Congratulations Lee Trevino

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 04 Mar 2007 14:49:25
From: multi
Subject: Congratulations Lee Trevino

... on winning two more majors. I'm not sure when he did it, but
today during the Honda coverage, Jack Nicklaus was asked his opinion
on Tiger's competition, and he noted that the guys HE faced knew how
to win, and gave Trevino's eight majors as an example. The record
books say six, but who are you going to believe, the record books, or
a man in the early stages of senility? Jack then noticed some golfers
coming down the fairway, and yelled at them to get off of his lawn.

Johnny Miller, not to be outdone, cited the guys who knew how to win
when Jack was playing --- Trevino, Watson, Floyd, and Irwin. He said,
"I mean, it's factual, it's not like it's my opinion." He reminded me
of Colin Powell at the UN, talking about Saddam's mobile bio labs ---
"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources,
solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are
facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."

Well, Johnny, the facts are that those guys had great careers, but as
usual, you are comparing wins over a thirty-year span to Tiger's less
than 11 full years as a pro. if you compare apples to apples, i.e. the
first 11 years of Jack's career to Tiger's career, those four guys had
a combined total of 24 wins with five majors. Mickelson and Vijay
alone, from 1996 to the present, have 52 wins and six majors. For all
we know, Tadd Fujikawa will break all of Watson's records.

In fact, you can't find ANY two guys who beat Phil and Vijay in both
wins and majors during Jack's first 11 years. Palmer and Casper only
had five majors during that time; Palmer and Player had a combined
seven majors, but "only" 48 wins.

What was really funny was that shortly after telling us about how Ray
Floyd would never choke on Sunday like these young punks today, they
showed a clip from the 1994 Senior PGA championship, where Floyd came
to the 180-yard 15th on Sunday with a one shot lead, and put two tee
shots into the water.

Date: 05 Mar 2007 20:11:36
From: Zuke
Subject: Re: Congratulations Lee Trevino

On Mon, 5 2007, David wrote:

> On Mon, 5 2007 12:23:51 -0500, Zuke <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 5 2007, David wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 5 2007 06:31:50 -0500, "Bill" <bill@home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snipped>
>>>
>>>> Miller continues to display his stupidity with senseless babblings......
>>>
>>> I felt sorry for Jack. The announcers put him in a bad spot and
>>> Jack was visibly uncomfortable with the situation. When Miller saw
>>> that he was not getting the reaction that he had hoped for, he began
>>> to babble senselessy.
>>>
>>> There was however some truth to what was being said. How many
>>> players in the last ten years have had the intestinal fortitude to
>>> challenge Woods on Sunday? There have been brief moments, but that is
>>> all. The golfers who were mentioned during Jack's era had infinitely
>>> more.
>>>
>>> The last dominant player on tour was Greg Norman. He came at the
>>> end of Jack's career and before Woods career really began to take off.
>>> No one since has shown the guts and determination to challenge Woods.
>>> A few have talked the talk, but they never got their feet moving.
>>>
>>
>> I think Faldo won six majors while Greg was winning 1.
>> I know Norman was number 1 for
>> most of that time and finished 2nd quite a bit but whose career
>> record would you rather have?
>
> Norman had so many tournaments stolen from him that it was easy to
> feel sorry for him. Faldo, while he won more majors, I don't feel was
> as intimidating on the golf course as Norman was. As was pointed out
> later in this thread, Norman had more total wins than Faldo.
>

History remembers majors. That's why the elite shoot for them. Perhaps
it was because Faldo had some more inner fight than Norman but there
isn't a doubt about who had more success in getting the trophies
everybody cares about. But then I think Faldo only won Masters and
British Opens so that might say something about his game as well.

