PGA Tour: Beemer in Philadelphia: Notes from the Ballwasher

First topic message reminder :

1).Round 3 of the FedEx Play-Offs gets underway shortly with the BMW Championship at Aronimink GC in the Philadelphia area, a Donald Ross design that's been tweaked in the years, most recently by Gil Hanse a few years ago. Aronimink will also host the 2027 PGA Championship, a return visit 65 years after Gary Player won the PGA.
Aronimink also hosted the 2010 & 2011 AT&T National (won by Justin Rose & Nick Watney respectively) so a few of this week's competitors have at least a couple of rounds of course experience; Leishman, Jason Day, Snedeker, Chas Howell, Scott, Kirk, Simpson and Cantlay all with top 25 finishes, Rose twice.

2).I'm sure Shotrock will offer on-the-spot observations and his account of course set-up/conditions last week was very interesting.
Further to the broken record about course set-ups favouring the bombers, the only clarification I would add is that the Tour presumably makes a decision about how the course would play in certain conditions.
Perhaps one day it will specify conditions that, regardless of weather, will favour accuracy. Otherwise, the Koepka mantra of "I'll back my wedge from the rough against someone with a 6-iron in the fairway" will prevail every time. No problem with that (from the rough), but perhaps conditions (creeks, trees, heather/gorse, deeper sand traps) off the fairway might be a little more penal.

3).Daniel Berger is just 12 months removed from Presidents Cup play - only one Top Ten (a conditions-aided 6th at Shinnecock) since then and now he's turning down this week's guaranteed money and shutting it down for a while with wrist problems. Not my favourite pro, but hope he's back fit and back to form soon.

4).Charley Hoffman's Top Ten-less year continued at TPC Boston leaving Phil Mickelson as the only golfer to play all 12 BMW Championships in the FedEx Play-Offs.

5).I'm still not sure how Thomas Bjorn managed to rationalise excluding Rafa from his chosen few - reckon that's a disastrous decision. Wonder if he felt he could not choose Sergio over Henrik (or vice versa) and so chose both? They both owe Bjorn big time.

6).While we weren't paying attention a few "notables" from days gone by have already earned enough in web.com Finals events including Tour winners Streb, Malnati, Mahan, Matt Jones plus another Aussie Open winner in Cameron Davis. The WTF's take this week off and resume next Thursday.

7).Who do you fancy at Aronimink? No doubt Justin Rose will be pleased to return to a happy hunting ground, but I wonder if Paul Casey might feel he has something to prove? He has a strong career record in the Play-Offs and earns my half crown e.w..
Looking forward to the action and hope Shotrock can offer some insight from inside the ropes.

Yeah I can’t argue with that

No doubt Langer is a god botherer and by far the worst European. He’s even on par or worse than most of the American bible basher boys. But my point is just that he contained himself yesterday, knowing the jabbering he’s capable of.

Good point about the home schooling. But I still wouldn’t be surprised if he’s got his closet full of guns.

super_realist wrote:

GPB wrote:

pedro wrote:Don’t think Langers god bothering was that bad. A few mentions but by American standards far from cringeworthy.

Now that is funny!  

I have watched a lot of Jordan Spieth in the last 5 years, and I have never heard him reference any religion, yet one poster here refers to him as Reverend Spieth.

I have heard casual references to God from other players and the reaction on this board has been over-the-top negative.

You seem to forget his "Science or God" question from some inbred Australian school pupil. Spieth didn't hesitate to say "god". Which is pretty funny as it's an admission that he's credulous and stupid.

No I don't remember that and thank you for illustrating my point!

pedro wrote:No doubt Langer is a god botherer and by far the worst European. He’s even on par or worse than most of the American bible basher boys. But my point is just that he contained himself yesterday, knowing the jabbering he’s capable of.

Good point about the home schooling. But I still wouldn’t be surprised if he’s got his closet full of guns.

Religiosity and gun ownership go hand in hand, ironic really.

The commonality is the fear of the boogie man.

Mark Knopfler was right all along: Jesus has got Industrial Disease, presumably from overuse.

Nice story and all, well as nice as unjustly serving 27 years in jail can be, but how many years would you give him for his depictions of the hallowed ANGC?





https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45582610

Those are terrible pictures. You'd think after spending 27 years with nothing better to do than avoid dropping the soap he might be a bit better at painting.

McLaren wrote:as unjustly serving 27 years in jail can be,

But what would you have given him for bringing the machine gun to the fight?

super_realist wrote:Those are terrible pictures. You'd think after spending 27 years with nothing better to do than avoid dropping the soap he might be a bit better at painting.

