Scotty Scheffler boring to watch?

[Mr.Cleeks]

22 minutes ago, Obee said:

Come on, Rahm is interesting, isn't he?

Not really a fan of the way he plays the game, his swing/putting stroke or how whiny he gets when things aren't going his way. It's got nothing to do with where he plays. I had the same stance when he was on the PGAT as well. 

[J13]

3 minutes ago, Mr.Cleeks said:

Not really a fan of the way he plays the game, his swing/putting stroke or how whiny he gets when things aren't going his way. It's got nothing to do with where he plays. I had the same stance when he was on the PGAT as well. 

 

I hear ya but any emotion is entertaining on TV.  Speith losing it on the caddie, Rahm slams a club, Bryson hitting bombs and raising his arms as it travels a mile. 

These things are all annoying but highly entertaining. 

 

Hitting shot after shot with no change in facial expression isn't exciting, especially when a great shot is hit.  

[bcflyguy1]

5 minutes ago, CTgamer said:

I’m really curious what the handicap distribution is for folks who feel  “Scheffler is boring and/or more boring than other elite golfers throughout history” and the folks who feel “great golf, even if executed in a methodical, stoic way, is exciting, period.”

 

There’s a concept in sport of “being good enough to know how bad you are.” In golf, a 25 handicap literally has no way of conceiving how good a tour pro is. Sure, they can see the shots on tv. They can see the scoring differential. But when it comes to the actual difficulty and skill involved in doing it at that level, they’re not good enough to even begin to truly understand. These players “are so low on the mountain, they can’t see the top.” 
 

Versus, for sake of argument, a scratch player might see glimpses of what tour players do regularly and with ease. Maybe they’ve shot 65. Maybe they executed staggeringly difficult shots, reading lies, catching perfect contact, seeing the ball land in a tiny circle to pull off a shot. These players are “far enough up the mountain to see how far away they really are from the top.”

 

My hypothesis (not a criticism) would be the more someone is in group one, the more Scheffler is boring. And the more someone is in group two, the more they *could* but not necessarily *will* find Scheffler exciting/awe-inducing. 

Variation on the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and it's absolutely at play here.

[Mr.Cleeks]

2 minutes ago, J13 said:

 

I hear ya but any emotion is entertaining on TV.  Speith losing it on the caddie, Rahm slams a club, Bryson hitting bombs and raising his arms as it travels a mile. 

These things are all annoying but highly entertaining. 

 

Hitting shot after shot with no change in facial expression isn't exciting, especially when a great shot is hit.  

See the thing Bryson (and to an extent Spieth) is they're nutcases and that's why they're enjoyable to watch. It's less how whiny Rahm, I just don't find him entertaining at all.

[Titleist99]

16 minutes ago, Brokensticks said:

Edit: Its also a part of why Bryson is getting a bigger following. He said himself he portrayed an uptight guy before because he didnt expect people wanting emotions and when he did, he blew up on social media. 
 

People want to relate to something, even if its a fistpump. 

 

Depend on who you talk to.

 

the people that I know are still talking about how phony and fake BDC looks when high fiving the crowd and running around like a clown.

 

* Act like you been there before.

[TiScape]

3 minutes ago, J13 said:

 

I hear ya but any emotion is entertaining on TV.  Speith losing it on the caddie, Rahm slams a club, Bryson hitting bombs and raising his arms as it travels a mile. 

These things are all annoying but highly entertaining. 

 

Hitting shot after shot with no change in facial expression isn't exciting, especially when a great shot is hit.  

Yup! Again, it’s a TV show and drama sells! The most entertaining “reality” TV happens when alcohol is added. That might be it!!

Scottie has to have a shot after every hole! 

[Obee]

12 minutes ago, CTgamer said:

I’m really curious what the handicap distribution is for folks who feel  “Scheffler is boring and/or more boring than other elite golfers throughout history” and the folks who feel “great golf, even if executed in a methodical, stoic way, is exciting, period.”

 

There’s a concept in sport of “being good enough to know how bad you are.” In golf, a 25 handicap literally has no way of conceiving how good a tour pro is. Sure, they can see the shots on tv. They can see the scoring differential. But when it comes to the actual difficulty and skill involved in doing it at that level, they’re not good enough to even begin to truly understand. These players “are so low on the mountain, they can’t see the top.” 
 

Versus, for sake of argument, a scratch player might see glimpses of what tour players do regularly and with ease. Maybe they’ve shot 65. Maybe they executed staggeringly difficult shots, reading lies, catching perfect contact, seeing the ball land in a tiny circle to pull off a shot. These players are “far enough up the mountain to see how far away they really are from the top.”