Date: 05 Mar 2007 15:07:35
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Congratulations Lee Trevino

Date: 05 Mar 2007 21:56:45
From: George Orwell
Subject: Re: Congratulations Lee Trevino

In article <u5hmu2pdhnhv6ktqju475427kt3vb531d0@4ax.com >
multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
>
> ... on winning two more majors. I'm not sure when he did it, but
> today during the Honda coverage, Jack Nicklaus was asked his opinion
> on Tiger's competition, and he noted that the guys HE faced knew how
> to win, and gave Trevino's eight majors as an example. The record
> books say six, but who are you going to believe, the record books, or
> a man in the early stages of senility? Jack then noticed some golfers
> coming down the fairway, and yelled at them to get off of his lawn.
>
> Johnny Miller, not to be outdone, cited the guys who knew how to win
> when Jack was playing --- Trevino, Watson, Floyd, and Irwin. He said,
> "I mean, it's factual, it's not like it's my opinion." He reminded me
> of Colin Powell at the UN, talking about Saddam's mobile bio labs ---
> "My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources,
> solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are
> facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."
>
> Well, Johnny, the facts are that those guys had great careers, but as
> usual, you are comparing wins over a thirty-year span to Tiger's less
> than 11 full years as a pro. if you compare apples to apples, i.e. the
> first 11 years of Jack's career to Tiger's career, those four guys had
> a combined total of 24 wins with five majors. Mickelson and Vijay
> alone, from 1996 to the present, have 52 wins and six majors. For all
> we know, Tadd Fujikawa will break all of Watson's records.
>
> In fact, you can't find ANY two guys who beat Phil and Vijay in both
> wins and majors during Jack's first 11 years. Palmer and Casper only
> had five majors during that time; Palmer and Player had a combined
> seven majors, but "only" 48 wins.
>
> What was really funny was that shortly after telling us about how Ray
> Floyd would never choke on Sunday like these young punks today, they
> showed a clip from the 1994 Senior PGA championship, where Floyd came
> to the 180-yard 15th on Sunday with a one shot lead, and put two tee
> shots into the water.

While you're out there busy banging the tiger bandwagon drum, you forgot to google Lee. He has 6 majors on the regular tour and 3 on the senior's. So, I guess Jack was a lot closer than you when it comes to juding talent. I'll take "senility" anyday over the tournament for ignorance and arrogance, that you seem to have won hands down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Trevino

Date: 05 Mar 2007 17:14:56
From: multi
Subject: Re: Congratulations Lee Trevino

On Mon, 5 2007 21:56:45 +0100 (CET), George Orwell
<nobody@mixmaster.it > wrote:
>While you're out there busy banging the tiger bandwagon drum,

Tiger was not being attacked; the rest of the tour was.

> you forgot to google Lee. He has 6 majors on the regular tour
> and 3 on the senior's.

Actually I did google that before I posted, just to make sure his
total wasn't eight with the seniors. As you note, it wasn't. And it
is certain that Jack wasn't including seniors anyway, because in the
same sentence, he said Watson had eight majors as well. As I'm sure
you know, Watson has eight regular majors and four senior majors. If
Jack were including seniors, he would have said Watson had 15 majors.

> So, I guess Jack was a lot closer than you when it comes to juding
> talent.

Obviously. He sure spotted Tiger early, when he predicted he'd win 10
Green Jackets. Fortunately for me, there is no judgment required when
quoting a man's official record.

>I'll take "senility" anyday over the tournament for ignorance
> and arrogance

As I'm sure your family knows, nothing prevents one from having all
three.

> that you seem to have won hands down.

Sorry I attacked your idol, but he asked for it. Jack has one job now
--- to reign as the elder statesman and GOAT emeritus, playing in
events for the "last" time every couple years, and basking in the
tributes that such an occasion merits. I have no problem with any of
that. I don't even have a problem with his shameless self-promotion,
which began back in the 70's, when he lobbied strenuously to get major
victories adopted as the standard of greatness --- even though he was
the very first golfer who played all four majors each year, while most
of his competition for GOAT could play at most 3 a year under normal
conditions, and none during WW II. Nelson's retirement from full-time
competition came after he played his 25th major.

Where I have the problem is when he goes beyond saying how great he
is/was, and starts in on what a bunch of lazy chokers today's players
are. I would argue that Ernie, Phil, and Vijay would have given Jack
just as much trouble as Palmer, Casper, and Trevino, but I would not
try to do it by saying the latter group were chokers. Even Jack must
acknowledge that the depth of talent of Tiger's competition is higher
than when he played, so he resorts to questioning their character
instead, saying they fold under pressure, or they are satisfied with
second place. IMO that is despicable.