McLaren wrote:Nice story and all, well as nice as unjustly serving 27 years in jail can be, but how many years would you give him for his depictions of the hallowed ANGC?





https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45582610

I think his artwork is beautiful and would like to have one in my man-cave. I hope he can turn his talent into a successful career

I feel a lot of empathy towards Dixon.

GPB

You are right it does sound like a terrible case and I did think twice about slating the art. Although I wouldn't be hanging it in my flat, especially given my partners ban on golf related stuff being used as decor.

I actually tried to buy one of his paintings (he painted our clubhouse). I worked through his agent at the time (3 years or so back, direct contact prohibited I guess). We could never agree on a price, so no deal done.

If you don't mind revealing what sort of price was he looking for?

A few thousand $ and I was hoping for a few hundred.

GPB wrote:

McLaren wrote:Nice story and all, well as nice as unjustly serving 27 years in jail can be, but how many years would you give him for his depictions of the hallowed ANGC?





https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45582610

I think his artwork is beautiful and would like to have one in my man-cave.  I hope he can turn his talent into a successful career

I feel a lot of empathy towards Dixon.

I haven't seen the rest of his stuff, but that's a hideous example, and he's not especially talented at all. If that was in a Degree Show it wouldn't even get a 3rd Class degree. Terrible.

I actually like pieces which are painted in a deliberately naïve way, but that's just an awful picture. Car boot standard.

Shotrock wrote:A few thousand $ and I was hoping for a few hundred.

A little pricey but he did have a legal fight to pay for.

I'm never wrong wrote:

McLaren wrote:as unjustly serving 27 years in jail can be,

But what would you have given him for bringing the machine gun to the fight?

A one shot penalty..

pedro wrote:The commonality is the fear of the boogie man.

Don't blame it on the sunshine, don't blame it on the moonlight, don't blame it on the good times, blame it on the bogie.

super_realist wrote:

GPB wrote:

McLaren wrote:Nice story and all, well as nice as unjustly serving 27 years in jail can be, but how many years would you give him for his depictions of the hallowed ANGC?





https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45582610

I think his artwork is beautiful and would like to have one in my man-cave.  I hope he can turn his talent into a successful career

I feel a lot of empathy towards Dixon.

I haven't seen the rest of his stuff, but that's a hideous example, and he's not especially talented at all. If that was in a Degree Show it wouldn't even get a 3rd Class degree. Terrible.

I actually like pieces which are painted in a deliberately naïve way, but that's just an awful picture. Car boot standard.

Let me guess, you are a expert at just about everything?

I'm not an expert, but my sister is an illustrator  and a couple of mates of mine are graphic designers and I've been to many a gallery and degree show and I know a picture that isn't done with much talent when I see it.  They would laugh at this.

That is clearly a poor picture, there's no way to get round that. The use of light is terrible, the depth in it is terrible, the use of colour is terrible. It's a bloody awful picture in pretty much every respect. The only selling point to this picture, is the pretentious thing about all art, the sob story behind it.

If this picture was done by anyone else, and placed in a gallery it would attract mirth. it's a bloody AWFUL picture. It's the sort of picture where someone buys it, takes the picture out, throws it away and keeps the frame.


It could almost qualify as naïve art, but it clearly takes itself too seriously. There's no character in that picture at all, it's too simplistic but is attempting to be realistic.
Remember this is a guy who has spent 27 years in jail with NOTHING to do, and this is the best he can do? It's woeful and I haven't even mentioned the golfball is about the size of a football.

It's like a 1960's Ladybird book cover but without the charm associated with those illustrations.  

It's fine you like it, but it's a crap picture and it really doesn't show much artistic merit. I'd rather have dogs playing pool on my wall than that guff.

Golf Club pictures in clubhouses are usually terrible so I suppose it fits into that niche well, but that doesn't mean it's a good picture. It really isn't.

super_realist wrote:I'm not an expert, but my sister is an illustrator  and a couple of mates of mine are graphic designers and I've been to many a gallery and degree show and I know a picture that isn't done with much talent when I see it.  They would laugh at this.

That is clearly a poor picture, there's no way to get round that. The use of light is terrible, the depth in it is terrible, the use of colour is terrible. It's a bloody awful picture in pretty much every respect. The only selling point to this picture, is the pretentious thing about all art, the sob story behind it.

If this picture was done by anyone else, and placed in a gallery it would attract mirth. it's a bloody AWFUL picture. It's the sort of picture where someone buys it, takes the picture out, throws it away and keeps the frame.


