| |
Main
Date: 29 Sep 2006 08:04:01
From: Steven Paul
Subject: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
-----------
Asked whether 11 in a row was possible now, Woods said probably not.
"The competition is so much deeper now," he said. "Back in his day -- I
actually talked to him about this -- he said he had to beat four or
five guys every week. And when you're hot, that's not hard to do.
That's not the case anymore. It's 40 or 50 now, so it's a lot
different."
------------
|
|
| |
Date: 02 Oct 2006 11:30:30
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
"R&B" wrote:
snippit...
There was no TOUR in the sense of the PGA Tour. Just a bunch of
professional events of widely varying significance. It wasn't till the
late 1950's that the PGA of America got into setting up a tour that
they controlled (and resulted in the loss of the biggest pro event of
the time, the Tam O'Shanter!). If you were to make an analogy, you
would have to think of all the events of PGA Tour, the Nationwide Tour
and The Hooters Tour as all being a series of independent events that
pro golfers could try to qualify to play in....and then some!
|
| |
Date: 02 Oct 2006 05:05:55
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
"R&B" wrote:
> "Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1159619259.843619.235470@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > David wrote:
> >> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 23:42:48 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 29 Sep 2006 22:26:53 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>multi wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The SI article you cite disagrees with other sources about Jug's
> >> >>> record. It says that Jug tied with Byron for most wins (6) in 1944,
> >> >>> and had 11 wins in 1934-5. But Wikipedia says he had only five wins
> >> >>> to Byron's eight in 1944, and only three in 1934-5.
> >> >>
> >> >>I'm guessing you meant to write 1943-5?
> >> >
> >> >Why would you guess that? How could somebody win five times in 1944,
> >> >and only three times in 1943-45?
> >> >
> >> >>Amazingly (or maybe not) in 1946 when the strength of the fields
> >> >>returned to normal
> >> >
> >> >It takes more than a few months to overcome the effects of millions of
> >> >young men being killed or maimed. I'd say five years, at least, to
> >> >get the fields back to normal. Not coincidentally, 1950 was the last
> >> >year anyone won ten or more events in a season, although Tiger might
> >> >have done it this year if he had played a full schedule.
> >>
> >> it is constantly mentioned that the field was weakened due to the
> >> war. Can you name me 10 professional golfers of that era who were in
> >> europe, or the pacific rim, at the time, who may have made a
> >> significant difference in the relative strength of the field?
> >>
> >>
> >> David
> >
> > In Europe or the Pac Rim? Does it matter where they were, even if in
> > the states, if the war forced them away from the tour? We know Snead
> > and Hogan weren't there. Isn't that enough?
>
> That's like taking Mickelson and Singh out of the field.
>
> Big whoop.
>
> Randy
Not true. The fields are much deeper now. How many guys do you think
could win a tournament in 1945? Ten guys? Fifteen at the most?
|
| | |
Date: 02 Oct 2006 12:52:41
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
"Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1159790755.893628.236290@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> "R&B" wrote:
>> "Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1159619259.843619.235470@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > David wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 23:42:48 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On 29 Sep 2006 22:26:53 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>multi wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The SI article you cite disagrees with other sources about Jug's
>> >> >>> record. It says that Jug tied with Byron for most wins (6) in
>> >> >>> 1944,
>> >> >>> and had 11 wins in 1934-5. But Wikipedia says he had only five
>> >> >>> wins
>> >> >>> to Byron's eight in 1944, and only three in 1934-5.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I'm guessing you meant to write 1943-5?
>> >> >
>> >> >Why would you guess that? How could somebody win five times in 1944,
>> >> >and only three times in 1943-45?
>> >> >
>> >> >>Amazingly (or maybe not) in 1946 when the strength of the fields
>> >> >>returned to normal
>> >> >
>> >> >It takes more than a few months to overcome the effects of millions
>> >> >of
>> >> >young men being killed or maimed. I'd say five years, at least, to
>> >> >get the fields back to normal. Not coincidentally, 1950 was the last
>> >> >year anyone won ten or more events in a season, although Tiger might
>> >> >have done it this year if he had played a full schedule.
>> >>
>> >> it is constantly mentioned that the field was weakened due to the
>> >> war. Can you name me 10 professional golfers of that era who were in
>> >> europe, or the pacific rim, at the time, who may have made a
>> >> significant difference in the relative strength of the field?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> David
>> >
>> > In Europe or the Pac Rim? Does it matter where they were, even if in
>> > the states, if the war forced them away from the tour? We know Snead
>> > and Hogan weren't there. Isn't that enough?
>>
>> That's like taking Mickelson and Singh out of the field.
>>
>> Big whoop.
>>
>> Randy
>
> Not true. The fields are much deeper now. How many guys do you think
> could win a tournament in 1945? Ten guys? Fifteen at the most?
If that were true, then you wouldn't have so many different names showing up
as winners of PGA TOUR events back then. Some 60 years later, it's a wee
bit ignorant of us to be speaking about the TOUR of the 1940s as if we're as
closely familiar with it as we claim to be of the modern-day TOUR. It seems
fair to assume that sixty years from now, very few people will even recall
names like Ben Curtis, Todd Hamilton, Paul Lawrie, Shaun Micheel...or for
that matter, even non-major winners like Rory Sabbitini, Chris Riley, Sean
O'Hair, Jonathan Kaye or other players who have proven themselves to be
among the names who "could" win a tournament (indeed, they HAVE won), but
whose identities seem to fade away over time because they aren't household
names.
Look, I'm not saying these guys aren't good. They most assuredly are good.
They've all won. That's the whole point. Similarly, there were players
back in the '40s (and every other era) who won, but whose names are
relatively unknown to most people today because they weren't "stars" of
their era whose names stood the test of time, if for no other reason than
because they amassed enough wins to show up among the TOUR's all-time
winningest players.
Yet any one of these "one (or two) hit wonders" _could win_ any tournament
they entered.
You see, I think it's a little naive to assert that just because you can't
name any other professional golfers from the 1940s besides Hogan, Snead,
Nelson, McSpaden (and maybe a small handful of others) that those few guys
were the only ones who "could win" on any given week.
Although it's hard to find a season-by-season listing of all TOUR events
played (and who won each one), I'm quite sure if such a list were to be
uncovered, you'd find an alarming number of winners' names you've never
heard of. Just a hint of that can be found by reviewing the list of major
championship winners, which is easily found. I know there are names on
those lists that most golf fans couldn't identify. Names like James Foulis,
Joe Lloyd, Fred Herd, Alex Ross, Alex Smith, Jerome Travers, Cyril Walker,
Olin Dutra, Tony Manero, Richard Burton, Alfred Padgham, R. A. Whitcombe,
Alfred Perry, Arthur G. Havers, George Duncan, Amaud Massy, Jack White,
Harold H. Hilton, Alexander Herd, Hugh Kirkaldy, David Brown, Bob tin,
Jack Simpson, Willie Fernie, Bob tin, Tom Kidd, Bob Hamilton and Chandler
Harper -- every one of them a winner at one of the four tournaments we now
refer to as "the majors." Some of them won more than one major. Yet if you
saw their names on a list of winners from any specific year, would you
instantly identify them as someone who "could win" any tournament they're
entered? I think not.
Randy
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Oct 2006 18:43:40
From: Loudon Briggs
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
"\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>You see, I think it's a little naive to assert that just because you can't
>name any other professional golfers from the 1940s besides Hogan, Snead,
>Nelson, McSpaden (and maybe a small handful of others) that those few guys
>were the only ones who "could win" on any given week.
>
>Although it's hard to find a season-by-season listing of all TOUR events
>played (and who won each one), I'm quite sure if such a list were to be
>uncovered, you'd find an alarming number of winners' names you've never
>heard of. Just a hint of that can be found by reviewing the list of major
>championship winners, which is easily found. I know there are names on
>those lists that most golf fans couldn't identify.
