Greg Norman Says Players Content with Top 20s over Wins

[boogielicious]

In any event, I think you may have gotten around to the fundamental point at the end and not even realized it: the "some" you reference that take solace in a paycheck for not winning are taking solace in that paycheck because they're unhappy about not winning. That's the point. They want to win tournaments.

Eventually we find the end.

Agreed.

Please use the quote box when quoting other posts.  It notifies the person you quoted that you have quoted them.  See how easy it is?

[Ferguson]

So he knew all about what these guys need to win yet could not marshal it himself in the tournaments he cared the most about.  Too bad he could never put in the effort and mental prep that NIck and Nick, Vijay, Seve, Ernie, Payne, etc. did.

Yes and no. Greg employed the use of Tony Robbins – another goofball, and that didn’t work out so well for the mental part of the game. But, c’mon, let’s be real. Like him or not, The Shark was # 1 for a long time. 60+ tournaments worldwide and a major. How many guys on tour presently in the top 25 with less than 5 wins in 2015 will have 60 wins when they retire? None.

[turtleback]

Yes and no.

Greg employed the use of Tony Robbins – another goofball, and that didn’t work out so well for the mental part of the game.

But, c’mon, let’s be real. Like him or not, The Shark was # 1 for a long time. 60+ tournaments worldwide and a major.

How many guys on tour presently in the top 25 with less than 5 wins in 2015 will have 60 wins when they retire?

None.

For Greg winning tournaments was like winning money for the (mythical) guys he is criticizing.  He says he really wanted to win majors but was pretty unsuccessful at it.  He probably has the fewest majors of any player with 50 worldwide victories.

There is nothing he can say about players who have won money but not many tournaments that I cannot turn around and apply to him having won tournaments but not many majors.

And I am still waiting for some names of these supposed players who he and you are talking about.

Crickets.

[Gunther]

For Greg winning tournaments was like winning money for the (mythical) guys he is criticizing.  He says he really wanted to win majors but was pretty unsuccessful at it.  He probably has the fewest majors of any player with 50 worldwide victories.  There is nothing he can say about players who have won money but not many tournaments that I cannot turn around and apply to him having won tournaments but not many majors.   And I am still waiting for some names of these supposed players who he and you are talking about. Crickets.

JJ Henry, Vaughn Taylor, really most of the 1-hit wonders. I think a lot of them got a taste and didn't like all that winning entails. As such, they hang around. I remember reading, maybe in A Good Walk Spoiled, mention of a player or 2 who literally, voluntarily tanked a tournament he could have won because he didn't want the spotlight. Now, I don't think that is prevalent but certainly there are players perfectly content and complacent with their relative anonymity.

[dkolo]

For Greg winning tournaments was like winning money for the (mythical) guys he is criticizing.  He says he really wanted to win majors but was pretty unsuccessful at it.  He probably has the fewest majors of any player with 50 worldwide victories.

There is nothing he can say about players who have won money but not many tournaments that I cannot turn around and apply to him having won tournaments but not many majors.

And I am still waiting for some names of these supposed players who he and you are talking about.

Crickets.

It's funny how people (me included, in my relative ignorance to golf at the time, to be honest) criticized Rory and Adam Scott for being chokers or not having what it takes. And then they won. And now no one says a damn thing along those lines (they move the goalposts on Rory instead, the way they do for Tiger)

[Quadhole]

I don't think there's any question that the majority on tour don't have what it takes to be a consistent winner from a physical, mental or emotional standpoint. They are quite content with journeyman status.

It's hard to be great. Fame is not all it's cracked up to be and I believe many don't want it. They're doing what they love in relative obscurity and are happy. I saw JJ Henry in the airport the other day. He waited in the security line like everyone else, no one recognized him but me. Imagine he were Tiger or Phil or Rory or even young Jordan now. What a pain in the neck that would be.

Where Norman goes a little sideways is relating this to today's players. True, the money is great now and you really had to win in the old days to make it a long term career but there have always been journeymen and perhaps those of today aren't quite as hungry as those of yesteryear because today's journeymen are very wealthy.

Not sure why Norman is taking such heat, douchebag? C'mon.

Perfect commets on the subject and will always be, someone will not agree. From their vantage point NO ONE would ever NOT go for the win 24/7/365. It is amazing how some people can never change their view to be a little more in the middle. Have the same thing with the PETA folks and the TEA party leaders.

Norman just stated what everybody already knew but were too affraid to say so. When you have his money you get the chance to say what you think. So do those at the bottom... It is all the guys in the middle that take the high road only... Oh how it would be awesome to read their minds as they shake every hand and say nice to meet you...

So much of this same thing happens in football now. THey have so many loose cannons. Yet, every reporter and announce, radio guy, etc. act like they have never done so many of the same things. Just not caught.. only difference...

