History: do we give the legends too much recognition?

[BASHERBAKER69]

I was wondering what people on here thought about the media's regular trips down memory lane and their obsession with looking at players who have been successful but are no longer at the fore of the game?

Take Jack Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, Jones, Hogan- are these players so great that they should be remembered every time there is a major on or a big tournament? Personally, i think we should always refer back to these legends as it is important to remind ourselves how they played the game and also of the historical context in which they performed.

However, one blogger on here has remarked: David Duval..' he gets too much attention on this forum'. Why is Duval any different? (To be devils advocate). Is it that he was once a good player, but not necessarily a great one, although his form has now plummetted to such an extent that he has become an embarrassment or an irritation in some peoples' eyes? The same goes for the likes of Daly- but it is interesting, although he is a thorn in the side of the PGA tour and has many social and personal issues, people would prefer to pull for him than Duval, or Love III, for example.

So is who you support a subjective thing?, and at what point does someone become a legend of the game?, and why is someone like Tom Watson considered to be a legend over John Daly or Duval for example?

Your thoughts please.

[rudygu]

Take Jack Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, Jones, Hogan- are these players so great that they should be remembered every time there is a major on or a big tournament? Personally, i think we should always refer back to these legends as it is important to remind ourselves how they played the game and also of the historical context in which they performed.

I agree

So is who you support a subjective thing?, and at what point does someone become a legend of the game?, and why is someone like Tom Watson considered to be a legend over John Daly or Duval for example?

Like Tiger says, people only remember the majors. Tom Watson won 8 over an 8 year span and beat out the likes of Nicklaus and Trevino in the process. I think that qualifies him for "legend" status by most measures.

Duval won 1, seven years ago, and now routinely misses cuts. Don't get me wrong, I hope he figures out whatever is wrong and fixes it, but I don't view him as a legend. Daly has won 2, but most of his popularity comes from his persona and it looks like a lot of people are starting to tire of that (or tired of it long ago). He may be considered "legendary" for a lot of things, but not for his golf achievements.

[ShotCaLLa]

Daly and Duval....legends? LOL! They are not even in the same category as Watson.

What about Singh and Els? They are a lot better candidates for "legend" status then D and D.

[Hustle]

I think legends are made over long periods of time. I do not consider anyone that is still playing competitive golf a legend. I would not call Tiger Woods a legend, he is a great golfer and could become one of the legends of golf. But to me this is something that is earned after years of great success on the tour.

[BASHERBAKER69]

Monty, Fred Couples, Nick Faldo and Payne Stewart are all legends of the game.

[allin]

Monty, Fred Couples, Nick Faldo and Payne Stewart are all legends of the game.

Monty?, Fred Couples? You have a very generous definition of legend. By your standard Tony Lema was a legend, Andy Bean, etc. Players who have impact through winning or otherwise influencing the game are legends. I would accept mini-legend. Players who had an impact in one area or for a brief period of time. Monty (Ryder Cup), Fred, one major and popularity. True legends have long lasting impact in majors or on how the game is played or perceived. Tiger, Ernie Els, Phil, and VJ are the only current tour players that are or can reach that status.

[rudygu]

Monty, Fred Couples, Nick Faldo and Payne Stewart are all legends of the game.

Faldo, sure. Payne Stewart, sure. Freddie, nope. Monty, not even close.

[Avid Golfer]

I was wondering what people on here thought about the media's regular trips down memory lane and their obsession with looking at players who have been successful but are no longer at the fore of the game?