 

My hypothesis (not a criticism) would be the more someone is in group one, the more Scheffler is boring. And the more someone is in group two, the more they *could* but not necessarily *will* find Scheffler exciting/awe-inducing. 

Well, I can only speak for myself.
 

I started golf at 20 years old. I peaked at a +3 to +4 in my 30s and early 40s.
 

I am now 57 years old, hit the ball 235 off the tee and currently sit at +0.1.

 

I am a competitive senior amateur who competes against (and occasionally even beats—though it's been a while) some of the best senior amateurs in the world.

[Titleist99]

14 minutes ago, Mr.Cleeks said:

Not really a fan of the way he plays the game, his swing/putting stroke or how whiny he gets when things aren't going his way. It's got nothing to do with where he plays. I had the same stance when he was on the PGAT as well. 

 

100% agree.

 

Some call it fiery and emotional.

 

Others call it whiny and annoying, but certainly not entertaining.

[isaacbm]

I personally absolutely love watching Scottie Scheffler. The reason is because I wish my game was like his. I wish I could just hit it where I was aiming and not be surprised that it was happening. He doesn’t get crazy emotional and all worked up because he simply expects his shots to go where he wants them to and they do.  That’s my absolute dream fantasy to how I wish my own game was.

 

And quite frankly, I think he just seems like a great guy. Well spoken, self deprecating, and genuinely a decent person. I mean, what does a person have to do to be liked around here?

[Obee]

5 minutes ago, Mr.Cleeks said:

See the thing Bryson (and to an extent Spieth) is they're nutcases and that's why they're enjoyable to watch. It's less how whiny Rahm, I just don't find him entertaining at all.

I would much much rather watch Spieth or Bryson win a tournament than Scotty. 
 

And, once again, I greatly respect his crazy good game and what he is doing right now. He's just not very fun to watch for me.

[Obee]

1 minute ago, isaacbm said:

I personally absolutely love watching Scottie Scheffler. The reason is because I wish my game was like his. I wish I could just hit it where I was aiming and not be surprised that it was happening. He doesn’t get crazy emotional and all worked up because he simply expects his shots to go where he wants them to and they do.  That’s my absolute dream fantasy to how I wish my own game was.

 

And quite frankly, I think he just seems like a great guy. Well spoken, self deprecating, and genuinely a decent person. I mean, what does a person have to do to be liked around here?

It's crazy that you guys don't get this really big and obvious distinction: Most of us LIKE HIM. We are not especially ENTERTAINED by him.

 

Good. Lord. People. You are making me resort to ALL CAPS!!!

 

 

[TiScape]

5 minutes ago, Obee said:

It's crazy that you guys don't get this really big and obvious distinction: Most of us LIKE HIM. We are not especially ENTERTAINED by him.

 

Good. Lord. People. You are making me resort to ALL CAPS!!!

 

 

If ur around here enough, it’s really not surprising at all! 😂 

 

*I use to get frustrated. Now I just resort to bad “jokes”! 

Edited June 3 by TiScape

[Titleist99]

5 minutes ago, Obee said:

Well, I can only speak for myself.
 

I started golf at 20 years old. I peaked at a +3 to +4 in my 30s and early 40s.
 

I am now 57 years old, hit the ball 235 off the tee and currently sit at +0.1.

 

I am a competitive senior amateur who competes against (and occasionally even beats—though it's been a while) some of the best senior amateurs in the world.

 

Only makes it worse. You should know, more than others, what Scheffler's doing is special.

 

High handicappers have no idea what they're witnessing. IMO

[Titleist99]

10 minutes ago, isaacbm said:

I personally absolutely love watching Scottie Scheffler. The reason is because I wish my game was like his. I wish I could just hit it where I was aiming and not be surprised that it was happening. He doesn’t get crazy emotional and all worked up because he simply expects his shots to go where he wants them to and they do.  That’s my absolute dream fantasy to how I wish my own game was.

 

And quite frankly, I think he just seems like a great guy. Well spoken, self deprecating, and genuinely a decent person. I mean, what does a person have to do to be liked around here?

 

Couldn't agree more. The guy's short game is worth tuning in for. Borderline Supernatural.  🤣

Edited June 3 by Titleist99

[Obee]

7 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

 

Only makes it worse. You should know, more than others, what Scheffler's doing is special.

 

High handicappers have no idea what they're witnessing. IMO

Makes it "worse"?

 

That I don't find him as entertaining as others to watch?

 

Are steak, lasagna, pho, enchiladas, and sea bass all equally delicious to you? Or do you have a preference or two among those?

 

And by the way, your comment about his short game is spot on. That's something that I can watch all day long. 
 

It's still not very entertaining, though!! More like a clinic!!! 🙂

 

 

[Titleist99]

3 minutes ago, Obee said:

Makes it "worse"?