In any game where you keep score, there are bound to be statistical
anomalies. Arnie lost the '66 US Open to Casper, after leading by
seven shots with nine holes to play. Watson, after beating Jack head
to head several times, lost a two-shot lead with five holes remaining
to Scott Simpson in the '87 US Open. You could say that "proves" that
Palmer and Watson were chokers, or you could say it proves that
Simpson is way better than Jack, or you could say that anomalies
happen.

Date: 06 Mar 2007 00:07:01
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Congratulations Lee Trevino

JN was the best golfer of the 20th century. It is a shame to insult him. It
doesn't say much about the fans of the game.

"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:6dcpu25o0j7fhv6j90tk4099vq1fh1s2fq@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 2007 21:56:45 +0100 (CET), George Orwell
> <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>>While you're out there busy banging the tiger bandwagon drum,
>
> Tiger was not being attacked; the rest of the tour was.
>
>> you forgot to google Lee. He has 6 majors on the regular tour
>> and 3 on the senior's.
>
> Actually I did google that before I posted, just to make sure his
> total wasn't eight with the seniors. As you note, it wasn't. And it
> is certain that Jack wasn't including seniors anyway, because in the
> same sentence, he said Watson had eight majors as well. As I'm sure
> you know, Watson has eight regular majors and four senior majors. If
> Jack were including seniors, he would have said Watson had 15 majors.
>
>> So, I guess Jack was a lot closer than you when it comes to juding
>> talent.
>
> Obviously. He sure spotted Tiger early, when he predicted he'd win 10
> Green Jackets. Fortunately for me, there is no judgment required when
> quoting a man's official record.
>
>>I'll take "senility" anyday over the tournament for ignorance
>> and arrogance
>
> As I'm sure your family knows, nothing prevents one from having all
> three.
>
>> that you seem to have won hands down.
>
> Sorry I attacked your idol, but he asked for it. Jack has one job now
> --- to reign as the elder statesman and GOAT emeritus, playing in
> events for the "last" time every couple years, and basking in the
> tributes that such an occasion merits. I have no problem with any of
> that. I don't even have a problem with his shameless self-promotion,
> which began back in the 70's, when he lobbied strenuously to get major
> victories adopted as the standard of greatness --- even though he was
> the very first golfer who played all four majors each year, while most
> of his competition for GOAT could play at most 3 a year under normal
> conditions, and none during WW II. Nelson's retirement from full-time
> competition came after he played his 25th major.
>
> Where I have the problem is when he goes beyond saying how great he
> is/was, and starts in on what a bunch of lazy chokers today's players
> are. I would argue that Ernie, Phil, and Vijay would have given Jack
> just as much trouble as Palmer, Casper, and Trevino, but I would not
> try to do it by saying the latter group were chokers. Even Jack must
> acknowledge that the depth of talent of Tiger's competition is higher
> than when he played, so he resorts to questioning their character
> instead, saying they fold under pressure, or they are satisfied with
> second place. IMO that is despicable.
>
> In any game where you keep score, there are bound to be statistical
> anomalies. Arnie lost the '66 US Open to Casper, after leading by
> seven shots with nine holes to play. Watson, after beating Jack head
> to head several times, lost a two-shot lead with five holes remaining
> to Scott Simpson in the '87 US Open. You could say that "proves" that
> Palmer and Watson were chokers, or you could say it proves that
> Simpson is way better than Jack, or you could say that anomalies
> happen.
>

Date: 05 Mar 2007 18:05:03
From: greenkeeper
Subject: Re: Congratulations Lee Trevino

In message <iskou2l7j2curre77jh6aj8sfjef8nuidq@4ax.com >, Howard Brazee
<howard@brazee.net > writes
>On Mon, 5 2007 12:23:51 -0500, Zuke <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>I think Faldo won six majors while Greg was winning 1.
>>I know Norman was number 1 for
>>most of that time and finished 2nd quite a bit but whose career
>>record would you rather have?
>
>Nick's. They had to change the rules to get Greg half of Nick's
>wins. (and give Greg the 20 win exemption).
>
>But Greg seemed to have a much more successful non-golf life.

