looks completely different in the US. So basically, give people equal access to possibilities (education, healthcare etc.), raise the living standard of the really poor, and let the working class people drink and smoke as they like. Amen.

super_realist wrote:Giving up smoking is preposterously easy, IF you really want to do it.
If you don't want to really give up, you'll continue to use the excuse of "addiction" as a reason as to why you haven't stopped.

thats pretty ridiculous super on number of levels. I'm guessing as a health and fitness freak you never smoked so how would you know how hard it is to give up? Also i thought you would have accepted addiction and withdrawal as they are based on medicine and not religion or hocus pocus.

Thanks Super, I will.

I do however agree with you as far as benefits are concerned.

I used to work in merseyside, managing supermarkets. There are lots of people on benefits in that area. They would buy cigs and lots of cheap vodka and very expensive deisgner clothing...for their children, This astounded me. There is a shop in a rather run down shopping centre that sold only designer clothing for kids and made a fortune. Mad!!

I think though for every one of those horrible people there are a few who use their benefit to get back on the ladder and make a better life for themselves and their family. Its just a shame that a few ruin it for the many!

Precisely why it should be time limited and taken back to being a safety net and not a lifestyle choice.

Inco, I actually did used to be a 20 a day smoker in my younger days for quite a few years (didn't stop me completing my first London Marathon in 3:31 though )

One day I just decided I wanted to give up, never had one since. All will power and determination. No reason why everyone else can't do the same.

SR no reason why you cant get out there and pull a bird either!!

You are right about smoking and I accept I am weak in this respect!!

Oakey, got a couple of irons in the fire, don't you worry pal.

super_realist wrote:Oakey, got a couple of irons in the fire, don't you worry pal.

If it burns Super you probably shouldn't be sticking it there

super_realist wrote:Oakey, got a couple of irons in the fire, don't you worry pal.

Up until last november I had never been out of work always up and at it every day,but after a few weeks its sadly very easy to get into a routine where the time slips by and you find stuff to fill the time in.I do not and have never claimed a penny but my ex managed to pick up £14k a year plus her wages from a part timejob in various benefits with the two children
taken into account.I have a couple of tenants who get by quite wel on benefits plus a bit of help from partners.Quite often a lass will be 'on her own'but with a regular partner as long as they do not live together the cash is there.Dont know the answer but the system stinks and politically very awkward to do anything to sort it.i thinks it starts in early life with the work ethic or not!

Too true, successive governments have allowed it to persist.

Can't exactly cut them off straight away but there should be some sort of qualification to "earn" benefits, i.e not sitting around being a ne'er do well smoking Lambert and Butler and drinking Super T.

£14k + [PLUS!!!!] wages??!!!

The system does seem set up to help 'professional' benefitters. i was on JSA last year for a couple of months after being made redundant. i then picked up 20hrs/wk @£6.50/hr labouring for a while - but it was not much fun when the missus was off on maternity leave (£450/month), and we weren't entitled to anything else as her earning the previous year had been above the entitlement threshold. not easy paying a mortgage and living on less than £1k combined income a month.

Always a tendancy to thinks theres nothing to be done about it and one should just get on with your own business but its a multi billion pound racket.I think back a few years when labour decided to pay child bvenefits directly to the mums that must have been worth a good few votes.likewise thatcher and council house sales .I am slightly cynical as is obvious

Some of the benefits are mental. Child benefit to children domiciled in another country. People claiming for 17 children etc.

yep - child benefit ought to be limited to 2 or 3 kids / thereafter you're on your own.

Never understood it anyway. Why should you be paid for your kids at all?

gonna be honest i dont really care.. I actually play the system in quite a big way.. (I dont pay NI) i dont pay income tax- I write of about 15k a year of personal costs as tax write offs..

(no one can find out who i am right!!)

difference is though i work and emply people..dont scrounge!! just loop holes really

Barra I have the paperwork belive me.Childrens tax credit for 2,workings familys tax credits as she was working 16 hours classed as a full time job and housing benefit £14k nett- plus her wages probably £120 a week plus £100 a week from me for my daughter.
Running a merc sports car taking the pxxs frankly.

beyond belief dyna!

