What if Payne was alive today?

[PEZGolf]

When Payne passed away on that awful day of October 25, 1999, after the jet ran out of fuel and crashed in  South Dakota, he was only 42. I often wonder "what would he be like today?"                         First, he would be playing on the Champions Tour because he "loved to play this great game". His Dad, Bill, instilled that in him. Payne was so glad that his Dad lived to see him win the Hardee's in 1982.                                                 Second, he would be the "_life of the party" according to Peter Jacobsen, aka "Jake Trout". I have the audio cassette and the CD those two, along with Mark Lye on guitar, put out under the name of "Jake Trout and the Flounders".       God bless you, Payne, and keep you! We miss you!   

[Patch]

I'd like to think Tiger would have 2 majors less than he has now if Payne had played a few more years. I always thought Payne would have been immune to Tigers so called intimidaton factor. To say it another way, Tiger was robbed of some quality competition. 

Edited December 27, 2015 by Patch

[PEZGolf]

Good post. I agree.

[turtleback]

On 12/27/2015 at 8:18 PM, Patch said:

I'd like to think Tiger would have 2 majors less than he has now if Payne had played a few more years. I always thought Payne would have been immune to Tigers so called intimidaton factor. To say it another way, Tiger was robbed of some quality competition. 

Kind of like Jack was when Tony Lema was killed just as he was emerging as a top player.

[Lihu]

I need to read up more about Payne Stewart. . .seems like an interesting golfer.

 

 

[Patch]

16 minutes ago, turtleback said:

Kind of like Jack was when Tony Lema was killed just as he was emerging as a top player.

Yep. Same possible scenario, that would have probably included others besides Jack.  Champaign Tony Lema. Thanks for mentioning him.

[iacas]

On December 27, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Patch said:

I'd like to think Tiger would have 2 majors less than he has now if Payne had played a few more years. I always thought Payne would have been immune to Tigers so called intimidaton factor. To say it another way, Tiger was robbed of some quality competition. 

That's kind of ridiculous. He was 42 when he died, and would have been 43 in January the next year, so he had very little time to win majors.

1997 - Won the Masters by 12 (Payne's best finish was in 1986 at T8). So let's take any of Tiger's wins at The Masters away from consideration, as Payne never played particularly well there.
2000 - Won by 15. Sorry, but nobody was catching him in that.
2000 - Won by 8. So he wasn't winning that one.
2000 - Won in a playoff over Bob May, but they were five strokes clear of the field. So highly unlikely he wins that at 43.
2001 - Masters, non-starter. Payne is now 44.
2002 - Masters, non-starter. Payne is now 45.
2002 - U.S. Open over Phil Mickelson. Payne is 45.
2005 - Masters, non-starter.
2005 - Open Championship, won by five. Payne would have been 47. So his window was basically closed.

So which two majors would Payne have won if he was still alive, starting at age 43 in the year 2000 when Tiger won two of those majors by 23 strokes (and won the three by 28 strokes if you discard Bob May from tying him in the PGA)?

Payne was a good golfer, but saying he'd have nearly doubled his major total against Tiger Woods, after he turned 43, is more than a long stretch.

Payne's 1999 win (at 42) was a bit of a miracle, after all. His other two major wins came in 1989 and 1991.

[PEZGolf]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

That's kind of ridiculous. He was 42 when he died, and would have been 43 in January the next year, so he had very little time to win majors.

1997 - Won the Masters by 12 (Payne's best finish was in 1986 at T8). So let's take any of Tiger's wins at The Masters away from consideration, as Payne never played particularly well there.
2000 - Won by 15. Sorry, but nobody was catching him in that.
2000 - Won by 8. So he wasn't winning that one.
2000 - Won in a playoff over Bob May, but they were five strokes clear of the field. So highly unlikely he wins that at 43.
2001 - Masters, non-starter. Payne is now 44.
2002 - Masters, non-starter. Payne is now 45.
2002 - U.S. Open over Phil Mickelson. Payne is 45.
2005 - Masters, non-starter.
2005 - Open Championship, won by five. Payne would have been 47. So his window was basically closed.

So which two majors would Payne have won if he was still alive, starting at age 43 in the year 2000 when Tiger won two of those majors by 23 strokes (and won the three by 28 strokes if you discard Bob May from tying him in the PGA)?

Payne was a good golfer, but saying he'd have nearly doubled his major total against Tiger Woods, after he turned 43, is more than a long stretch.

Payne's 1999 win (at 42) was a bit of a miracle, after all. His other two major wins came in 1989 and 1991.

1. I do not want to stir a HUGE DEBATE here, but let us consider these FACTS:
2. Hicksie (i.e. Mike Hicks) has said that Payne could have won the Open Championship (remember that Payne came in second to Nick Faldo in 1990), but it was not likely he would win the Masters.
3. Let us look who won the Open Championships from 2000 to 2004:
4. 2000---Tiger at St. Andrews
5. 2001  David Duval (who was at the top of his game and ranked #1 in the world)
6. 2002 Ernie Els (who stopped Tiger's attempt to win the real Grand Slam after Tiger had won the Masters and US Open (at Bethpage)
7. 2003 Ben Curtis
8. 2004 Todd Hamilton
9. So, Tiger won 1 and lost 4 of them.  If Payne had lived, is it not possible HE could have beat Ben Curtis and Todd Hamilton?   Food for thought, I believe.

   ---

    

[MacDutch]

Yeah, think Tiger would have won 2 more majors  if Payne was still around. Tiger would have never got injured in that parallel world 

[PEZGolf]

4 hours ago, Lihu said:

I need to read up more about Payne Stewart. . .seems like an interesting golfer.