Faldo 9 USPGA Tour wins 34 "others"
Norman 20 and 68 respectively.

http://www.pbase.com/alancampbell/image/69811758/medium
--
alan

Date: 05 Mar 2007 11:46:24
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Congratulations Lee Trevino

On Mon, 5 2007 18:05:03 +0000, greenkeeper
<greenkeeper@alanxxxcampbell.demon.co.uk > wrote:

>Faldo 9 USPGA Tour wins 34 "others"
>Norman 20 and 68 respectively.

Thanks for the correction (My research was too quick).

Date: 05 Mar 2007 12:23:51
From: Zuke
Subject: Re: Congratulations Lee Trevino

On Mon, 5 2007, David wrote:

> On Mon, 5 2007 06:31:50 -0500, "Bill" <bill@home.com> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
>> Miller continues to display his stupidity with senseless babblings......
>
> I felt sorry for Jack. The announcers put him in a bad spot and
> Jack was visibly uncomfortable with the situation. When Miller saw
> that he was not getting the reaction that he had hoped for, he began
> to babble senselessy.
>
> There was however some truth to what was being said. How many
> players in the last ten years have had the intestinal fortitude to
> challenge Woods on Sunday? There have been brief moments, but that is
> all. The golfers who were mentioned during Jack's era had infinitely
> more.
>
> The last dominant player on tour was Greg Norman. He came at the
> end of Jack's career and before Woods career really began to take off.
> No one since has shown the guts and determination to challenge Woods.
> A few have talked the talk, but they never got their feet moving.
>

I think Faldo won six majors while Greg was winning 1.
I know Norman was number 1 for
most of that time and finished 2nd quite a bit but whose career
record would you rather have?

Date: 05 Mar 2007 19:36:06
From: David
Subject: Re: Congratulations Lee Trevino

On Mon, 5 2007 12:23:51 -0500, Zuke <me@privacy.net > wrote:

>On Mon, 5 2007, David wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 5 2007 06:31:50 -0500, "Bill" <bill@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snipped>
>>
>>> Miller continues to display his stupidity with senseless babblings......
>>
>> I felt sorry for Jack. The announcers put him in a bad spot and
>> Jack was visibly uncomfortable with the situation. When Miller saw
>> that he was not getting the reaction that he had hoped for, he began
>> to babble senselessy.
>>
>> There was however some truth to what was being said. How many
>> players in the last ten years have had the intestinal fortitude to
>> challenge Woods on Sunday? There have been brief moments, but that is
>> all. The golfers who were mentioned during Jack's era had infinitely
>> more.
>>
>> The last dominant player on tour was Greg Norman. He came at the
>> end of Jack's career and before Woods career really began to take off.
>> No one since has shown the guts and determination to challenge Woods.
>> A few have talked the talk, but they never got their feet moving.
>>
>
>I think Faldo won six majors while Greg was winning 1.
>I know Norman was number 1 for
>most of that time and finished 2nd quite a bit but whose career
>record would you rather have?

Norman had so many tournaments stolen from him that it was easy to
feel sorry for him. Faldo, while he won more majors, I don't feel was
as intimidating on the golf course as Norman was. As was pointed out
later in this thread, Norman had more total wins than Faldo.

David

Date: 05 Mar 2007 10:35:03
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Congratulations Lee Trevino

On Mon, 5 2007 12:23:51 -0500, Zuke <me@privacy.net > wrote:

>I think Faldo won six majors while Greg was winning 1.
>I know Norman was number 1 for
>most of that time and finished 2nd quite a bit but whose career
>record would you rather have?

Nick's. They had to change the rules to get Greg half of Nick's
wins. (and give Greg the 20 win exemption).

But Greg seemed to have a much more successful non-golf life.

Date: 05 Mar 2007 05:18:34
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Congratulations Lee Trevino

On 5, 7:41 am, "EdSmithers" <spirosdarlo...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> > > The unfortunate reality is that Tiger makes Jack an
> > > also-ran. More people play now. There is more money
> > > now. More competition now. And Tiger is more dominant
> > > than anyone has ever been.
>
> So, Jack's life and career are all minimized now? This all or nothing
> attitude that seems to pervade sports just makes me ill. There's one
> champion, and everyone else is a giant fucking loser. Is that how it
> is in your world? Are you the best ever at getting those fries hot out
> of the basket? Because if you're not, then you're nothing.