I do find it annoying some times when the media harps things like:

Ben Hogan was the most accurate (or greatest) ball striker of all time . How do they know that for a fact, and can they prove it? I do agree that Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, Jones, and Hogan played great considering the differences in equipment, golf instruction, travel, and course conditions. All of which have improved since they played the game competitively. The media's obsession over some players often overshadows other players that were great in their own right. Like Sam Sneed (with his 165 professional wins), Byron Nelson (with his 63 professional wins), Harry Vardon (62 wins including 6 Open Championships), Seve Ballesteros (94 professional wins and 5 majors), Greg Norman (86 individual professional wins and 2 majors*), Nick Faldo (43 professional wins and 6 majors), Nick Price (43 professional wins and 3 majors). Vardon had to compete with the likes of Jones. Ballesteros, Norman, Faldo, and Price all had to compete with one another on a regular basis. Arguments could be made for each of them to be considered legends. I for one find it sad that some of those players aren't held in higher regard, and aren't (and will not be) remembered for some of the things they've done. Greg Norman for example: decimated the Players Championship in 1994 with a 24-under par winning score, won 8 (yearly) awards for lowest scoring average, had 29 top tens in majors, lost playoffs in every major (by chip-ins, and holed bunker shots), and finishing second 31 times. If he'd been a little luckier (or less unlucky), or been driven to play competitively after 1998 (he's still extremely fit) his golfing record could easily have included numerous additional wins.

[ShotCaLLa]

I think legends are made over long periods of time. I do not consider anyone that is still playing competitive golf a legend. I would not call Tiger Woods a legend, he is a great golfer and could become one of the legends of golf. But to me this is something that is earned after years of great success on the tour.

Legends are REMEMBERED after long periods of time, not "necessarily" made over them, although longevity is very often a consideration.

Tiger Woods will be a legend, without a doubt. These folks say he already is http://www.golflegends.org/

[Hustle]

Legends are REMEMBERED after long periods of time, not "necessarily" made over them, although longevity is very often a consideration.

That is true, but if Tiger pulls a David Duval he will fade out as quickly as he came in.

[Craig Mac]

I don't think that the legends get too much recognition. They set the standards and records for everyone after them to chase, to which they should recieve credit. Tiger Woods could stop playing the game today and be considered a legend simply due to his win and major totals in my opinion.

[Hustle]

I don't think that the legends get too much recognition. They set the standards and records for everyone after them to chase, to which they should recieve credit. Tiger Woods could stop playing the game today and be considered a legend simply due to his win and major totals in my opinion.

Am I the only one that feels that in order to be a legend you must first beat a legend.

[ShotCaLLa]

That is true, but if Tiger pulls a David Duval he will fade out as quickly as he came in.

That would probably just add to his "legend".

Am I the only one that feels that in order to be a legend you must first beat a legend.

Isn't that what breaking records is considered?

[Hustle]

That would probably just add to his "legend".

yes, and when he breaks them all he will be a legend, just like that of Will Smith.

[allin]

I do find it annoying some times when the media harps things like:

Portraying things in absolutes is more dramatic and sells, newspapers, magazines, airtime. Look at how active the Nicklaus or Tiger greatest thread has been for a long time. Even though as you pointed out conditions are never the same. Probably the most dramatic examples are baseball, dead ball versus live ball eara and Basketball pre 24 second clock, wide lane, 3 point line versus today, yet todays is always the best ever, no one really knows, but that doesn't stop anyone, including me

[Alex B]

I do find it annoying some times when the media harps things like:

Well said.

Several corrections: Vardon didn't compete against Jones until the tail end of his career. The last time Vardon seriously contested in a major was the 1920 U.S. Open, when he missed a 3-foot putt on 18 to lose to fellow Englishman Ted Ray by a stroke. Vardon did, however, compete regularly against J.H. Taylor and James Braid, each of whom won 5 Open Championships. (In one 15-year period, the so called "Great Triumvirate" won 15 Open Championships.) In addition, Bob Tway's holed bunker shot was on the 72nd hole of the 1986 PGA Championship, not in a playoff.

[Elsfan]

Monty is a legend? Wow, just wow.

[iacas]

Am I the only one that feels that in order to be a legend you must first beat a legend.

He's beat some records set by some legends. He's held all four majors at the same time. He has more majors than virtually everyone (including several legends). He's won more PGA Tour events than virtually anyone. His winning percentage is higher than anyone's ever been.

yes, and when he breaks them all he will be a legend

If that were the case, there'd be only one legend (or none), because nobody's beat them "all."