>(CLIP)
>Randy
Randy, you gave me something to do! Because of my age, I am familiar
with many of those "unknown" golfers. Let me name some I CAN recall.
Though some careers were on the downside in the '40s and others
played well in to the '50s, they pretty much covered the '40s. In no
particular order...
Henry Picard
Denny Shute
Harry Cooper
Pete Cooper
Horton Smith
Ed Dudley
Craig Wood
Ralph Guldahl
Lew Worsham
Jim Ferrier
George Bayer (longest hitter I ever saw)
Jack Burke, Jr.
Claude Harmon (Butch's father)
Chick Harbert
Johnny Bulla
Lloyd Mangrum
Ray Mangrum
Ky Laffoon
Jimmy Deet
Ed Furgol
Cary Middlecoff
Vic Ghezzi
Sam Byrd (played Major League baseball too)
Lawson Little
Johnny Revolta
Jimmy Thompson
--
Loudon R. Briggs larebe@bbz.net Phoenix, AZ
"How Can You Not Like A Game Where It's Okay To
Get Teed Off, Tote A Six-Iron, Shoot Birdies,
and If You're Under Par It's A Great Day!"
(from "Frank & Ernest" by Bob Thaves -- used with permission)
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Oct 2006 03:01:46
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
Loudon Briggs wrote:
> "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
> Randy, you gave me something to do! Because of my age, I am familiar
> with many of those "unknown" golfers. Let me name some I CAN recall.
> Though some careers were on the downside in the '40s and others
> played well in to the '50s, they pretty much covered the '40s. In no
> particular order...
>=20
> Henry Picard
> Denny Shute
> Harry Cooper
> Pete Cooper
> Horton Smith
> Ed Dudley
> Craig Wood
> Ralph Guldahl
> Lew Worsham
> Jim Ferrier
> George Bayer (longest hitter I ever saw)
> Jack Burke, Jr.
> Claude Harmon (Butch's father)
> Chick Harbert
> Johnny Bulla
> Lloyd Mangrum
> Ray Mangrum
> Ky Laffoon
> Jimmy Deet
> Ed Furgol
> Cary Middlecoff
> Vic Ghezzi
> Sam Byrd (played Major League baseball too)
> Lawson Little
> Johnny Revolta
> Jimmy Thompson
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --
>=20
> Loudon R. Briggs larebe@bbz.net Phoenix, AZ
>
How come no one ever mentions one of my all time favorites, Paul Runyon, =
in these discussions.
Tour Victories:
29
Major Championships:
2
=95 PGA Championship: 1934, 1938
Joe
|
| | | | | |
Date: 02 Oct 2006 22:28:33
From: Loudon Briggs
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
Joe <joehnospam@ospamwarwick.net > wrote:
>(CLIP)
>
>How come no one ever mentions one of my all time favorites, Paul Runyon,
>in these discussions.
>Tour Victories:
>29
>Major Championships:
>2
>• PGA Championship: 1934, 1938
>
>Joe
Excuse the correction, Joe... his name was Runyan, and I'm ashamed
that I forgot to mention him.
I was in contact with him a couple of times. In 1948, I was given a
Paul Runyan (Little Poison) putter. Unfortunately, it had a
rectangular wooden grip, with a groove down the front. I was advised
that the groove made it illegal and the guys I played with wouldn't
let me use it. I just faced the groove off and played on... but, I
ruined it as a collectible. About 35 years later I told Runyan about
what I had done and he just told me, "I'm not sure it was illegal and
anyway, why didn't you just use a different putter?" I had no answer!
I was in touch later when I got hold of some collectible Sterling cups
from his home course, Annandale CC in Burbank, CA.
As you've suggested, he did play beyond the '30s... into the very
early '50s. I've come to his defense a couple of times on this group
when his abilities were demeaned. He had a record that MANY of the
better players today would kill for.
--
Loudon R. Briggs larebe@bbz.net Phoenix, AZ
"How Can You Not Like A Game Where It's Okay To
Get Teed Off, Tote A Six-Iron, Shoot Birdies,
and If You're Under Par It's A Great Day!"
(from "Frank & Ernest" by Bob Thaves -- used with permission)
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 03 Oct 2006 06:12:16
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
Loudon Briggs wrote:
> Joe <joehnospam@ospamwarwick.net> wrote:
>
>
SNIP
>
> Excuse the correction, Joe... his name was Runyan, and I'm ashamed
> that I forgot to mention him.
>
> I was in contact with him a couple of times. In 1948, I was given a
> Paul Runyan (Little Poison) putter. Unfortunately, it had a
> rectangular wooden grip, with a groove down the front. I was advised
> that the groove made it illegal and the guys I played with wouldn't
> let me use it. I just faced the groove off and played on... but, I
> ruined it as a collectible. About 35 years later I told Runyan about
> what I had done and he just told me, "I'm not sure it was illegal and
> anyway, why didn't you just use a different putter?" I had no answer!
> I was in touch later when I got hold of some collectible Sterling cups
> from his home course, Annandale CC in Burbank, CA.
>
> As you've suggested, he did play beyond the '30s... into the very
> early '50s. I've come to his defense a couple of times on this group
> when his abilities were demeaned. He had a record that MANY of the
> better players today would kill for.
>
> --
>
> Loudon R. Briggs larebe@bbz.net Phoenix, AZ
>
> "How Can You Not Like A Game Where It's Okay To
> Get Teed Off, Tote A Six-Iron, Shoot Birdies,
> and If You're Under Par It's A Great Day!"
>
> (from "Frank & Ernest" by Bob Thaves -- used with permission)
No worries on the spelling. I've noticed that in the last couple of
years I have been developing a tendency to type the soft vowels the way
they sound. I blame it on getting older. Maybe just sloppy.
I would have liked to have met him though. I've only seen an interview
or two and he seemed pretty self-effacing.
His record reflects the economics of the times I suspect. He was the
leading money winner in 1934, with $6,767. which likely placed limits on
his travel. He never played the Open until 1961 when he was 53. Tied
for 18th. Missed the cut the next year.
Joe
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Oct 2006 09:22:49
From: Loudon Briggs
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
Joe <joehnospam@ospamwarwick.net > wrote:
>
(CLIP)
>
>His record reflects the economics of the times I suspect. He was the
>leading money winner in 1934, with $6,767. which likely placed limits on
>his travel. He never played the Open until 1961 when he was 53. Tied
>for 18th. Missed the cut the next year.
>
>Joe
Are you referring to the U,S, Open or The Open, "over yonder." I''m
not sure about the latter but, he played in the U.S. Open in the early
'30s. He was playing in the U.S. Seniors Open by 1961.
--
Loudon R. Briggs larebe@bbz.net Phoenix, AZ
"How Can You Not Like A Game Where It's Okay To
Get Teed Off, Tote A Six-Iron, Shoot Birdies,
and If You're Under Par It's A Great Day!"
(from "Frank & Ernest" by Bob Thaves -- used with permission)
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Oct 2006 17:10:10
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
Loudon Briggs wrote:
> Joe <joehnospam@ospamwarwick.net> wrote:
>
>
> (CLIP)
>
>>His record reflects the economics of the times I suspect. He was the
>>leading money winner in 1934, with $6,767. which likely placed limits on
>>his travel. He never played the Open until 1961 when he was 53. Tied
>>for 18th. Missed the cut the next year.
>>
>>Joe
>
>
> Are you referring to the U,S, Open or The Open, "over yonder." I''m
> not sure about the latter but, he played in the U.S. Open in the early
> '30s. He was playing in the U.S. Seniors Open by 1961.
>
> --
>
> Loudon R. Briggs larebe@bbz.net Phoenix, AZ
>
> "How Can You Not Like A Game Where It's Okay To
> Get Teed Off, Tote A Six-Iron, Shoot Birdies,
> and If You're Under Par It's A Great Day!"