 

That I don't find him as entertaining as others to watch?

 

Are steak, lasagna, pho, enchiladas, and sea bass all equally delicious to you? Or do you have a preference or two among those?

 

And by the way, your comment about his short game is spot on. That's something that I can watch all day long. 
 

It's still not very entertaining, though!! More like a clinic!!! 🙂

 

 

LOL! ..... Maybe I am being a little too judgmental. People like what they like. 🤣

Maybe I'm mesmerized because the guy hits it hole high every time.

[TiScape]

4 minutes ago, Titleist99 said:

LOL! ..... Maybe I am being a little too judgmental. *People like what they like. 🤣

Maybe I'm mesmerized because the guy hits it hole high every time.

Nah, I prefer. If you don’t like what I like, you’re wrong 

[CTgamer]

38 minutes ago, bcflyguy1 said:

Variation on the Dunning-Kruger Effect, and it's absolutely at play here.

Lol, though jokes aside I’m not sure it’s quite the same as overestimating one’s abilities or intelligence - I think this is more like “you have to know differential equations to do linear algebra” - If you only know fractions, you can be wowed by the complexity/spectacle, but you can’t understand it for what it is (rather, you can only understand what it isn’t). 
 

I’d venture a guess that the actual difference underlying opinions here is what Susan Cain talks about in her book “Quiet” - different levels of sensitivity and excitability in our nervous systems, and the cognitive processing layers built on top of that, which mean some people need more stimulation than others. For those people, they can’t just watch a good race, they also want to see the (near or actual) crash 🍻

[tatertot]

5 minutes ago, CTgamer said:

Lol, though jokes aside I’m not sure it’s quite the same as overestimating one’s abilities or intelligence - I think this is more like “you have to know differential equations to do linear algebra” - If you only know fractions, you can be wowed by the complexity/spectacle, but you can’t understand it for what it is (rather, you can only understand what it isn’t). 
 

I’d venture a guess that the actual difference underlying opinions here is what Susan Cain talks about in her book “Quiet” - different levels of sensitivity and excitability in our nervous systems, and the cognitive processing layers built on top of that, which mean some people need more stimulation than others. For those people, they can’t just watch a good race, they also want to see the (near or actual) crash 🍻

And I thought it was just people being pains in the gluteus maximus.

[bscinstnct]

People cheer for those who they would like to see themselves as if they were out there. 
 

It’s that simple. 

[mshills]

1 hour ago, CTgamer said:

I’m really curious what the handicap distribution is for folks who feel  “Scheffler is boring and/or more boring than other elite golfers throughout history” and the folks who feel “great golf, even if executed in a methodical, stoic way, is exciting, period.”

 

There’s a concept in sport of “being good enough to know how bad you are.” In golf, a 25 handicap literally has no way of conceiving how good a tour pro is. Sure, they can see the shots on tv. They can see the scoring differential. But when it comes to the actual difficulty and skill involved in doing it at that level, they’re not good enough to even begin to truly understand. These players “are so low on the mountain, they can’t see the top.” 
 

Versus, for sake of argument, a scratch player might see glimpses of what tour players do regularly and with ease. Maybe they’ve shot 65. Maybe they executed staggeringly difficult shots, reading lies, catching perfect contact, seeing the ball land in a tiny circle to pull off a shot. These players are “far enough up the mountain to see how far away they really are from the top.”

 

My hypothesis (not a criticism) would be the more someone is in group one, the more Scheffler is boring. And the more someone is in group two, the more they *could* but not necessarily *will* find Scheffler exciting/awe-inducing. 

Can’t agree with this, which is OK, not an attack. Stratifying golf fans into “good enough to appreciate…” versus not? Well, I can’t get with that. The guy who has been a 22 his whole life won’t necessarily grasp how hard it is to do all the things he is seeing, but I don’t think you necessarily have to be a stick to know what good looks like and appreciate it as a fan.

 

I never even played football, let alone was any good, but that didn’t keep me from appreciating what I saw Brady or Rice or Sanders do. 

 

Very different than dispensing advice on here, which should come with a level of competence. 

[TiScape]

20 minutes ago, bscinstnct said:

People cheer for those who they would like to see themselves as if they were out there. 
 

It’s that simple. 

IDK bscin. I cheer for Max and wouldn’t wanna walk like that. It’s kinda odd. 

[Mr.Cleeks]

1 hour ago, Titleist99 said:

 

100% agree.

 

Some call it fiery and emotional.

 

Others call it whiny and annoying, but certainly not entertaining.

Seve was fiery. Rahm's a child

[isaacbm]

1 hour ago, Obee said:

It's crazy that you guys don't get this really big and obvious distinction: Most of us LIKE HIM. We are not especially ENTERTAINED by him.