It could almost qualify as naïve art, but it clearly takes itself too seriously. There's no character in that picture at all, it's too simplistic but is attempting to be realistic.
Remember this is a guy who has spent 27 years in jail with NOTHING to do, and this is the best he can do? It's woeful and I haven't even mentioned the golfball is about the size of a football.

It's like a 1960's Ladybird book cover but  without the charm associated with those illustrations.   

It's fine you like it, but it's a crap picture and it really doesn't show much artistic merit. I'd rather have dogs playing pool on my wall than that guff.

Golf Club pictures in clubhouses are usually terrible so I suppose it fits into that niche well, but that doesn't mean it's a good picture. It really isn't.

Firstly, this isn't what I would buy. However, Monet, Degas, Manet etc were undoubtedly pilloried in a similar fashion at the time they were actually working. It's doesn't completely grab me, but your opinion is just that, your opinion. It doesn't really make it any better than the next person's. If someone likes it, so much the better.

In addition, the back story is relevant. I hate van Gogh, but his Irises suddenly gets better when you ask why there's a yellow iris amongst all the blue ones. Lighten up.

The eye of the beholder. Some like blondes, some like brunettes. And mac will take anything. Taste is subjective.

Mac takes anything, Super takes nothing. Gotta ask yourself who is gonna have more fun in life, strikes me as a no brainier.

Diggers wrote:Mac takes anything, Super takes nothing. Gotta ask yourself who is gonna have more fun in life, strikes me as a no brainier.

It must be a huge burden to be an expert at nearly everything.

Opinions on art are just that. Saw a tv show with Giacomettis gazing head, didn't really do anything for me,but they are valued at 100s of thousands.

Art, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

navyblueshorts wrote:

super_realist wrote:I'm not an expert, but my sister is an illustrator  and a couple of mates of mine are graphic designers and I've been to many a gallery and degree show and I know a picture that isn't done with much talent when I see it.  They would laugh at this.

That is clearly a poor picture, there's no way to get round that. The use of light is terrible, the depth in it is terrible, the use of colour is terrible. It's a bloody awful picture in pretty much every respect. The only selling point to this picture, is the pretentious thing about all art, the sob story behind it.

If this picture was done by anyone else, and placed in a gallery it would attract mirth. it's a bloody AWFUL picture. It's the sort of picture where someone buys it, takes the picture out, throws it away and keeps the frame.


It could almost qualify as naïve art, but it clearly takes itself too seriously. There's no character in that picture at all, it's too simplistic but is attempting to be realistic.
Remember this is a guy who has spent 27 years in jail with NOTHING to do, and this is the best he can do? It's woeful and I haven't even mentioned the golfball is about the size of a football.

It's like a 1960's Ladybird book cover but  without the charm associated with those illustrations.   

It's fine you like it, but it's a crap picture and it really doesn't show much artistic merit. I'd rather have dogs playing pool on my wall than that guff.

Golf Club pictures in clubhouses are usually terrible so I suppose it fits into that niche well, but that doesn't mean it's a good picture. It really isn't.

Firstly, this isn't what I would buy. However, Monet, Degas, Manet etc were undoubtedly pilloried in a similar fashion at the time they were actually working. It's doesn't completely grab me, but your opinion is just that, your opinion. It doesn't really make it any better than the next person's. If someone likes it, so much the better.

In addition, the back story is relevant. I hate van Gogh, but his Irises suddenly gets better when you ask why there's a yellow iris amongst all the blue ones. Lighten up.

I was perfectly clear that it's fine to like this picture, I'm simply saying that the guy doesn't have much talent. That's not even an opinion. It's evident. Whether or not any of us like the paintings is not part of whether this guy is talented.

If I'm wrong, please show what part of this picture requires talent or what separates this from other dreary golf "art". This is the sort of standard you see from 14 year olds when you were at school. It's 100% unremarkable. You might like it, but it hasn't required much talent to produce.

Probably the only thing I note about it which raises even a little bit of intrigue is that it took 27 years to get to this glaringly average standard. I suppose that's an achievement, but in terms of a golfing handicap, this painting is about a 14, enthusiastic, but talent isn't part of it, he's just worked at it and without talent, he's getting no further.  Laughable drawings.

To soneone who has no talent or flair for art the guy has lors of talent. All cones down to opinions.

While I won't buy it, I've seen worse that would cost more. Andy warhol.

Whats wrong with saying you don't like it or its not your taste without sounding like a toss er?

beninho wrote:To soneone who has no talent or flair for art the guy has lors of talent. All cones down to opinions.