>
> (from "Frank & Ernest" by Bob Thaves -- used with permission)
The Open "over yonder"!
I would catch some flack here if I had called it The British Open :)
Joe
|
| | | | | |
Date: 02 Oct 2006 23:58:19
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
"Joe" <joehnospam@ospamwarwick.net > wrote in message
news:uokUg.6751$q.5086@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
Loudon Briggs wrote:
> "\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
>
>
> Randy, you gave me something to do! Because of my age, I am familiar
> with many of those "unknown" golfers. Let me name some I CAN recall.
> Though some careers were on the downside in the '40s and others
> played well in to the '50s, they pretty much covered the '40s. In no
> particular order...
>
> Henry Picard
> Denny Shute
> Harry Cooper
> Pete Cooper
> Horton Smith
> Ed Dudley
> Craig Wood
> Ralph Guldahl
> Lew Worsham
> Jim Ferrier
> George Bayer (longest hitter I ever saw)
> Jack Burke, Jr.
> Claude Harmon (Butch's father)
> Chick Harbert
> Johnny Bulla
> Lloyd Mangrum
> Ray Mangrum
> Ky Laffoon
> Jimmy Deet
> Ed Furgol
> Cary Middlecoff
> Vic Ghezzi
> Sam Byrd (played Major League baseball too)
> Lawson Little
> Johnny Revolta
> Jimmy Thompson
>
>
>
> --
>
> Loudon R. Briggs larebe@bbz.net Phoenix, AZ
>
How come no one ever mentions one of my all time favorites, Paul Runyon,
in these discussions.
Tour Victories:
29
Major Championships:
2
• PGA Championship: 1934, 1938
Joe
-------------------
I remember his name came up quite a bit in '98 when the PGA Championship
came to Sahalee Golf Club outside of Seattle, which, if I recall, must have
been his hometown.
Runyon was known as one of the game's best putters.
I guess with 29 victories, he had to have been a good putter. Nobody wins
that many if they can't putt.
Randy
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 03 Oct 2006 04:37:09
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
"\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
: Runyon was known as one of the game's best putters.
:
: I guess with 29 victories, he had to have been a good putter. Nobody wins
: that many if they can't putt.
Not to be overly pedantic, but it's "Runyan" with two a's.
Anyway... yeah, Runyan was a small little guy, the Corey Pavin
of his day, bunting the ball around the golf course and then
killing people with his chipping and putting. My own short
game is just now moving into a realm resembling competence
but the best part has always been what I learned from Runyan:
to chip by putting with lofted clubs. He could be a badass,
too: he won the '38 PGA by defeating Sam Snead 8 & 7 in the
final. That's stout.
BTW, he was from Hot Springs, Arkansas. Didn't have any
connections to the Pacific NW as far as I know.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 03 Oct 2006 04:22:22
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
"R&B" wrote:
> "Joe" <joehnospam@ospamwarwick.net> wrote in message=20
> news:uokUg.6751$q.5086@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
>=20
>=20
> Loudon Briggs wrote:
>=20
>>"\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>>
>>Randy, you gave me something to do! Because of my age, I am familiar
>>with many of those "unknown" golfers. Let me name some I CAN recall.
>>Though some careers were on the downside in the '40s and others
>>played well in to the '50s, they pretty much covered the '40s. In no
>>particular order...
>>
>>Henry Picard
>>Denny Shute
>>Harry Cooper
>>Pete Cooper
>>Horton Smith
>>Ed Dudley
>>Craig Wood
>>Ralph Guldahl
>>Lew Worsham
>>Jim Ferrier
>>George Bayer (longest hitter I ever saw)
>>Jack Burke, Jr.
>>Claude Harmon (Butch's father)
>>Chick Harbert
>>Johnny Bulla
>>Lloyd Mangrum
>>Ray Mangrum
>>Ky Laffoon
>>Jimmy Deet
>>Ed Furgol
>>Cary Middlecoff
>>Vic Ghezzi
>>Sam Byrd (played Major League baseball too)
>>Lawson Little
>>Johnny Revolta
>>Jimmy Thompson
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>Loudon R. Briggs larebe@bbz.net Phoenix, AZ
>>
>=20
>=20
> How come no one ever mentions one of my all time favorites, Paul Runyon=
,
> in these discussions.
> Tour Victories:
> 29
> Major Championships:
> 2
> =95 PGA Championship: 1934, 1938
>=20
> Joe
>=20
> -------------------
>=20
>=20
> I remember his name came up quite a bit in '98 when the PGA Championshi=
p=20
> came to Sahalee Golf Club outside of Seattle, which, if I recall, must =
have=20
> been his hometown.
>=20
> Runyon was known as one of the game's best putters.
>=20
> I guess with 29 victories, he had to have been a good putter. Nobody w=
ins=20
> that many if they can't putt.
>=20
> Randy
>=20
>=20
More than just a good putter, he had the best all round short game on=20
tour. His second PGA win was against Snead, Match play, Runyon won 8=20
and 7 at Shawnee. Snead gave him the nickname Little Poison after the=20
match. He stood 5' 7" and didn't hit it far.
He was the Dave Pelz that could. :)
Joe
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Oct 2006 00:45:46
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 12:52:41 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>Look, I'm not saying these guys aren't good. They most assuredly are good.
>They've all won. That's the whole point. Similarly, there were players
>back in the '40s (and every other era) who won, but whose names are
>relatively unknown to most people today because they weren't "stars" of
>their era whose names stood the test of time, if for no other reason than
>because they amassed enough wins to show up among the TOUR's all-time
>winningest players.
And occasionally we will have a non-star with the achievements of a
Billy Casper who gets forgotten by all-too-many.
|
| |
Date: 30 Sep 2006 18:08:21
From: AKA Gray Asphalt
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
"Steven Paul" <listcatcher@fastOUTmail.fm > wrote in message
news:290920060804012767%listcatcher@fastOUTmail.fm...
>
> -----------
> Asked whether 11 in a row was possible now, Woods said probably not.
>
> "The competition is so much deeper now," he said. "Back in his day -- I
> actually talked to him about this -- he said he had to beat four or
> five guys every week. And when you're hot, that's not hard to do.
> That's not the case anymore. It's 40 or 50 now, so it's a lot
> different."
> ------------
Byron Nelson said the competion is tougher now? What does he know? We all
know, that if Tiger wins too many tournaments, it is because he doesn't have
any competition. It's just a law of physics. He can't be that good at golf.
The level of cometition dropped when he turned pro. It was good before and
it will rise after but while Tiger plays, the competition is weak. Did
ciano have the same problem?
|
| | |
Date: 01 Oct 2006 01:32:06
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 18:08:21 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
<goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
>Byron Nelson said the competion is tougher now? What does he know? We all
>know, that if Tiger wins too many tournaments, it is because he doesn't have
>any competition. It's just a law of physics. He can't be that good at golf.
>The level of cometition dropped when he turned pro. It was good before and
>it will rise after but while Tiger plays, the competition is weak. Did
>ciano have the same problem?
The NBA changed its rules when Russell came and again when he left.
|
| |
Date: 30 Sep 2006 05:31:36
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
> >That also was equal for everybody.
>
> The point is that the players today don't have to play under such
> extreme conditions. Nelson's accomplishments were that much more
> impressive because they had to deal with such things.
>
> David
I don't believe it makes the streak any more impressive. The point is
that every other golfer had had to deal with the same things. And, I
don't believe that they were extreme conditions. Playing with limited
balls, etc, is not extreme. Extreme conditions were in Europe and Asia.
|
| |
Date: 30 Sep 2006 05:27:39
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
David wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 23:42:48 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>
> >On 29 Sep 2006 22:26:53 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>multi wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The SI article you cite disagrees with other sources about Jug's
> >>> record. It says that Jug tied with Byron for most wins (6) in 1944,
> >>> and had 11 wins in 1934-5. But Wikipedia says he had only five wins
> >>> to Byron's eight in 1944, and only three in 1934-5.