As Barry Bonds approaches Hank Aaron's record for home runs,
you will not find Hank Aaron making excuses about how much tougher
it was to hit home runs before steroids, or how the hotter ball today
makes hitting home runs easier. He simply says he is thrilled that
Barry is chasing his record, and wishes him all the luck in the
world.

Because that is what a good sportsman would do. A poor sport
would make every excuse up that he could about how the
accomplishments of today cannot be compared to the
accomplishments of his day.

Jack should show a little class.

-PA

Date: 05 Mar 2007 14:53:54
From: David
Subject: Re: Congratulations Lee Trevino

On 5 2007 05:18:34 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote:

>On 5, 7:41 am, "EdSmithers" <spirosdarlo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > The unfortunate reality is that Tiger makes Jack an
>> > > also-ran. More people play now. There is more money
>> > > now. More competition now. And Tiger is more dominant
>> > > than anyone has ever been.
>>
>> So, Jack's life and career are all minimized now? This all or nothing
>> attitude that seems to pervade sports just makes me ill. There's one
>> champion, and everyone else is a giant fucking loser. Is that how it
>> is in your world? Are you the best ever at getting those fries hot out
>> of the basket? Because if you're not, then you're nothing.
>
>As Barry Bonds approaches Hank Aaron's record for home runs,
>you will not find Hank Aaron making excuses about how much tougher
>it was to hit home runs before steroids, or how the hotter ball today
>makes hitting home runs easier. He simply says he is thrilled that
>Barry is chasing his record, and wishes him all the luck in the
>world.

Personally, when Aaron broke Ruth's record, my opinon was that it
was a nice schievement; however, the number of at-bats that Aaron
needed to get to that number showed how great Ruth's achievement was.

Anyone who makes a comment about how you cannot compare Bonds to
Aaron, because Bonds was using steroids has a strong argument going
for himself.

>Because that is what a good sportsman would do. A poor sport
>would make every excuse up that he could about how the
>accomplishments of today cannot be compared to the
>accomplishments of his day.
>
>Jack should show a little class.

Jack is a class act. As I already pointed out in this thread, he
was stuck in the middle of a terrible interview and he tried
gracefully to get himself unstuck. Unfortunately, Miller could not
let it go and everyone came off looking like idiots.

>-PA

David

Date: 05 Mar 2007 11:32:28
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Congratulations Lee Trevino

But you gotta admit that saying Tiger has no competition is ludicrous, not
the rapper.

"David" <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote in message
news:8u7ou29rvoeb38hlr950c9pg9dnigt1jbg@4ax.com...
> On 5 2007 05:18:34 -0800, "SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 5, 7:41 am, "EdSmithers" <spirosdarlo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> > > The unfortunate reality is that Tiger makes Jack an
>>> > > also-ran. More people play now. There is more money
>>> > > now. More competition now. And Tiger is more dominant
>>> > > than anyone has ever been.
>>>
>>> So, Jack's life and career are all minimized now? This all or nothing
>>> attitude that seems to pervade sports just makes me ill. There's one
>>> champion, and everyone else is a giant fucking loser. Is that how it
>>> is in your world? Are you the best ever at getting those fries hot out
>>> of the basket? Because if you're not, then you're nothing.
>>
>>As Barry Bonds approaches Hank Aaron's record for home runs,
>>you will not find Hank Aaron making excuses about how much tougher
>>it was to hit home runs before steroids, or how the hotter ball today
>>makes hitting home runs easier. He simply says he is thrilled that
>>Barry is chasing his record, and wishes him all the luck in the
>>world.
>
> Personally, when Aaron broke Ruth's record, my opinon was that it
> was a nice schievement; however, the number of at-bats that Aaron
> needed to get to that number showed how great Ruth's achievement was.
>
> Anyone who makes a comment about how you cannot compare Bonds to
> Aaron, because Bonds was using steroids has a strong argument going
> for himself.
>
>>Because that is what a good sportsman would do. A poor sport
>>would make every excuse up that he could about how the
>>accomplishments of today cannot be compared to the
>>accomplishments of his day.
>>
>>Jack should show a little class.
>
> Jack is a class act. As I already pointed out in this thread, he
> was stuck in the middle of a terrible interview and he tried
> gracefully to get himself unstuck. Unfortunately, Miller could not
> let it go and everyone came off looking like idiots.
>
>>-PA
>
> David