[dkolo]

JJ Henry, Vaughn Taylor, really most of the 1-hit wonders. I think a lot of them got a taste and didn't like all that winning entails. As such, they hang around.

I remember reading, maybe in A Good Walk Spoiled, mention of a player or 2 who literally, voluntarily tanked a tournament he could have won because he didn't want the spotlight. Now, I don't think that is prevalent but certainly there are players perfectly content and complacent with their relative anonymity.

Why do you say that they that they got a taste and didn't like it? I don't know anything about these guys; they're wikipedia articles to me. Taylor won the same tournament twice in consecutive years. Henry won in 2006 and hated winning until he apparently decided he liked winning again in 2012 and won the same Reno Tahoe that Taylor won twice. Maybe the Reno Tahoe Open is just an easy tournament? It's an alternate field event so they don't have to beat the best players. Maybe these guys are good enough to beat a weaker field, but can't beat better players? Why do you ascribe complicated character flaws when there's simpler, more logical explanations?

As for the 1-and-done guys, same thing. Golf wins, I imagine, are a curve. On one end you have the fat part of thousands (millions if you count amateurs) who've won zero. You have a very tiny sliver who have won one and then proportionally fewer and fewer at 2, 3, 4, 5, with individual blips at the final totals of all time greats who've gotten into the double digits. It's a reverse hockey-stick graph, essentially.

Anyway, one and done guys make sense to me viewed that way more than the explanation that they won and went "Ugh, no thank you. PASS"

I'll also add that part of the reason these guys "hang around" is because their wins give them 2 year full exemptions and higher standing in the partial exemption list. So if they'd have finished second, they'd very likely have just disappeared when they lost their Tour card by not qualifying for one.

[turtleback]

JJ Henry, Vaughn Taylor, really most of the 1-hit wonders. I think a lot of them got a taste and didn't like all that winning entails. As such, they hang around.

I remember reading, maybe in A Good Walk Spoiled, mention of a player or 2 who literally, voluntarily tanked a tournament he could have won because he didn't want the spotlight. Now, I don't think that is prevalent but certainly there are players perfectly content and complacent with their relative anonymity.

Really?  You know how much JJ Henry and Vaughn Taylor practice?  How hard they work?  How much they want to win?

Do you really think that we could not find LOTS of one hit wonders from Norman's day?

Taylor won in 2004 and hated it so much he did it again the next year.

Henry won in 2006 and hated it so much that he did it again in 2012.

Interestingly they each won the exact number of times that Norman won a major.  So I guess they wanted to won regular events about as much as Norman wanted to win majors,  One could as easily argue that by looking at their whole careers, by winning twice Henry and Vaughn outperformed their talent level while Norman's 2 major wins shows that he under-performed HIS talent in majors.

You do realize, I hope, that if you have a fully exempt top 125 and there are only 35 or so events a lot of guys are never going to win?  And lots of guys who win once are not going to win again?  And that in every list of top 100 at ANYTHING, 90% are not in the top ten?

Norman's "observation" is 95% simple arithmetic, and 5% "look at me".

[dkolo]

Perfect commets on the subject and will always be, someone will not agree. From their vantage point NO ONE would ever NOT go for the win 24/7/365. It is amazing how some people can never change their view to be a little more in the middle. Have the same thing with the PETA folks and the TEA party leaders.

Norman just stated what everybody already knew but were too affraid to say so. When you have his money you get the chance to say what you think. So do those at the bottom... It is all the guys in the middle that take the high road only... Oh how it would be awesome to read their minds as they shake every hand and say nice to meet you...

So much of this same thing happens in football now. THey have so many loose cannons. Yet, every reporter and announce, radio guy, etc. act like they have never done so many of the same things. Just not caught.. only difference...

Being a player does not make you a good analyst automatically. They might have some insights, but they're often absolutely wrong. Take ball flights: legendary players on TV would talk at length about how to shape balls based on what their feels were, but analysis by those pesky "guys who've never played the game" (and lots of guys who have as well) proved the players dead wrong. They thought they knew something, but they didn't, and still made it work. You see this in other sports. Joe Morgan was a legendary second baseman. Probably the best to ever play the game. But his analysis on TV was so staggeringly wrong and narrative- as opposed to fact-based, it's the stuff of legend. Comments like Normans are narrative-based and I would argue that that narrative is self-serving and self-aggrandizing: by implication, he's a guy who out-worked and out-desired the field. Maybe. Probably he had more talent as a baseline and that didn't hurt him any either. I don't even doubt that he may have out-worked some players then. Just that that is really unlikely now because everybody is busting their asses in the gym and on launch monitors, etc. Thank Tiger for that.