TBH mysti I tend to agree.Every one for themselves.I have to admit to nicking the odd biro

16 hours a week is classed as part time and you can still recieve job seekers allowance- that isnt classed as full time work!

Oakey, are you a gangmaster for winkle pickers on Southend beach?

nah ... but most directors of small business do it.

you cant afford to pay yourself in wages these days !! i have to be paid the mininum 7k or something- rest is in dividends!(its the NI that kills you more not the tax- as offcourse you have to pay corp tax anyway!)

off course the occasional cash job comes along as well

Roller_Coaster wrote:Is there any case for the state providing the staples rather than abusable cash based benefits? Housing, food, clothing, heating, transport etc either physically (here's a box of your clothes for the next X weeks Mr Smith) or in the form of non transferable vouchers (Aldi vouchers for groceries not usable for tabs n booze)?

They used to give vouchers for foodstuffs etc but it was deemed 'demeaning' to be seen paying with vouchers.

dynamark wrote:TBH mysti I tend to agree.Every one for themselves.I have to admit to nicking the odd biro

Sorry, that way chaos lies. Is that where we're headed? Where it's "I'm alright Jack and screw you"? What a pathetic nation we're becoming.

its all about give and take NBS..

NBS im not saying its right but the system is there for the using and its amazing how many use it.I think Im correct in saying 16 hours is classeda a full time employment and therefore alllows other related benefits,
My impresion is that once an individual learne how the system can work to provide a reasonable amount of income they will stay with it -why make the extra effort to get up and go out to work every day

think its 24 hrs, but there are some exceptions where 16hrs applies.

As I said: a welfare state is the guarantee of a continuation of the class society. If they want bread, give them cake.

Pedro sounds a bit french revolution but possibly entirely correct.keep them in the tent etc.
Barra may be so now Im 4 years back
Spoke to my mortgage company today to see if i could extend the mortgage by a few years to reduce the monthly outgoings.No chance youve only been with us 20 years and your near the end of the mortgage we need the payments on the button or your credit rating will be affected,etc,etc.

barragan wrote:think its 24 hrs, but there are some exceptions where 16hrs applies.

there also benefits you can get for under 16 hours!!

you can get it any way- its just called something different

mystiroakey wrote:its all about give and take NBS..

Or just take eh? In any case, since when has it ever been an argument that because Joe Schmoe is on the take makes it OK for someone else to do it?

Once you have all stopped reading (and believing) the sun and the daily mail might we consider the reality of living on benefits for most people?

It is an existence of little hope for either yourself or future generations of your family. I am proud that we live in a nation that at least tried to help those in most need. It is just a shame we cant go far enough because of some noisy tabloids who dont deal in the currencies of truth and evidence.

Mac, I'm all for help for those who genuinely need benefits. However only an idiot would think that given our benefits bill and the ease at which it can be abused and defrauded there isn't a massive problem with lead swingers and malingerers using the benefits system as a lifestyle and not a safety net.

Incidently, The Sun is the paper of choice of such people so I'm not sure why you mention it as some sort of daily manual for bigots.

It's perfectly sensible to suggest the benefits system needs a major reform.

navyblueshorts wrote:

mystiroakey wrote:its all about give and take NBS..

Or just take eh? In any case, since when has it ever been an argument that because Joe Schmoe is on the take makes it OK for someone else to do it?

let them crack on- its the govt fault, not your average joe schmoe.. He is just a product of the society.

If you make things easy to abuse- sadly they will be abused!

This in todays Mail, makes my blood boil:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2270247/ITV-This-Morning-Couple-living-17k-handouts-say-working-minimum-wage-unfair.html

what amazes me is how these people can live for such a small amount of money!!

I cant even spell yet I would never in a million years settle for such a small amount of money- or even settle for working for anyone else!!

I couldnt live of burgers and chips and beanz and live in a council estate! jeas they are just moronic..

They are exploting themselves as much as the system..


Got to admit i would rather cook meth or grow/smuggle weed if I couldnt do anything else!


You gotta have goals and keep your mind occupied..

The fact that there are so many off these people makes me kind off sick to be honest.. But the fact that the govt allows them to live like this is also worrying..