While I won't buy it, I've seen worse that would cost more. Andy warhol.

Whats wrong with saying you don't like it or its not your taste without sounding like a toss er?

Yeah, Alright Cilla.

I did say I didn't like it, but it's funny how so many of you are going on about it being about opinion, while seemingly not allowing me mine.
I'm no Brian Sewell or Will Gompertz, but it's clear that there is minimal talent in those pictures. They're almost so bad they're funny.

You're right though, it's better than crap like Tracy Emin or Jackson Pollack, but it's still crap.

super_realist wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

super_realist wrote:I'm not an expert, but my sister is an illustrator  and a couple of mates of mine are graphic designers and I've been to many a gallery and degree show and I know a picture that isn't done with much talent when I see it.  They would laugh at this.

That is clearly a poor picture, there's no way to get round that. The use of light is terrible, the depth in it is terrible, the use of colour is terrible. It's a bloody awful picture in pretty much every respect. The only selling point to this picture, is the pretentious thing about all art, the sob story behind it.

If this picture was done by anyone else, and placed in a gallery it would attract mirth. it's a bloody AWFUL picture. It's the sort of picture where someone buys it, takes the picture out, throws it away and keeps the frame.


It could almost qualify as naïve art, but it clearly takes itself too seriously. There's no character in that picture at all, it's too simplistic but is attempting to be realistic.
Remember this is a guy who has spent 27 years in jail with NOTHING to do, and this is the best he can do? It's woeful and I haven't even mentioned the golfball is about the size of a football.

It's like a 1960's Ladybird book cover but  without the charm associated with those illustrations.   

It's fine you like it, but it's a crap picture and it really doesn't show much artistic merit. I'd rather have dogs playing pool on my wall than that guff.

Golf Club pictures in clubhouses are usually terrible so I suppose it fits into that niche well, but that doesn't mean it's a good picture. It really isn't.

Firstly, this isn't what I would buy. However, Monet, Degas, Manet etc were undoubtedly pilloried in a similar fashion at the time they were actually working. It's doesn't completely grab me, but your opinion is just that, your opinion. It doesn't really make it any better than the next person's. If someone likes it, so much the better.

In addition, the back story is relevant. I hate van Gogh, but his Irises suddenly gets better when you ask why there's a yellow iris amongst all the blue ones. Lighten up.

I was perfectly clear that it's fine to like this picture, I'm simply saying that the guy doesn't have much talent. That's not even an opinion. It's evident. Whether or not any of us like the paintings is not part of whether this guy is talented.

If I'm wrong, please show what part of this picture requires talent or what separates this from other dreary golf "art". This is the sort of standard you see from 14 year olds when you were at school. It's 100% unremarkable. You might like it, but it hasn't required much talent to produce.

Probably the only thing I note about it which raises even a little bit of intrigue is that it took 27 years to get to this glaringly average standard. I suppose that's an achievement, but in terms of a golfing handicap, this painting is about a 14, enthusiastic, but talent isn't part of it, he's just worked at it and without talent, he's getting no further.  Laughable drawings.

There's simply no telling you is there? I see your thing as an engineer's technical drawing - complex, precise, no soul.

That's the point I'm making Navy, I don't see any personality in that picture at all. It's got no charm or warmth to it. It has no depth, the use of colour is not good, the level of detail is hilarious. Of any course in the world, Augusta is probably one where light and the change in light is more evident than any other in terms of trees, plants and the shadows they produce, but this isn't shown in the drawings at all. It's all uniform.

Of course, he might not have had access to many materials, but I still can't see there's much talent in it. I'm pretty sure anyone could do something similar at least with 27 years of incarceration.

I notice that I'm the only one actually putting in some criticism of it and WHY I think it's rubbish and produced with a lack of talent. No one who has liked it has said why they think it's good.

Says you...

I like the paintings cuz I think it does have depth, some bright colors, and I recognize what it is about.

And I am sure it looks better in real life than on some computer video screen.

I would like to have a print

We got chatting about art with a bloke we met in our local coffee shop the other day.  I might not have been so forthright with my opinion on modern art if I'd known that he was successful in that area !  Looked at his website afterwards and although some of it looked like it belonged in a folder of wallpaper samples, there was one that I really liked.   I can't give any reason why I liked it, I don't even know if it is a "good" piece of modern art, there is just something about it that appealed to me.  If I had it on my wall, I don't believe I would tire of looking at it.  Art appreciation is a very personal thing.  A bit like music -- sometimes you can define why you like a piece of music, other times you can't quite put your finger on why you like it, but you just enjoy listening to it.