 

Good. Lord. People. You are making me resort to ALL CAPS!!!

 

 

Well, in this case, how are you using the word entertain?. I mean to me, I’m entertained (provided with enjoyment) by watching excellence. That’s what gets me the most excited. Watching some emotional lunatic throw clubs, fist bump or high five the gallery just doesn’t do it for me.
 

I can watch the same thing at a div three minor league hockey game. I’m honestly put off by that sort of thing.
 

I always liked watching Tiger Woods, despite how emotional he got. Despite the high-fiving, the fist bumping and the uppercut punching. I always thought he looked like an absolute tool when he did that. But I was entertained by the quality of his golf.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

1 minute ago, isaacbm said:

Well, in this case, how are you using the word entertain?. I mean to me, I’m entertained (provided with enjoyment) by watching excellence. That’s what gets me the most excited. Watching some emotional lunatic throw clubs, fist bump or high five the gallery just doesn’t do it for me.
 

I can watch the same thing at a div three minor league hockey game. I’m honestly put off by that sort of thing.
 

I always liked watching Tiger Woods, despite how emotional he got. Despite the high-fiving, the fist bumping and the uppercut punching. I always thought he looked like an absolute tool when he did that. But I was entertained by the quality of his golf.

I'd like to highlight your comment and emphasize that Tiger was pretty stoic on the course. He was serious and focused. He didn't high-five fans either during the round, he basically ignored them. 

His interviews with the media were totally guarded and robotic. Scottie on the other hand is quite personable and interviews very well. Plus his caddie Ted isn't a total buffoon like Stevie was. 

[Obee]

9 minutes ago, isaacbm said:

Well, in this case, how are you using the word entertain?. I mean to me, I’m entertained (provided with enjoyment) by watching excellence. That’s what gets me the most excited. Watching some emotional lunatic throw clubs, fist bump or high five the gallery just doesn’t do it for me.
 

I can watch the same thing at a div three minor league hockey game. I’m honestly put off by that sort of thing.
 

I always liked watching Tiger Woods, despite how emotional he got. Despite the high-fiving, the fist bumping and the uppercut punching. I always thought he looked like an absolute tool when he did that. But I was entertained by the quality of his golf.

 

And I liked watching Tiger (partially) because of how emotional he got -- and this is just as important -- how emotional he got the crowds to be.

Isn't it just crazy that two people can have different things that entertain them??? I mean it's like you guys think we should all like the same stuff in the same ways. It boggles, truly.

[Obee]

3 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

I'd like to highlight your comment and emphasize that Tiger was pretty stoic on the course. He was serious and focused. He didn't high-five fans either during the round, he basically ignored them. 

His interviews with the media were totally guarded and robotic. Scottie on the other hand is quite personable and interviews very well. Plus his caddie Ted isn't a total buffoon like Stevie was. 

Tiger was significantly emotional on the course quite frequently. What Tiger were you watching?

[isaacbm]

3 minutes ago, BlackDiamondPar5 said:

I'd like to highlight your comment and emphasize that Tiger was pretty stoic on the course. He was serious and focused. He didn't high-five fans either during the round, he basically ignored them. 

His interviews with the media were totally guarded and robotic. Scottie on the other hand is quite personable and interviews very well. Plus his caddie Ted isn't a total buffoon like Stevie was. 

Yes, it’s funny how people remember stuff. Me included. Tiger was always shredded by how robotic he was with the media. By how little personality he had. By how short  he could be at times.

 

I didn’t care about any of that either. I only cared about watching him hit shots.

 

But  you have to admit there were definitely times when he was running around upper cutting the sky. It always just looked so over-the-top to me. But again that’s just how opinions vary  I guess

[isaacbm]

4 minutes ago, Obee said:

 

And I liked watching Tiger (partially) because of how emotional he got -- and this is just as important -- how emotional he got the crowds to be.

Isn't it just crazy that two people can have different things that entertain them??? I mean it's like you guys think we should all like the same stuff in the same ways. It boggles, truly.

Why do you keep saying “you guys “? 
 

Nobody said what you said. Nobody said that everybody should all like the same stuff. Why are you so easily boggled? Not one person said you couldn’t have your opinion or said that your opinion needed to be the same as theirs. They are just people on here voicing their opinion.
 

Edited June 3 by isaacbm

[BlackDiamondPar5]

2 minutes ago, Obee said:

Tiger was significantly emotional on the course quite frequently. What Tiger were you watching?

Throwing clubs and swearing? Is that what you want? I don't consider high-five your caddy emotional. 

 

Who does scottie need act like and what does he need to do to be more exciting to watch?