Date: 05 Mar 2007 19:51:41
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Congratulations Lee Trevino

On Mon, 5 2007 11:32:28 -0800, "AKA gray asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:

>
>But you gotta admit that saying Tiger has no competition is ludicrous, not
>the rapper.
>
How about very little competition then?
___,
\o

Date: 06 Mar 2007 00:04:22
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Congratulations Lee Trevino

If he beats everyone, he has no competition. If he doesn't, he's in a slump.
Jack wasn't that great. He liked tennis better than golf and said so. He
wasn't as dedicated at as young an age. I wonder if Tiger can pull off a win
like Jack's 86 Masters, but that's the only thing he might not be able to do
and by the time he's 46, he'll have put Jack's records to the shreadder.
Nothing about moral superiority or character, just golfing skill.

"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:m8tou25da8ujrqr9h31b9677doh4negmog@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 2007 11:32:28 -0800, "AKA gray asphalt"
> <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>But you gotta admit that saying Tiger has no competition is ludicrous, not
>>the rapper.
>>
> How about very little competition then?
> ___,
> \o
>

Date: 05 Mar 2007 15:29:00
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Congratulations Lee Trevino

On Mon, 05 2007 19:51:41 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>On Mon, 5 2007 11:32:28 -0800, "AKA gray asphalt"
><goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>But you gotta admit that saying Tiger has no competition is ludicrous, not
>>the rapper.
>>
>How about very little competition then?
> ___,
> \o
>

Date: 05 Mar 2007 20:44:31
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Congratulations Lee Trevino

On Mon, 05 2007 15:29:00 -0500, John van der Pflum
<nowhammymyspammy@bite.org > wrote:

>On Mon, 05 2007 19:51:41 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 5 2007 11:32:28 -0800, "AKA gray asphalt"
>><goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>But you gotta admit that saying Tiger has no competition is ludicrous, not
>>>the rapper.
>>>
>>How about very little competition then?
>> ___,
>> \o
>>

Date: 06 Mar 2007 00:28:48
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Congratulations Lee Trevino

Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net > wrote:
: On Mon, 05 2007 15:29:00 -0500, John van der Pflum
: <nowhammymyspammy@bite.org > wrote:
:
: >On Mon, 05 2007 19:51:41 GMT, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net>
: >wrote:
: >
: >>On Mon, 5 2007 11:32:28 -0800, "AKA gray asphalt"
: >><goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
: >>
: >>>
: >>>But you gotta admit that saying Tiger has no competition is ludicrous, not
: >>>the rapper.
: >>>
: >>How about very little competition then?
: >> ___,
: >> \o
:>>

Date: 05 Mar 2007 04:41:46
From: EdSmithers
Subject: Re: Congratulations Lee Trevino

> > The unfortunate reality is that Tiger makes Jack an
> > also-ran. More people play now. There is more money
> > now. More competition now. And Tiger is more dominant
> > than anyone has ever been.

So, Jack's life and career are all minimized now? This all or nothing
attitude that seems to pervade sports just makes me ill. There's one
champion, and everyone else is a giant fucking loser. Is that how it
is in your world? Are you the best ever at getting those fries hot out
of the basket? Because if you're not, then you're nothing.

Ed

Date: 05 Mar 2007 11:31:03
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Congratulations Lee Trevino

"EdSmithers" <spirosdarlotts@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1173098506.093615.298630@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > The unfortunate reality is that Tiger makes Jack an
>> > also-ran. More people play now. There is more money
>> > now. More competition now. And Tiger is more dominant
>> > than anyone has ever been.
>
>
> So, Jack's life and career are all minimized now? This all or nothing
> attitude that seems to pervade sports just makes me ill. There's one
> champion, and everyone else is a giant fucking loser. Is that how it
> is in your world? Are you the best ever at getting those fries hot out
> of the basket? Because if you're not, then you're nothing.
>
> Ed

You're absolutely right. But Tiger will go through the same thing, if he
gets bettered. Golf fame isn't where anyone can build a life, imo. Guys like
Nicklaus who have sons that love them and a wife who has stayed by his side
and guys like Litske (sp) who seems to be more interested in taking care of
his loved ones than being famous, and Lehman ... so Tiger is in for an evern
bigger letdown, maybe. Just my opinion.