> >>
> >>I'm guessing you meant to write 1943-5?
> >
> >Why would you guess that? How could somebody win five times in 1944,
> >and only three times in 1943-45?
> >
> >>Amazingly (or maybe not) in 1946 when the strength of the fields
> >>returned to normal
> >
> >It takes more than a few months to overcome the effects of millions of
> >young men being killed or maimed. I'd say five years, at least, to
> >get the fields back to normal. Not coincidentally, 1950 was the last
> >year anyone won ten or more events in a season, although Tiger might
> >have done it this year if he had played a full schedule.
>
> it is constantly mentioned that the field was weakened due to the
> war. Can you name me 10 professional golfers of that era who were in
> europe, or the pacific rim, at the time, who may have made a
> significant difference in the relative strength of the field?
>
>
> David
In Europe or the Pac Rim? Does it matter where they were, even if in
the states, if the war forced them away from the tour? We know Snead
and Hogan weren't there. Isn't that enough?
|
| | |
Date: 02 Oct 2006 12:33:52
From: David
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
On 30 Sep 2006 05:27:39 -0700, "Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote:
<snipped >
>In Europe or the Pac Rim? Does it matter where they were, even if in
>the states, if the war forced them away from the tour? We know Snead
>and Hogan weren't there. Isn't that enough?
Snead was indeed there. If you read the article that I referred to,
you would have read that Snead was part of the field for at least a
few of those tournaments during Nelson's streak.
Considering the rarity of producing a truly sensational golfer, the
argument that we will never know who could have been a great golfer
simply does not wash. The fact is, golf was not a sport that most
people aspired to excelling at. Not until Arnie came along did golf
become a sport for the masses.
The chances that america lost any great golfers due to the war are
very slim.
David
|
| | |
Date: 02 Oct 2006 02:21:19
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
"Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1159619259.843619.235470@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> David wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 23:42:48 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>>
>> >On 29 Sep 2006 22:26:53 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>multi wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> The SI article you cite disagrees with other sources about Jug's
>> >>> record. It says that Jug tied with Byron for most wins (6) in 1944,
>> >>> and had 11 wins in 1934-5. But Wikipedia says he had only five wins
>> >>> to Byron's eight in 1944, and only three in 1934-5.
>> >>
>> >>I'm guessing you meant to write 1943-5?
>> >
>> >Why would you guess that? How could somebody win five times in 1944,
>> >and only three times in 1943-45?
>> >
>> >>Amazingly (or maybe not) in 1946 when the strength of the fields
>> >>returned to normal
>> >
>> >It takes more than a few months to overcome the effects of millions of
>> >young men being killed or maimed. I'd say five years, at least, to
>> >get the fields back to normal. Not coincidentally, 1950 was the last
>> >year anyone won ten or more events in a season, although Tiger might
>> >have done it this year if he had played a full schedule.
>>
>> it is constantly mentioned that the field was weakened due to the
>> war. Can you name me 10 professional golfers of that era who were in
>> europe, or the pacific rim, at the time, who may have made a
>> significant difference in the relative strength of the field?
>>
>>
>> David
>
> In Europe or the Pac Rim? Does it matter where they were, even if in
> the states, if the war forced them away from the tour? We know Snead
> and Hogan weren't there. Isn't that enough?
That's like taking Mickelson and Singh out of the field.
Big whoop.
Randy
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Oct 2006 20:20:01
From: rich
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:y8udncUbebRNMr3YnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> That's like taking Mickelson and Singh out of the field.
>
> Big whoop.
It is. Byron himself said that he really only had to beat 4 or 5 guys to
win the tournaments. And the fact remains that both Byron and those who did
well in those years never did anywhere near as well in any year before that
nor in any year after that.
It is like when I review a student's past testing record and I see that he
was in the 25th percentile one year the 80th percentile the next year and
then went down to the 31st percentile the following year. I may not have
proof that there was hanky panky going on but there is a strong inference to
be made.
One stat I would love to know is, in 1945 how many tournaments did Byron win
that Ben played in and how many did Ben win that Byron played in.
Rich
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Oct 2006 17:16:32
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:20:01 GMT, "rich" <dummy@nothere.com > wrote:
>One stat I would love to know is, in 1945 how many tournaments did Byron win
>that Ben played in and how many did Ben win that Byron played in.
I don't know about the whole year, but I've seen a couple of credible
sources that say Ben only played in two of the eleven events that
Byron won in a row, and one of them was the Miami Four-Ball, a team
matchplay event.
|
| |
Date: 29 Sep 2006 22:26:53
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
multi wrote:
>
> The SI article you cite disagrees with other sources about Jug's
> record. It says that Jug tied with Byron for most wins (6) in 1944,
> and had 11 wins in 1934-5. But Wikipedia says he had only five wins
> to Byron's eight in 1944, and only three in 1934-5.
I'm guessing you meant to write 1943-5?
McSpaden had 1 win in 1943, 5 wins in 1944 (to Nelson's 8), and 1 win
in 1945, the year Nelson won 18. However, ol Jug did record an
astonishing 15 2nd place finishes that year.
Amazingly (or maybe not) in 1946 when the strength of the fields
returned to normal McSpaden didn't win squat, although he did have a
pair of 2nd place finishes.
That year (1946) the multiple winners were Frank Stranahan (2), Herman
Barron (2), Herman Kaiser (3), Jimmy Deet (3), Sam Snead (5), Byron
Nelson (6), and Ben Hogan (13 wins and 7 second place finishes).
|
| | |
Date: 29 Sep 2006 23:42:48
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
On 29 Sep 2006 22:26:53 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:
>
>multi wrote:
>>
>> The SI article you cite disagrees with other sources about Jug's
>> record. It says that Jug tied with Byron for most wins (6) in 1944,
>> and had 11 wins in 1934-5. But Wikipedia says he had only five wins
>> to Byron's eight in 1944, and only three in 1934-5.
>
>I'm guessing you meant to write 1943-5?
Why would you guess that? How could somebody win five times in 1944,
and only three times in 1943-45?
>Amazingly (or maybe not) in 1946 when the strength of the fields
>returned to normal
It takes more than a few months to overcome the effects of millions of
young men being killed or maimed. I'd say five years, at least, to
get the fields back to normal. Not coincidentally, 1950 was the last
year anyone won ten or more events in a season, although Tiger might
have done it this year if he had played a full schedule.
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Sep 2006 13:27:28
From: David
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 23:42:48 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
>On 29 Sep 2006 22:26:53 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>multi wrote:
>>>
>>> The SI article you cite disagrees with other sources about Jug's
>>> record. It says that Jug tied with Byron for most wins (6) in 1944,
>>> and had 11 wins in 1934-5. But Wikipedia says he had only five wins
>>> to Byron's eight in 1944, and only three in 1934-5.
>>
>>I'm guessing you meant to write 1943-5?
>
>Why would you guess that? How could somebody win five times in 1944,
>and only three times in 1943-45?
>
>>Amazingly (or maybe not) in 1946 when the strength of the fields
>>returned to normal
>
>It takes more than a few months to overcome the effects of millions of
>young men being killed or maimed. I'd say five years, at least, to
>get the fields back to normal. Not coincidentally, 1950 was the last
>year anyone won ten or more events in a season, although Tiger might
>have done it this year if he had played a full schedule.
it is constantly mentioned that the field was weakened due to the
war. Can you name me 10 professional golfers of that era who were in
europe, or the pacific rim, at the time, who may have made a
significant difference in the relative strength of the field?
David
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Sep 2006 05:22:49
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 13:27:28 +0200, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 23:42:48 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>
>>On 29 Sep 2006 22:26:53 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>multi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The SI article you cite disagrees with other sources about Jug's
>>>> record. It says that Jug tied with Byron for most wins (6) in 1944,
>>>> and had 11 wins in 1934-5. But Wikipedia says he had only five wins
>>>> to Byron's eight in 1944, and only three in 1934-5.
