turtleback
-
Content count
3,992 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
30
1 Follower
About turtleback
-
Rank
Old Man style golfer
-
I know a number of us have been watching, to one extent or another the Masters final round replays. I find that as I do, little factoids or thoughts will come up. In the hope that I'm not the only one to experience this I thought I'd start this thread so we can share these things with each other. I'll start with 2002. I watched the front 9 of the leaders and was struck by a couple of things. 1) Retief Goosen had scored in the 60s the first three rounds and had an opportunity to be the first with all four. As we know he didn't do it. It makes me wonder, though, how many times a player has come to the 4th round with that chance. 2) Apropos of the ball-striking discussions, there was a graphic showing that in 1997 and 2001 Tiger lead the field in both driving distance and GIRs. And he was leading in both again, at that point of the final 2002 round. They also mentioned that he was 12th in putting, but I'm not sure what metric they were using. 3) Pretty power-packed leaderboard with Vijay, Ernie, Phil, Goosen, among others. Of the 10 guys immediately behind Tiger, 9 were current (2002) or future major winners. At one point the announcer said that 6 of the top ranked players in the world were on page 1 of the leaderboard. The 6 guys immediately behind Tiger were all eventual MULTIPLE major winners, with a total of 19 major wins to date.
-
I think a player/caddy relationship is like a marriage - only the ones inside it really know it. No matter how it looks to the outside world.
-
I imagine you run into this problem everywhere you go.
-
Actually we HAVE answered the question. There are just some who refuse to look at facts and logic.
-
No, a lot of us use actual facts and analysis. Thankfully you didn't try to buttress your feelings with those, as it never goes well. You are entitled to your opinion and no one can say boo about that. But if you want to explain or justify it, which you are under no obligation to do, then the things you use to do so will be tested by the facts.
-
Sorry, but that is not remotely true. They were elements in a wonderful accomplishment for a great amateur and that is all. Contrary to myth, amateur golf was NEVER remotely as strong as professional golf. Jones was the outlier - the amateur who could compete with pros. But except for him, when Amateurs and Pros met - in the 2 Open championships, the pros virtually always won. The very concept of a major didn't even exist. Majors, as we now consider them, were essentially defined as such when Arnie revived the notion of a modern Grand Slam after winning the Masters and US Open and then deciding to play the British Open. In addition to defining the majors he started the process of rehabilitating the British Open's status as an important tournament, as one of the newly defined majors - first as a matter of tradition and courtesy - and only much later as a magnet for the best players in the world. The British Open was nothing like a major in the period between Hagen and Palmer. It is fine to have an expansive definition of major for purposes of making lists, but when we are evaluating careers it is foolish to think Gary Players first 'major', in a British Open completely devoid of even one top American, at a time when Americans absolutely dominated golf, is equal or comparable to the one Reed just won. Or Jack's first British Open, when half of the top ten didn't even bother to go. It was a very different world back then compared to what we have now - where every player plays in every single major they qualify for. Bob Sweeny, Jr. Robert Watson Willie Goggin These were the only 3 Americans in the field when Player won his first 'major' at Muirfield. None of the three made the cut. At least you are honest and attribute your choice to feeling.
-
I'm not so sure. I saw Jack's whole career, as a complete golf fanatic - Golf Digest subscription from about the age of 10 (1965) and everything. Far more importantly I lived through the golf era in which he amassed his accomplishments and therefore know how much different, and easier it was than what we saw with Tiger. And I've read a lot of golf history from before Jack's era. I think it is folks whose primary personal memory of Jack is the '86 Masters who have a false, rose-colored glasses, romantic view of his career. And younger folks don't even realize that the 'majors' that so much hangs on NOW had nothing like that cachet until near the end of Jack's career. I mentioned it already, but as late as the 80s a 3-time US Open winner, now in the HOF - Hale Irwin - only played the British Open TWICE in the whole decade. So Jack's major record looks far more impressive to them than an objective evaluation would merit. They do not realize with ALL of those tough guys Jack had to compete against who are always touted based on the number of majors won, their major records look far more impressive than an objective evaluation would merit. Truth be told, Phil Mickelson has a very strong claim to the #3 spot after Tiger and Jack precisely because HIS majors were 'real' majors, in that he had to beat substantially all of the best players in the world and that is true for virtually NONE of the majors that prop up the records of Arnie and Gary and Lee and Tom, etc al, whose records are then used to prop up Jack's record. It is easy and glib and facile but intellectually lazy to accord all majors equal value. So while there is a generational aspect to it, it isn't all that simple. The stereotype of the crusty old guy who tenaciously holds onto Jack for sentimental reasons (touting 2nd place finishes is a dead giveaway) exists, but is hardly universal. And sadly there is a small element (smaller than when Tiger first turned pro, thank goodness) that has disliked him from the start because of his suntan. But a lot of us older johnnies remember what the 60s, 70s, and 80s were really like, in golf, and how much easier it was back then for the good and the great than it has become.
-
Thanks for this post.
-
Hale Irwin, 3 time US Open winner and HOFer, played the British Open 2 times, in the 10 years leading up to his 3rd US Open title. And we aren't talking about the 60s. This was 1980-1989. Even then 'majors' didn't have the cachet of today. Can we even IMAGINE a top player routinely skipping ANY major he qualified for? And yet . . .
-
Is that the same guy who had to resign under a cloud from SMU? Maybe he needs to follow his own advice?
-
Heh. Tiger won 9 USGA championships, Jack only won 8. Numbers don't lie Tiger won 18 WGCs, Jack couldn't manage to win even one. Numbers don't lie. Hey, fun game - LOL.
-
So it is subjective to say that a field that includes exactly 5 of the top ten money winners is not as strong as a field that includes 90%+ of the best players in the world, including, but not limited to, the top 30 money winners? Or that at a time when Americans dominated the world of golf, a field that only included 3 Americans no one ever heard of, was as strong as the field over which Tiger won his Tiger Slam? C'mon, man! Btw, the first example is Jack's first British Open win in 1966. The second example was Gary Player's first major in the late 50s ('58, I think) at the British Open. Virtually every one of Tiger's wins at majors, WGCs, and Players were accomplished against fields that included substantially all of the best players in the world. Hardly any, IF any, of Jack's wins fit that criteria. That isn't subjective. And the same holds for the very players whose records were likewise inflated, who are now used to pump Jack.
-
I think this is more of an issue for those who are looking at absolute level of play. Sure, today's milers are better, in absolute terms, than Roger Bannister. But personally, I look more at relative separation - a reason that I don't put as big an emphasis on the strength of field issue. Although I do put some emphasis on the distribution of field issue. But it is all about degree of dominance over a sufficiently long period, for me. This is also why the equipment issue is so funny, to me. Tiger was, arguably, at his MOST dominant early in his career when the equipment he was using wasn't much different than the equipment Jack used for his whole career. He didn't start using big titanium heads and graphite shafts until later. Outside of Patrick and his family, the thing that struck me about this article was the utter narcissism of the reporter in the first two paragraphs: What does his mother dying young years ago have to do with this story? Does everything have to start with validating a quasi-victim entitlement?
-
'Nuff said.
-
You misspelled Jordan. And any case that buttresses itself by saying 'even the media says . . .' has already lost. First of all, that is the 'appeal to authority' logical fallacy. Second of all, nowadays the media is a lousy authority.