Date: 05 Mar 2007 06:31:50
From: Bill
Subject: Re: Congratulations Lee Trevino

"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:u5hmu2pdhnhv6ktqju475427kt3vb531d0@4ax.com...
> ... on winning two more majors. I'm not sure when he did it, but
> today during the Honda coverage, Jack Nicklaus was asked his opinion
> on Tiger's competition, and he noted that the guys HE faced knew how
> to win, and gave Trevino's eight majors as an example. The record
> books say six, but who are you going to believe, the record books, or
> a man in the early stages of senility? Jack then noticed some golfers
> coming down the fairway, and yelled at them to get off of his lawn.
>
> Johnny Miller, not to be outdone, cited the guys who knew how to win
> when Jack was playing --- Trevino, Watson, Floyd, and Irwin. He said,
> "I mean, it's factual, it's not like it's my opinion." He reminded me
> of Colin Powell at the UN, talking about Saddam's mobile bio labs ---
> "My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources,
> solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are
> facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."
>
> Well, Johnny, the facts are that those guys had great careers, but as
> usual, you are comparing wins over a thirty-year span to Tiger's less
> than 11 full years as a pro. if you compare apples to apples, i.e. the
> first 11 years of Jack's career to Tiger's career, those four guys had
> a combined total of 24 wins with five majors. Mickelson and Vijay
> alone, from 1996 to the present, have 52 wins and six majors. For all
> we know, Tadd Fujikawa will break all of Watson's records.
>
> In fact, you can't find ANY two guys who beat Phil and Vijay in both
> wins and majors during Jack's first 11 years. Palmer and Casper only
> had five majors during that time; Palmer and Player had a combined
> seven majors, but "only" 48 wins.
>
> What was really funny was that shortly after telling us about how Ray
> Floyd would never choke on Sunday like these young punks today, they
> showed a clip from the 1994 Senior PGA championship, where Floyd came
> to the 180-yard 15th on Sunday with a one shot lead, and put two tee
> shots into the water.

Miller continues to display his stupidity with senseless babblings......

Date: 05 Mar 2007 14:29:16
From: David
Subject: Re: Congratulations Lee Trevino

On Mon, 5 2007 06:31:50 -0500, "Bill" <bill@home.com > wrote:

<snipped >

>Miller continues to display his stupidity with senseless babblings......

I felt sorry for Jack. The announcers put him in a bad spot and
Jack was visibly uncomfortable with the situation. When Miller saw
that he was not getting the reaction that he had hoped for, he began
to babble senselessy.

There was however some truth to what was being said. How many
players in the last ten years have had the intestinal fortitude to
challenge Woods on Sunday? There have been brief moments, but that is
all. The golfers who were mentioned during Jack's era had infinitely
more.

The last dominant player on tour was Greg Norman. He came at the
end of Jack's career and before Woods career really began to take off.
No one since has shown the guts and determination to challenge Woods.
A few have talked the talk, but they never got their feet moving.

David

Date: 04 Mar 2007 18:46:41
From: SKIPPER
Subject: Re: Congratulations Lee Trevino

On 4, 5:49 pm, multi <m...@asm.org > wrote:
> ... on winning two more majors. I'm not sure when he did it, but
> today during the Honda coverage, Jack Nicklaus was asked his opinion
> on Tiger's competition, and he noted that the guys HE faced knew how
> to win, and gave Trevino's eight majors as an example. The record
> books say six, but who are you going to believe, the record books, or
> a man in the early stages of senility? Jack then noticed some golfers
> coming down the fairway, and yelled at them to get off of his lawn.
>
> Johnny Miller, not to be outdone, cited the guys who knew how to win
> when Jack was playing --- Trevino, Watson, Floyd, and Irwin. He said,
> "I mean, it's factual, it's not like it's my opinion." He reminded me
> of Colin Powell at the UN, talking about Saddam's mobile bio labs ---
> "My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources,
> solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are
> facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."
>
> Well, Johnny, the facts are that those guys had great careers, but as
> usual, you are comparing wins over a thirty-year span to Tiger's less
> than 11 full years as a pro. if you compare apples to apples, i.e. the
> first 11 years of Jack's career to Tiger's career, those four guys had
> a combined total of 24 wins with five majors. Mickelson and Vijay
> alone, from 1996 to the present, have 52 wins and six majors. For all
> we know, Tadd Fujikawa will break all of Watson's records.
>
> In fact, you can't find ANY two guys who beat Phil and Vijay in both
> wins and majors during Jack's first 11 years. Palmer and Casper only
> had five majors during that time; Palmer and Player had a combined
> seven majors, but "only" 48 wins.
>
> What was really funny was that shortly after telling us about how Ray
> Floyd would never choke on Sunday like these young punks today, they
> showed a clip from the 1994 Senior PGA championship, where Floyd came
> to the 180-yard 15th on Sunday with a one shot lead, and put two tee
> shots into the water.