>>>
>>>I'm guessing you meant to write 1943-5?
>>
>>Why would you guess that? How could somebody win five times in 1944,
>>and only three times in 1943-45?
>>
>>>Amazingly (or maybe not) in 1946 when the strength of the fields
>>>returned to normal
>>
>>It takes more than a few months to overcome the effects of millions of
>>young men being killed or maimed. I'd say five years, at least, to
>>get the fields back to normal. Not coincidentally, 1950 was the last
>>year anyone won ten or more events in a season, although Tiger might
>>have done it this year if he had played a full schedule.
>
> it is constantly mentioned that the field was weakened due to the
>war. Can you name me 10 professional golfers of that era who were in
>europe, or the pacific rim, at the time, who may have made a
>significant difference in the relative strength of the field?
Put it this way. Suppose Tiger Woods had been hit by a bus shortly
after his 18th birthday, before he won his first US Am. We would have
lost a promising young amateur, but nobody (except Earl) would have
thought that his loss would completely change the course of golf
history. Ernie, Phil, and Vijay would have reigned as golf's Big
Three for the last ten years, and Jack's 1996 prediction, that modern
fields are too deep for any one person to dominate, would be proved
correct.
We can never know how many of the people killed or crippled during
WWII would have become great athletes, and we certainly can't know
their names, but we can be statistically certain that several of them
would have been contenders, and a few would have been Hall of Famers.
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Sep 2006 12:18:22
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 13:27:28 +0200, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:
> it is constantly mentioned that the field was weakened due to the
>war. Can you name me 10 professional golfers of that era who were in
>europe, or the pacific rim, at the time, who may have made a
>significant difference in the relative strength of the field?
Some of those who might have won were not yet established, didn't get
a chance to golf during the war, and who never returned.
|
| |
Date: 29 Sep 2006 11:00:10
From: cja
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
David wrote:
> ...
> There was one golfer who finished second to Nelson five times during the streak.
> I had never heard of him, but his name was McSpade.
>
McSpaden. Jug McSpaden. You've never heard of him? Not a very astute
golf fan, I guess. Seriously, though, I agree that Nelson's streak, and
the 18 wins in 1945, was an amazing accomplishment.
- cja
|
| | |
Date: 29 Sep 2006 21:04:07
From: David
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
On 29 Sep 2006 11:00:10 -0700, "cja" <cja@excite.com > wrote:
>David wrote:
>> ...
>> There was one golfer who finished second to Nelson five times during the streak.
>> I had never heard of him, but his name was McSpade.
>>
>McSpaden. Jug McSpaden. You've never heard of him? Not a very astute
>golf fan, I guess. Seriously, though, I agree that Nelson's streak, and
>the 18 wins in 1945, was an amazing accomplishment.
Oops, missed the "n" there at the end of his name. Nope, sorry to
say that I had never heard of him. I do think that too many people
dismiss Nelson's accomplishment as watered down, though. It was not
like he was winning tournaments shooting over par to some hacks.
When they talk about grinding it out on the tour, that is what these
guys did. I find the prize money that Nelson earned to be pretty sad.
War bonds that he had to sell at reduced value in order to be able to
travel to all of these tournaments and bring his wife along with him.
The guy retired at the peak of his career at age 34 years old. Same
thing with Bobby Jones. We will never know how much those guys would
have ended up winning.
> - cja
David
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Sep 2006 21:45:29
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
"David" <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote
>>>
>>McSpaden. Jug McSpaden. You've never heard of him? Not a very astute
>>golf fan, I guess. Seriously, though, I agree that Nelson's streak, and
>>the 18 wins in 1945, was an amazing accomplishment.
>
> Oops, missed the "n" there at the end of his name. Nope, sorry to
> say that I had never heard of him.
Harold "Jug" McSpaden - 17 career wins, placing him T47 on the all-time PGA
TOUR list for career victories.
To put that in context, of the 46 players ahead of him on the all-time list,
at least 25 of them came AFTER McSpaden's career had ended. That means when
he retired, he was 22nd on the all-time victories list, give or take.
To give further context to his 17 career victories, consider that these
current veteran "star" players have fewer career wins on the PGA TOUR:
Jim Furyk, Ernie Els, David Duval, Steve Elkington, Fred Funk, Brad Faxon,
Fred Couples, k Calcavecchia, Paul Azinger, Retief Goosen, Jay Haas, Bob
Tway, David Toms, Hal Sutton, Jeff Sluman, Kenny Perry, Corey Pavin, Jose
ia Olazabal, k O'Meara, Justin Leonard, Tom Lehman, Steve Jones, Lee
Janzen, Peter Jacobson, Scott Hoch, and many others who, I would imagine, no
one would confuse with a player possessing a 17-win career.
In fact, of all the currently active players on the PGA TOUR, only these few
rank ahead of McSpaden in career victories:
Woods, Watson, Singh, Mickelson, Love and Price. (If you consider Crenshaw,
Kite and/or Wadkins still "active" on the PGA TOUR, they'd go on that list,
as well.)
Harold "Jug" McSpaden may not be one of those names bandied about in most
discussions of the all-time greats -- nor should he be -- but to players who
were his contemporaries, McSpaden's skills were well-known, and he was
always among the select few who would be considered "favorites" to win any
time he was in the field. Considering that his heyday was about the same
time as three guys named Snead, Hogan and Nelson, that's some pretty high
praise.
Randy
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Sep 2006 13:23:28
From: David
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:45:29 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>"David" <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote
>>>>
>>>McSpaden. Jug McSpaden. You've never heard of him? Not a very astute
>>>golf fan, I guess. Seriously, though, I agree that Nelson's streak, and
>>>the 18 wins in 1945, was an amazing accomplishment.
>>
>> Oops, missed the "n" there at the end of his name. Nope, sorry to
>> say that I had never heard of him.
>
>
>Harold "Jug" McSpaden - 17 career wins, placing him T47 on the all-time PGA
>TOUR list for career victories.
>
>To put that in context, of the 46 players ahead of him on the all-time list,
>at least 25 of them came AFTER McSpaden's career had ended. That means when
>he retired, he was 22nd on the all-time victories list, give or take.
>
>To give further context to his 17 career victories, consider that these
>current veteran "star" players have fewer career wins on the PGA TOUR:
>
>Jim Furyk, Ernie Els, David Duval, Steve Elkington, Fred Funk, Brad Faxon,
>Fred Couples, k Calcavecchia, Paul Azinger, Retief Goosen, Jay Haas, Bob
>Tway, David Toms, Hal Sutton, Jeff Sluman, Kenny Perry, Corey Pavin, Jose
>ia Olazabal, k O'Meara, Justin Leonard, Tom Lehman, Steve Jones, Lee
>Janzen, Peter Jacobson, Scott Hoch, and many others who, I would imagine, no
>one would confuse with a player possessing a 17-win career.
>
>In fact, of all the currently active players on the PGA TOUR, only these few
>rank ahead of McSpaden in career victories:
>
>Woods, Watson, Singh, Mickelson, Love and Price. (If you consider Crenshaw,
>Kite and/or Wadkins still "active" on the PGA TOUR, they'd go on that list,
>as well.)
>
>Harold "Jug" McSpaden may not be one of those names bandied about in most
>discussions of the all-time greats -- nor should he be -- but to players who
>were his contemporaries, McSpaden's skills were well-known, and he was
>always among the select few who would be considered "favorites" to win any
>time he was in the field. Considering that his heyday was about the same
>time as three guys named Snead, Hogan and Nelson, that's some pretty high
>praise.