 

 

Because of his record (3 Major wins, 12 total wins on the PGA Tour, and 5 Ryder Cup teams), Payne was inducted into the World Golf Hall of Fame, along with "the Shark", Greg Norman in 2000.  I have not been to St. Augustine to see the Hall of Fame, and Payne's plaque there, but I hope to do so before I die (I am 67 years young, so I hope God will give me that opportunity).

[mvmac]

On 12/27/2015 at 7:18 PM, Patch said:

I always thought Payne would have been immune to Tigers so called intimidaton factor.

Tiger won the US Open by 15 and Open Championship by 8, Payne wouldn't have been immune to that  

Bob May also wasn't "intimidated" by Tiger and he still lost.

34 minutes ago, PEZGolf said:

Hicksie (i.e. Mike Hicks) has said that Payne could have won the Open Championship (remember that Payne came in second to Nick Faldo in 1990), but it was not likely he would win the Masters.

That's a silly "fact" to use. Tiger was -19 and won by eight shots. Payne was 2nd in 1990 at -13, five shots back of Faldo. So Payne, being 10 years older, would have improved his score by seven shots?

34 minutes ago, PEZGolf said:

So, Tiger won 1 and lost 4 of them.  If Payne had lived, is it not possible HE could have beat Ben Curtis and Todd Hamilton?  Food for thought, I believe.

At age 46 and 47? Not likely.

[nevets88]

He was very charismatic. Definitely a career in the booth or announcing? Ryder Cup captainship, definitely, no?

[Patch]

Rediculous maybe, but not impossible. 

[iacas]

25 minutes ago, Patch said:

Rediculous maybe, but not impossible. 

Of course not literally impossible, but you said:

On December 27, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Patch said:

I'd like to think Tiger would have 2 majors less than he has now if Payne had played a few more years.

So yes, that's pretty ridiculous. Payne was a very, very long shot to win any major let alone specifically the ones Tiger won (often by 5+ strokes over players much, much better than Payne at 43+ years old).

[saevel25]

Yea it's not happening. Lets say by some chance Payne Stewart played just as well for 6 years to age 48 as he did from 1992 till 1999. During that time he had a 25% chance of making the top 10. A 40% chance of not even cracking the top 50. 

From 2000, till 2005 Tiger had a 58% chance of being in the top 10. Tiger NEVER finished outside the top 50. His worst place finish during that stretch was 39th. Payne finished outside 39th 14 times. Payne Stewart would finish worst than Tiger's worst 50% of the time. That is assuming he played as well from age 43-48 as he did from 37 to 42. Yea, I am calling that not happening. He would be lucky to get in the top 10. 

Maybe his only shot would have been in 2001 or 2003, probably 2003 when Furyk won at Olympia Fields. That wouldn't be stealing a Major from Tiger. 

[ScouseJohnny]

Quote

What if Payne was alive today?

 

With that lovely swing he had, the Champions' Tour would be even more fun to watch, and Payne would likely have a cabinet full of silverware on account of it.

[PEZGolf]

56 minutes ago, ScouseJohnny said:

 

With that lovely swing he had, the Champions' Tour would be even more fun to watch, and Payne would likely have a cabinet full of silverware on account of it.

I agree. There are basically two distinct groups of professional golfers. First, there are "the grinders" who believe that playing golf is a job that requires hard work, dedication, concentration and focus. The fans are there to see good swings and putts dropping, thus producing low scores that WIN!

---

  In the first group, obviously are Tiger, Ben Hogan, Davis Love III, Jack, and Tom Kite, among others.

The next group consists of the "entertainers". They have a lot of natural ability and know how to properly use it without spending countless hours at the driving range. Ben Hogan, in his relentless pursuit of perfection, believed he hit only a few "good" shots a round. The Haig, by contrast, knew he would hit 7 bad shots a round and accepted that inevitability.  Hagen's philosophy was summed up his advice: "Don't hurry. Don't worry. And do NOT forget to smell the flowers along the way."                                        The entertainers believe the fans are there to see good shots AND also be entertained. Payne fits into this group, along with Hagen, Jimmy Demaret, Lee Trevino, Fred Couples, Doug Sanders, Fred Funk, the FUZ, Chi Chi, Ben Crenshaw, and Ian Poulter.                                                         Neither group is "right" while the other is "wrong".  You know the expression-----"different strokes for different folks"

[boogielicious]

10 hours ago, PEZGolf said:

I agree. There are basically two distinct groups of professional golfers. First, there are "the grinders" who believe that playing golf is a job that requires hard work, dedication, concentration and focus. The fans are there to see good swings and putts dropping, thus producing low scores that WIN!

---

  In the first group, obviously are Tiger, Ben Hogan, Davis Love III, Jack, and Tom Kite, among others.

The next group consists of the "entertainers". They have a lot of natural ability and know how to properly use it without spending countless hours at the driving range. Ben Hogan, in his relentless pursuit of perfection, believed he hit only a few "good" shots a round. The Haig, by contrast, knew he would hit 7 bad shots a round and accepted that inevitability.  Hagen's philosophy was summed up his advice: "Don't hurry. Don't worry. And do NOT forget to smell the flowers along the way."                                        The entertainers believe the fans are there to see good shots AND also be entertained. Payne fits into this group, along with Hagen, Jimmy Demaret, Lee Trevino, Fred Couples, Doug Sanders, Fred Funk, the FUZ, Chi Chi, Ben Crenshaw, and Ian Poulter.                                                         Neither group is "right" while the other is "wrong".  You know the expression-----"different strokes for different folks"

Please stick to the topic, Payne Stewart.