And for the love of God, please don't make the argument of "well, let's just compromise and meet in the middle." Sometimes a position is wrong and isn't defensible. If I say 3+3 is 6 and someone says it's 4, is it a reasonable thing to agree to split the difference? I'm happy to have discussions but there needs to be concrete evidence brought in. Pushing narratives and platitudes is facile.

[Ferguson]

Being a player does not make you a good analyst automatically. They might have some insights, but they're often absolutely wrong. Take ball flights: legendary players on TV would talk at length about how to shape balls based on what their feels were, but analysis by those pesky "guys who've never played the game" (and lots of guys who have as well) proved the players dead wrong. They thought they knew something, but they didn't, and still made it work. You see this in other sports. Joe Morgan was a legendary second baseman. Probably the best to ever play the game. But his analysis on TV was so staggeringly wrong and narrative- as opposed to fact-based, it's the stuff of legend. Comments like Normans are narrative-based and I would argue that that narrative is self-serving and self-aggrandizing: by implication, he's a guy who out-worked and out-desired the field. Maybe. Probably he had more talent as a baseline and that didn't hurt him any either. I don't even doubt that he may have out-worked some players then. Just that that is really unlikely now because everybody is busting their asses in the gym and on launch monitors, etc. Thank Tiger for that. And for the love of God, please don't make the argument of "well, let's just compromise and meet in the middle." Sometimes a position is wrong and isn't defensible. If I say 3+3 is 6 and someone says it's 4, is it a reasonable thing to agree to split the difference? I'm happy to have discussions but there needs to be concrete evidence brought in. Pushing narratives and platitudes is facile.

Johnny Miller being the exception. Expert analysis from an expert player. No one said “look out” like Ken Venturi Brandel Chamblee is the worst and depicts your example.

[Gunther]

Really?  You know how much JJ Henry and Vaughn Taylor practice?  How hard they work?  How much they want to win?   Do you really think that we could not find LOTS of one hit wonders from Norman's day? Taylor won in 2004 and hated it so much he did it again the next year. Henry won in 2006 and hated it so much that he did it again in 2012. Interestingly they each won the exact number of times that Norman won a major.  So I guess they wanted to won regular events about as much as Norman wanted to win majors,  One could as easily argue that by looking at their whole careers, by winning twice Henry and Vaughn outperformed their talent level while Norman's 2 major wins shows that he under-performed HIS talent in majors. You do realize, I hope, that if you have a fully exempt top 125 and there are only 35 or so events a lot of guys are never going to win?  And lots of guys who win once are not going to win again?  And that in every list of top 100 at ANYTHING, 90% are not in the top ten? Norman's "observation" is 95% simple arithmetic, and 5% "look at me".

I hate the argument "do you know them?" It's a cop out. Of course I don't and nor do you, I'm spouting my opinions on a web site about a game which I love. As are you. I do know that no one here has as much knowledge of life on tour, past and present, as Norman, yet we are free to rip him as a douchebag whenever he opens his mouth. It's silly, really.

[Golfingdad]

I hate the argument "do you know them?" It's a cop out. Of course I don't and nor do you, I'm spouting my opinions on a web site about a game which I love. As are you.

I do know that no one here has as much knowledge of life on tour, past and present, as Norman, yet we are free to rip him as a douchebag whenever he opens his mouth. It's silly, really.

You randomly defame or criticize people you have never met and others who question where your insight comes from are "copping out?"  Your logic escapes me.

[Gunther]

You randomly defame or criticize people you have never met and others who question where your insight comes from are "copping out?"  Your logic escapes me.

I actively try not to do that in fact. Not sure you're reading closely; I'm not criticizing those who don't yearn for the spotlight. As I said, fame and greatness is hard. I personally wouldn't want it, don't think I'm cut out for it and I think most of us are in the same boat. So, if I'm criticizing them then I'm criticizing myself with them?

[dkolo]

I hate the argument "do you know them?" It's a cop out. Of course I don't and nor do you, I'm spouting my opinions on a web site about a game which I love. As are you.

I do know that no one here has as much knowledge of life on tour, past and present, as Norman, yet we are free to rip him as a douchebag whenever he opens his mouth. It's silly, really.

I don't want to call him names, and I've tried not to. But his statements are logically deficient for the reasons I've given above. There are things I'd value his insights on highly, like how the wind affects your ball at the 11th at Augusta or why a player steps off the tee when someone is too close to their line. But when he makes these broad sweeping statements about things like the will to win and other such nonsense, it's tough to accept when it defies logical scrutiny. Merely accepting his position as gospel because he's a legend is an appeal to authority that I reject. His cachet is why we are willing to discuss his position, but not a reason to blindly accept it.