I agree, Randy. My not knowing who he is was not meant to belittle
his achievements. Had Neslon not gone on such a tear, he would have
had five more tournaments to add to his collection :-)
>Randy
David
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Sep 2006 13:13:24
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:04:07 +0200, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:
> The guy retired at the peak of his career at age 34 years old. Same
>thing with Bobby Jones. We will never know how much those guys would
>have ended up winning.
I read a book about Byron, which took a very favorable viewpoint
toward him and his record, but says that his putting was deserting him
when he quit. We also know that Byron played a full schedule in 1946,
and won "only" six events, with no majors. That same year, Snead won
six with a major, and Hogan won 13 with a major. I think it's safe to
say that even if his putting didn't leave him, by the time the fields
got back to full strength (and you have to figure that with the
millions of young men killed or wounded during the war, it would take
at least five years), he would have gone back to his pre-war average
of winning two or three events a year.
|
| |
Date: 29 Sep 2006 10:34:16
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
> On top of that, the golfers had to covet their new golfballs--they
> were very difficult to come by during the war. The range balls were
> in terrible shape and losing a new ball was a disaster for these guys.
But that was equal for everybody.
>
> Add to that the fact that travelling between events was a huge chore
> in itself, Nelson's record is rekable.
That also was equal for everybody.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Sep 2006 21:05:35
From: David
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
On 29 Sep 2006 10:34:16 -0700, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>> On top of that, the golfers had to covet their new golfballs--they
>> were very difficult to come by during the war. The range balls were
>> in terrible shape and losing a new ball was a disaster for these guys.
>
>But that was equal for everybody.
>>
>> Add to that the fact that travelling between events was a huge chore
>> in itself, Nelson's record is rekable.
>
>That also was equal for everybody.
The point is that the players today don't have to play under such
extreme conditions. Nelson's accomplishments were that much more
impressive because they had to deal with such things.
David
|
| |
Date: 29 Sep 2006 18:25:25
From: David
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:04:01 -0600, Steven Paul
<listcatcher@fastOUTmail.fm > wrote:
>
>-----------
>Asked whether 11 in a row was possible now, Woods said probably not.
>
>"The competition is so much deeper now," he said. "Back in his day -- I
>actually talked to him about this -- he said he had to beat four or
>five guys every week. And when you're hot, that's not hard to do.
>That's not the case anymore. It's 40 or 50 now, so it's a lot
>different."
>------------
Well, the way the tour looks these days, how many more than four or
five golfers does Woods have ot beat on a regular basis? Snead was
playing during Nelson's run--hardly a nobody in the golfing world.
Also, on the CNN website a there was an article chronicling Nelson's
run. It was very eye-opening, indeed. There was one golfer who
finished second to Nelson five times during the streak. I had never
heard of him, but his name was McSpade. Also, Nelson was destroying
course records while doing it.
On top of that, the golfers had to covet their new golfballs--they
were very difficult to come by during the war. The range balls were
in terrible shape and losing a new ball was a disaster for these guys.
Add to that the fact that travelling between events was a huge chore
in itself, Nelson's record is rekable. This is the link to the
article:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/magazine/09/26/recreating.nelson.streak/index.html
Highly recommended.
David
|
| | |
Date: 29 Sep 2006 13:00:35
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 18:25:25 +0200, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:04:01 -0600, Steven Paul
><listcatcher@fastOUTmail.fm> wrote:
>
>>
>>-----------
>>Asked whether 11 in a row was possible now, Woods said probably not.
>>
>>"The competition is so much deeper now," he said. "Back in his day -- I
>>actually talked to him about this -- he said he had to beat four or
>>five guys every week. And when you're hot, that's not hard to do.
>>That's not the case anymore. It's 40 or 50 now, so it's a lot
>>different."
>>------------
>
> Well, the way the tour looks these days, how many more than four or
>five golfers does Woods have ot beat on a regular basis? Snead was
>playing during Nelson's run--hardly a nobody in the golfing world.
The reason Snead was available to play in 1945 is because he was
discharged from the Navy with a back injury in 1944, so he probably
wasn't 100%. Hogan was still in the Army Air Force, stationed in
Florida, until August. Before that, he could only play in events near
his base. A book about Nelson says that Hogan and Snead each played
only two events of Byron's 11-event streak. The article you cite
below seems to agree about Hogan, but implies that Snead played in
five before suffering a broken wrist.
>Also, on the CNN website a there was an article chronicling Nelson's
>run. It was very eye-opening, indeed. There was one golfer who
>finished second to Nelson five times during the streak. I had never
>heard of him, but his name was McSpade.
Well, if you never heard of his main competition, I guess that answers
the depth of field question. By the way, his name was Jug McSpaden,
not McSpade. He was excused from military service due to severe
allergies, although they didn't seem to affect his golf. He had a
fairly undistinguished record *except* in 1944 and 1945, and holds the
PGA record for most second place finishes, also set in 1945.
The SI article you cite disagrees with other sources about Jug's
record. It says that Jug tied with Byron for most wins (6) in 1944,
and had 11 wins in 1934-5. But Wikipedia says he had only five wins
to Byron's eight in 1944, and only three in 1934-5. The yearly win
records listed here
http://golf.about.com/cs/historyofgolf/a/pgayearlywins.htm
also contradict the SI article.
> Also, Nelson was destroying
>course records while doing it.
I agree he had some impressive gins of victory. To me, that's much
more compelling than his stroke average, which is easily manipulable
by the event organizers. Even at that, Tiger broke his record for
stroke average, and he didn't play the Atlanta Iron Lung while he was
doing it.
> On top of that, the golfers had to covet their new golfballs--they
>were very difficult to come by during the war. The range balls were
>in terrible shape and losing a new ball was a disaster for these guys.
>
> Add to that the fact that travelling between events was a huge chore
>in itself, Nelson's record is rekable. This is the link to the
>article:
>
>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/magazine/09/26/recreating.nelson.streak/index.html
>
>Highly recommended.
Thank you very much for that link. It has more details on the streak
than I've seen anywhere else.
An interesting detail from the article is that Bobby Jones was
apparently enjoying perfect health at the 1945 Atlanta event, shooting
a 65 in a practice round. Many people are under the mistaken
impression that he quit golf after 1930 because his paralysis began
about then, despite the instructional movies on TGC that show him in
robust health. Authoritative sources say his disease was actually
diagnosed in 1948. His early retirement from competition was
completely voluntary (not counting nagging from his wife).
Other interesting tidbits from this article, listed mostly for myself,
so I can easily find them again:
-- The first player to take his own plane between events was not
Tiger, or even Arnie. It was apparently the king of second place, Jug
McSpaden, who flew his own Piper. The article said that Byron got
flack for not enlisting when people saw him driving a car with out of
state plates. I wonder what kind of flak Jug got, flying his own
plane.
-- The 1945 PGA was the first time they roped off the spectators.
Before that, they could walk along with the players.
-- Sam Byrd, who may have been Byron's most consistent competition in
1945 other than McSpaden, was a former NY Yankee who often replaced
Babe Ruth in late innings.
-- Nelson got $5,000 (in war bonds, convertible immediately to $3750
in cash) for winning the 1945 PGA. This illustrates how diminished
the Open Championship had become before Palmer made it a major again.
In the early 1960's, nearly 20 years after the PGA paid the winner
$3750, the winner of the Open got about $1500. No wonder so many US
pros either played it once, or not at all.
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Sep 2006 21:52:12
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote
>
> By the way, his name was Jug McSpaden,
[snip]
> He had a fairly undistinguished record *except*
> in 1944 and 1945
Johnny Miller had a fairly undistinguished career except for a few short
years in the early-mid 1970s when he was white hot, but I doubt if most
people would dismiss him so matter-of-factly as you have McSpaden. I don't
think the length of time a player rode a wave is necessarily justification
for writing off his career quite so easily. And no, I'm not trying to make
a case for McSpaden being considered as one of the all-time greats. But the
fact is, to this day, McSpaden still ranks among the all-time Top 50 in PGA
TOUR career victories (T47), something that, by any standard, ought not be
ignored.
