turtleback

Damn, there is that history again. Tiger never got a ticket tape parade, in an era where there were almost none except for championship winning team's from NY, while Jones got two in an era where they were handed out like lollipops at a kids barber shop. Heck, they gave Jones one for the singular achievement of winning the 1926 British Open.

LOL about history. Many of us here are deeply steeped in the history of golf, including @iacas so you REALLY don't want to go there, English professor or not. And if @brocks shows up I'd be really careful on the history front. You already are evidencing some reading comprehension problems. NO ONE SAID the interlocking was new (and no it isn't a variation of the Vardon any more than the Vardon is a variation of the ten-finger),. They (I) said that the 2 best players ever both rejected it - a true statement. When someone makes a true point and you respond with a distortion (the implication that a claim about the interlock being new to Jack and Tiger) and an incorrect statement (interlock as a variation of the Vardon) you really haven't countered the point. And going back to understanding how history works, we don't know for sure, but it is very likely that Vardon did not invent the Vardon, he merely popularized it. We'll that pretty much describes half your Mt. Rushmore, Jack and Bobby - what it DOESN'T describe is Tiger Woods, whose father was military at a time the military didn't pay well, who was discriminated against at various turns, who grew up playing on military base courses, not Scioto nor the Atlanta Country Club. That history and logic stuff can be pesky. The only privilege Tiger ever had in golf was the privilege of TALENT. The rest came from hard work one overcoming obstacles.

The 2 greatest players in the history of the game both use(d) the interlocking grip, not the Vardon. Just sayin'. And Jack probably did more to slow down play with both his personal style and his adoption and popularization of Deane Beman's notion of charting a course and using a yardage booklet.

Welcome to the board! There is lots of great stuff here to explore. I think you make a great point about Miller not relying on close contacts with the players and thereby not having to temper his honesty to avoid losing sources.

We can hope, but this thread suggests otherwise.

Hard to believe this thread even exists, in the 21st century.

The whole thing is contrived for TV so why not go whole hog and change the format to create more interaction. One possibility is what I would call doubling cube match play. Before every shot a player has the option of doubling the hole. If he does, his opponent can refuse, and lose the hole right there, or he can accept and the hole counts double. And a player accepting a double retains the right to redouble his opponent before any of his further shots. The way it works in backgammon. Another possibility would be poker golf. Before each shot there is a betting round, with an ante before the initial tee-off. Then before each shot a player can check or bet. His opponent can fold, call or raise. This would make the scorekeeping method money won, rather than strokes or holes. Sure it is a little Mickey Mouse, but the whole thing is pretty Mickey anyway.

They could (and maybe should) have left out the phrase 'of his generation'.

Interesting, you remember a Hall of Fame all time NFL player - but only because of his connection with a broadcaster - and present this as evidence that playing legacy trumps announcing legacy. I think there is something a little backwards there. Gifford is actually an excellent example, as except among Giants fans his legacy is MNF and marrying Kathi Lee. And he was a bigger star, as a player, than Miller ever was. He had one great year, one very good year, and a bunch of meh years. Not even close to the level of Jack, Lee, or Gary.

Who? The credit card company or the socialists.

Jack was nowhere near as dominant as Tiger, and Johnny was nowhere near the player Phil has been. Miller had a couple of great years, but basically a mediocre rest of his career for a great golfer. If you do the match play thing, pairing Miller's years with Phil's, Phil wins easily.

Yeah, they'll be stuck trying to survive on their 8-10 figure net worths. The money is really the biggest yawn to me. It will have no effect at all on the winner's life, but some of those watching will be all excited about it because that amount of money would be life changing to them.

Is it winner take all?

Of course I understand their logic, but it is stupid logic to accommodate stupid people who can't wrap their heads around the idea of 2 people winning 2 different things. But geez, even NASCAR fans can understand this. TPTB are selling golf fans short if they think they are not as smart as NASCAR fans.

I would have no trouble with any of it if they didn't count this as an official tour win. No other tour win ever had these parameters. The tournament counts are screwed up enough, with events counting for Snead that would never count for Tiger or Jack. You may not care about that but I do. And I've stated that numerous times, enough that your bafflement about why this bothers me is baffling. As to the ROG, as you very well know they cover more than the rules applicable during the round - they include a lot that is external to the playing of the round. You can have meaningful golf, and we've been having it since the Cup came in, without this silliness about 2 winners being too confusing so let's introduce a Frankenstein of an event which combines the parts of a tournament with the parts of a Chase to come with a bastardized event. And then count the 'winner' as having earned an official tour win even though someone else shot lower. And, BTW, if the new system had been in place this year Tiger would have not won the Cup, he would have been robbed of his justly earned tournament victory.