Nicklaus has an inferiority complex.

Tiger is SO much better, that Jack cannot restrain
himself from pumping up his history...

Like anyone with half a brain cannot run the numbers and
discover that no one has ever has a 10 year run in golf
like Tiger's last 10...and he appears only halfway done, roughly.

The unfortunate reality is that Tiger makes Jack an
also-ran. More people play now. There is more money
now. More competition now. And Tiger is more dominant
than anyone has ever been.

-PA

Date: 05 Mar 2007 03:13:55
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Congratulations Lee Trevino

Tiger is far superior to Jack but we don't know what Jack would have done if
he'd had Tigert to challenge him. How can you deal with a kid that was a
star at 3 years old, loves his parents and lives and breathes the game? He's
got a mission. His name is a mission and his race is a mission. Oprah calls
him America's son and a lot of us think of him that way. Charles Barkley and
his racial statements can kiss my ass.

"SKIPPER" <blakestah@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1173062801.454224.265870@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> On 4, 5:49 pm, multi <m...@asm.org> wrote:
>> ... on winning two more majors. I'm not sure when he did it, but
>> today during the Honda coverage, Jack Nicklaus was asked his opinion
>> on Tiger's competition, and he noted that the guys HE faced knew how
>> to win, and gave Trevino's eight majors as an example. The record
>> books say six, but who are you going to believe, the record books, or
>> a man in the early stages of senility? Jack then noticed some golfers
>> coming down the fairway, and yelled at them to get off of his lawn.
>>
>> Johnny Miller, not to be outdone, cited the guys who knew how to win
>> when Jack was playing --- Trevino, Watson, Floyd, and Irwin. He said,
>> "I mean, it's factual, it's not like it's my opinion." He reminded me
>> of Colin Powell at the UN, talking about Saddam's mobile bio labs ---
>> "My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources,
>> solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are
>> facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."
>>
>> Well, Johnny, the facts are that those guys had great careers, but as
>> usual, you are comparing wins over a thirty-year span to Tiger's less
>> than 11 full years as a pro. if you compare apples to apples, i.e. the
>> first 11 years of Jack's career to Tiger's career, those four guys had
>> a combined total of 24 wins with five majors. Mickelson and Vijay
>> alone, from 1996 to the present, have 52 wins and six majors. For all
>> we know, Tadd Fujikawa will break all of Watson's records.
>>
>> In fact, you can't find ANY two guys who beat Phil and Vijay in both
>> wins and majors during Jack's first 11 years. Palmer and Casper only
>> had five majors during that time; Palmer and Player had a combined
>> seven majors, but "only" 48 wins.
>>
>> What was really funny was that shortly after telling us about how Ray
>> Floyd would never choke on Sunday like these young punks today, they
>> showed a clip from the 1994 Senior PGA championship, where Floyd came
>> to the 180-yard 15th on Sunday with a one shot lead, and put two tee
>> shots into the water.
>
> Nicklaus has an inferiority complex.
>
> Tiger is SO much better, that Jack cannot restrain
> himself from pumping up his history...
>
> Like anyone with half a brain cannot run the numbers and
> discover that no one has ever has a 10 year run in golf
> like Tiger's last 10...and he appears only halfway done, roughly.
>
> The unfortunate reality is that Tiger makes Jack an
> also-ran. More people play now. There is more money
> now. More competition now. And Tiger is more dominant
> than anyone has ever been.
>
> -PA
>