(More details in my other post in this thread.)
Randy
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Sep 2006 22:06:11
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:52:12 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>"multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote
>>
>> By the way, his name was Jug McSpaden,
>[snip]
>> He had a fairly undistinguished record *except*
>> in 1944 and 1945
>
>
>Johnny Miller had a fairly undistinguished career except for a few short
>years in the early-mid 1970s when he was white hot, but I doubt if most
>people would dismiss him so matter-of-factly as you have McSpaden.
You've got that right. I've never been a big Miller fan, but McSpaden
was nowhere near being in Miller's class. Miller had 25 wins, two
majors, was Player of the Year, and won 8 events in a single year when
Nicklaus, Trevino, and Player were all at their best. Jug had 17
wins and no majors, and got almost half his wins against the weak
fields of WWII, when he didn't serve despite being able to fly his
plane to his golf events. He could manage only one win against the
depleted fields of 1945, and that was in a team event, with Byron
Nelson as his teammate! He was 36 at the time, and it was the last
PGA event he won.
And while we're on the subject --- a couple weeks ago, when I was
arguing that Nelson set his records against weak fields, I said that
his stroke average didn't prove anything, because the event organizers
can make the courses as easy as they want, to make the fans happy by
giving them lots of birdies and eagles. I offered as evidence the
fact that you see some of the lowest scores today at the weakest
events, i.e. those for players who didn't qualify for a WGC or major,
playing the same week in an alternate event. You asked me if a win in
those events should somehow not be considered an "authentic" win. You
then answered you own question, saying, "That's simply preposterous.
Yet by your logic, it should be so."
Welcome to the preposterous world of the PGA. They agree with my
logic.
http://www.pgatour.com/fedexcup/announcement
"The Regular Season will begin with the Mercedes Championships in
Hawaii (week of Jan. 1-7 in 2007) and continue through the Carolina
Classic at Greensboro (Aug. 13-19, 2007). Most PGA TOUR events will
offer 25,000 FedExCup points. The Masters Tournament, THE PLAYERS,
U.S. Open, British Open and PGA Championship will offer 27,500 points.
The three World Golf Championships events will award 26,250, while the
four Additional events, i.e., events played the same week as the World
Golf Championship events and the British Open, will award half at
12,500 points."
So beginning next year, a win at a weak-field event is considered
equivalent to half a win at a regular event, and less than half of a
major or WGC event. I think that's about right, and I give Nelson
credit for six in a row. Since Tiger had two majors and a WGC in the
five he's won so far, I also give him credit for six in a row. We'll
see if he adds another WGC to the string.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 01 Oct 2006 01:27:59
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:q6rrh2lium5g3lcq4kgg6psgodka0st128@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:52:12 -0400, "\"R&B\""
> <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
>
>>"multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote
>>>
>>> By the way, his name was Jug McSpaden,
>>[snip]
>>> He had a fairly undistinguished record *except*
>>> in 1944 and 1945
>>
>>
>>Johnny Miller had a fairly undistinguished career except for a few short
>>years in the early-mid 1970s when he was white hot, but I doubt if most
>>people would dismiss him so matter-of-factly as you have McSpaden.
>
> You've got that right. I've never been a big Miller fan, but McSpaden
> was nowhere near being in Miller's class. Miller had 25 wins, two
> majors, was Player of the Year, and won 8 events in a single year when
> Nicklaus, Trevino, and Player were all at their best. Jug had 17
> wins and no majors, and got almost half his wins against the weak
> fields of WWII, when he didn't serve despite being able to fly his
> plane to his golf events. He could manage only one win against the
> depleted fields of 1945, and that was in a team event, with Byron
> Nelson as his teammate! He was 36 at the time, and it was the last
> PGA event he won.
You seem to want to be argumentative just for the sake of arguing.
I'm not disagreeing with you about Miller being a better player than
McSpaden, and to suggest that I was lobbying for more a more favorable
recollection of McSpaden's career would simply be in error. I was merely
pointing out (mostly to the person who posted earlier that they'd never
heard of him) that his career was hardly something to sneeze at.
I think even you would agree with that. Not that he's one of the all-time
greats -- he's not. But he is, still, among the fifty winningest ever.
> And while we're on the subject --- a couple weeks ago, when I was
> arguing that Nelson set his records against weak fields, I said that
> his stroke average didn't prove anything, because the event organizers
> can make the courses as easy as they want, to make the fans happy by
> giving them lots of birdies and eagles. I offered as evidence the
> fact that you see some of the lowest scores today at the weakest
> events, i.e. those for players who didn't qualify for a WGC or major,
> playing the same week in an alternate event. You asked me if a win in
> those events should somehow not be considered an "authentic" win. You
> then answered you own question, saying, "That's simply preposterous.
> Yet by your logic, it should be so."
>
> Welcome to the preposterous world of the PGA. They agree with my
> logic.
>
> http://www.pgatour.com/fedexcup/announcement
> "The Regular Season will begin with the Mercedes Championships in
> Hawaii (week of Jan. 1-7 in 2007) and continue through the Carolina
> Classic at Greensboro (Aug. 13-19, 2007). Most PGA TOUR events will
> offer 25,000 FedExCup points. The Masters Tournament, THE PLAYERS,
> U.S. Open, British Open and PGA Championship will offer 27,500 points.
> The three World Golf Championships events will award 26,250, while the
> four Additional events, i.e., events played the same week as the World
> Golf Championship events and the British Open, will award half at
> 12,500 points."
>
> So beginning next year, a win at a weak-field event is considered
> equivalent to half a win at a regular event, and less than half of a
> major or WGC event. I think that's about right, and I give Nelson
> credit for six in a row. Since Tiger had two majors and a WGC in the
> five he's won so far, I also give him credit for six in a row. We'll
> see if he adds another WGC to the string.
Great. In "multiWorld," Nelson only won six in a row. Unfortunately for
you, multiWorld is a world of one. Nelson's 11 wins in '45 will still be
"official," and the record book won't be adjusted.
The TOUR may change the number of years a player is entitled to an exemption
for winning a tournament (as they have done many times in the past -- are
Tiger's 12 major championships after 1998 only "half" as impressive as the
one he won in '97 -- each of them entitled him to only half as long an
exemption on the PGA TOUR).
If a win is deemed as "official," it will still be official, whether it
entitles a player to a full two years exemption or something less. Just
like winning the Western Open is just as "official" as winning the PLAYERS
Championship. The only difference is the number of years it gives the
player full exempt status.
Randy
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 Oct 2006 17:24:18
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006 01:27:59 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>"multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
>news:q6rrh2lium5g3lcq4kgg6psgodka0st128@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 21:52:12 -0400, "\"R&B\""
>> <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote
>>>>
>>>> By the way, his name was Jug McSpaden,
>>>[snip]
>>>> He had a fairly undistinguished record *except*
>>>> in 1944 and 1945
>>>
>>>
>>>Johnny Miller had a fairly undistinguished career except for a few short
>>>years in the early-mid 1970s when he was white hot, but I doubt if most
>>>people would dismiss him so matter-of-factly as you have McSpaden.
>>
>> You've got that right. I've never been a big Miller fan, but McSpaden
>> was nowhere near being in Miller's class. Miller had 25 wins, two
>> majors, was Player of the Year, and won 8 events in a single year when
>> Nicklaus, Trevino, and Player were all at their best. Jug had 17
>> wins and no majors, and got almost half his wins against the weak
>> fields of WWII, when he didn't serve despite being able to fly his
>> plane to his golf events. He could manage only one win against the
>> depleted fields of 1945, and that was in a team event, with Byron
>> Nelson as his teammate! He was 36 at the time, and it was the last
>> PGA event he won.