[turtleback]

I hate the argument "do you know them?" It's a cop out. Of course I don't and nor do you, I'm spouting my opinions on a web site about a game which I love. As are you.

I do know that no one here has as much knowledge of life on tour, past and present, as Norman, yet we are free to rip him as a douchebag whenever he opens his mouth. It's silly, really.

Of course you hate that argument.  You say things that one could only know by personally knowing them and then you hate it when it is pointed out that you do not now what you are talking about.  I hate it when people successfully refute my argument as well.  At this point I do not feel in danger.

As to my opinions on the actual issue, all I am doing is analogizing between 2 factual situations and then applying Norman's own reasoning.

Norman's position boils down to:  If a guy is good enough to win a lot of money he is therefore good enough to win more and the fact that he doesn't is a personal failing of his having to do with being content with money and a fear of the spotlight.

To which I reply:  If a guy is good enough to get 60 worldwide wins he is good enough to win more than a couple of majors and the fact that he didn't is a personal failing of is having to do with being content with being #1 iin his own time but a fear of being in the conversation of truly great players.

Yeah, I now it doesn't make much sense,  In EITHER case.  THAT is the point!

A couple of predictions:

1) Any player who amasses more than 60 worldwide wins in the future will win more than 2 majors

2) Any player who amasses 300+ weeks at #1 in the future will win more than 2 majors.

As to Greg?  Norman knows nothing about the guys now on tour.

And he is treated as a douchebag because he has repeatedly made clear that that is exactly who he is.

The mind still reels at him publicly complaining that Tiger never called him in the 2009-2010 period.

[Gunther]

I don't want to call him names, and I've tried not to. But his statements are logically deficient for the reasons I've given above. There are things I'd value his insights on highly, like how the wind affects your ball at the 11th at Augusta or why a player steps off the tee when someone is too close to their line. But when he makes these broad sweeping statements about things like the will to win and other such nonsense, it's tough to accept when it defies logical scrutiny. Merely accepting his position as gospel because he's a legend is an appeal to authority that I reject. His cachet is why we are willing to discuss his position, but not a reason to blindly accept it.

Listen, I don't think he was speaking from an altruistic standpoint but I don't think he was too far off base either. I noted a touch of envy at the purses today compared with yesteryear but again, I believe he's speaking from a far greater knowledge foundation than anyone here so I would tend to lean in favor of his viewpoint.

[cubdog]

Johnny Miller being the exception. Expert analysis from an expert player.

No one said “look out” like Ken Venturi

Brandel Chamblee is the worst and depicts your example.

And yet I dislike Miller. I disagree with his analysis. I enjoy Chamblee and agree with him more times than not. You continue to present your opinions like they are facts.  Your opinions are not fact, and given that most everyone contributing to this thread disagrees with you, maybe you should re-evaluate your position.

[Gunther]

Of course you hate that argument.  You say things that one could only know by personally knowing them and then you hate it when it is pointed out that you do not now what you are talking about.  I hate it when people successfully refute my argument as well.  At this point I do not feel in danger. As to my opinions on the actual issue, all I am doing is analogizing between 2 factual situations and then applying Norman's own reasoning.   Norman's position boils down to:  If a guy is good enough to win a lot of money he is therefore good enough to win more and the fact that he doesn't is a personal failing of his having to do with being content with money and a fear of the spotlight. To which I reply:  If a guy is good enough to get 60 worldwide wins he is good enough to win more than a couple of majors and the fact that he didn't is a personal failing of is having to do with being content with being #1 iin his own time but a fear of being in the conversation of truly great players. Yeah, I now it doesn't make much sense,  In EITHER case.  THAT is the point! A couple of predictions:   1) Any player who amasses more than 60 worldwide wins in the future will win more than 2 majors 2) Any player who amasses 300+ weeks at #1 in the future will win more than 2 majors. As to Greg?  Norman knows nothing about the guys now on tour.   And he is treated as a douchebag because he has repeatedly made clear that that is exactly who he is.   The mind still reels at him publicly complaining that Tiger never called him in the 2009-2010 period.

I don't think you have Norman's position correct, or at least not the way I interpreted it. I read his comments as there is a sense of complacency on tour. Many players are content to collect the paycheck and don't put in the work to rise to another level. I think that is an accurate statement and nothing to be vilified over. I believe he said it while being questioned, it wasn't an unsolicited tweet as far as I know. Was there a touch of envy there? Sure, the purses today allow players to live a very wealthy lifestyle while toiling in relative mediocrity, that wasn't the case in his day. We've all heard older pros in interviews say stuff like, I saw Rory (insert the star) on the range and I knew I couldn't compete at that level anymore. All Norman is saying is that others probably feel that way too and I absolutely believe that is the case.