>
>
>You seem to want to be argumentative just for the sake of arguing.
Because I express my opinion, and I support my opinion with facts???
At least I argue only when I disagree with someone. You seem to argue
even when you agree.
>I'm not disagreeing with you about Miller being a better player than
>McSpaden, and to suggest that I was lobbying for more a more favorable
>recollection of McSpaden's career would simply be in error.
Then it's a good thing that nobody suggested that.
>I was merely
>pointing out (mostly to the person who posted earlier that they'd never
>heard of him) that his career was hardly something to sneeze at.
Seems like there would be some way to point that out without taking
shots at me.
>I think even you would agree with that.
Even me? Even the guy who has written thousands of letters to the
PGA, demanding that McSpaden's name be stricken from all records, that
his house be burned, and that his descendants be hunted down and
killed? Sheesh, all I said was he didn't do anything exceptional
before the war, but I have also listed, in one post or another, the
records he set during the war. He was a fine golfer, but it is not
the least bit surprising to me that many people, even some who have
been interested in golf for a long time, have never heard of him.
> Not that he's one of the all-time
>greats -- he's not. But he is, still, among the fifty winningest ever.
Well, Nelson *is* one of the all-time greats, and you are well aware
that I think that the records he set during the war should have an
asterisk, too. So why act like I'm singling out Jug for my irrational
hatred?
>> ...
>> So beginning next year, a win at a weak-field event is considered
>> equivalent to half a win at a regular event, and less than half of a
>> major or WGC event. I think that's about right, and I give Nelson
>> credit for six in a row. Since Tiger had two majors and a WGC in the
>> five he's won so far, I also give him credit for six in a row. We'll
>> see if he adds another WGC to the string.
>
>
>Great. In "multiWorld," Nelson only won six in a row. Unfortunately for
>you, multiWorld is a world of one.
Actually, I'm opening franchises in Barstow and Topeka, but it *is*
very exclusive. For example, people who can't tell a joke when they
read one are not eligible.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Oct 2006 20:32:06
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote
>>
>>
>>Great. In "multiWorld," Nelson only won six in a row. Unfortunately for
>>you, multiWorld is a world of one.
>
> Actually, I'm opening franchises in Barstow and Topeka, but it *is*
> very exclusive. For example, people who can't tell a joke when they
> read one are not eligible.
Oh, rest assured that I've pretty much written of a lot of what you say as a
joke.
But something being laughable and being funny are two distinctly different
things.
Randy
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Sep 2006 19:22:12
From: long&left
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
"R&B" wrote:
> "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote
>> By the way, his name was Jug McSpaden,
> [snip]
>> He had a fairly undistinguished record *except*
>> in 1944 and 1945
>
>
> Johnny Miller had a fairly undistinguished career except for a few short
> years in the early-mid 1970s when he was white hot, but I doubt if most
> people would dismiss him so matter-of-factly as you have McSpaden. I don't
> think the length of time a player rode a wave is necessarily justification
> for writing off his career quite so easily. And no, I'm not trying to make
> a case for McSpaden being considered as one of the all-time greats. But the
> fact is, to this day, McSpaden still ranks among the all-time Top 50 in PGA
> TOUR career victories (T47), something that, by any standard, ought not be
> ignored.
>
> (More details in my other post in this thread.)
>
> Randy
>
>
actually, many here write off JM's career matter of factly quite
regularly. I don't happen to agree with that but have seen the supposed
"facts" in writing here. I had never even heard of Jug McSpaden until
today and have been playing golf since 1962...
Dave
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Sep 2006 13:59:12
From: Crispin Roche
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 19:22:12 -0700, long&left <nospam@diespammers.com >
wrote:
>"R&B" wrote:
>> "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote
>>> By the way, his name was Jug McSpaden,
>> [snip]
>>> He had a fairly undistinguished record *except*
>>> in 1944 and 1945
>>
>>
>> Johnny Miller had a fairly undistinguished career except for a few short
>> years in the early-mid 1970s when he was white hot, but I doubt if most
>> people would dismiss him so matter-of-factly as you have McSpaden. I don't
>> think the length of time a player rode a wave is necessarily justification
>> for writing off his career quite so easily. And no, I'm not trying to make
>> a case for McSpaden being considered as one of the all-time greats. But the
>> fact is, to this day, McSpaden still ranks among the all-time Top 50 in PGA
>> TOUR career victories (T47), something that, by any standard, ought not be
>> ignored.
>>
>> (More details in my other post in this thread.)
>>
>> Randy
>>
>>
>
>actually, many here write off JM's career matter of factly quite
>regularly. I don't happen to agree with that but have seen the supposed
>"facts" in writing here. I had never even heard of Jug McSpaden until
>today and have been playing golf since 1962...
Ah but didn't you realize there were only a handful of golfers before
Arnold Palmer.
Here are a couple of other names for you - John Ball and Harold
Hilton. These two were outstanding golfers back in the day when the
British and US amateurs were two of the major golf competitions. Ball
won an Open Championship and 8 British amateurs and Hilton won 2
Opens, 4 British amateurs and the US amateur of 1911.
Crispin Roche
|
| | | |
Date: 29 Sep 2006 13:32:05
From: Booker Little
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:3moqh2hjaf06j1ar6egqbih2rrrrt8r7jg@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 18:25:25 +0200, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:04:01 -0600, Steven Paul
>><listcatcher@fastOUTmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>-----------
>>>Asked whether 11 in a row was possible now, Woods said probably not.
>>>
>>>"The competition is so much deeper now," he said. "Back in his day -- I
>>>actually talked to him about this -- he said he had to beat four or
>>>five guys every week. And when you're hot, that's not hard to do.
>>>That's not the case anymore. It's 40 or 50 now, so it's a lot
>>>different."
>>>------------
>>
>> Well, the way the tour looks these days, how many more than four or
>>five golfers does Woods have ot beat on a regular basis? Snead was
>>playing during Nelson's run--hardly a nobody in the golfing world.
>
> The reason Snead was available to play in 1945 is because he was
> discharged from the Navy with a back injury in 1944, so he probably
> wasn't 100%. Hogan was still in the Army Air Force, stationed in
> Florida, until August. Before that, he could only play in events near
> his base. A book about Nelson says that Hogan and Snead each played
> only two events of Byron's 11-event streak. The article you cite
> below seems to agree about Hogan, but implies that Snead played in
> five before suffering a broken wrist.
>
>>Also, on the CNN website a there was an article chronicling Nelson's
>>run. It was very eye-opening, indeed. There was one golfer who
>>finished second to Nelson five times during the streak. I had never
>>heard of him, but his name was McSpade.
>
> Well, if you never heard of his main competition, I guess that answers
> the depth of field question. By the way, his name was Jug McSpaden,
> not McSpade. He was excused from military service due to severe
> allergies, although they didn't seem to affect his golf. He had a
> fairly undistinguished record *except* in 1944 and 1945, and holds the
> PGA record for most second place finishes, also set in 1945.
>
> The SI article you cite disagrees with other sources about Jug's
> record. It says that Jug tied with Byron for most wins (6) in 1944,
> and had 11 wins in 1934-5. But Wikipedia says he had only five wins
> to Byron's eight in 1944, and only three in 1934-5. The yearly win
> records listed here
> http://golf.about.com/cs/historyofgolf/a/pgayearlywins.htm
> also contradict the SI article.
>
>
>> Also, Nelson was destroying
>>course records while doing it.
>
> I agree he had some impressive gins of victory. To me, that's much
> more compelling than his stroke average, which is easily manipulable
> by the event organizers. Even at that, Tiger broke his record for
> stroke average, and he didn't play the Atlanta Iron Lung while he was
> doing it.
>
>> On top of that, the golfers had to covet their new golfballs--they
>>were very difficult to come by during the war. The range balls were
>>in terrible shape and losing a new ball was a disaster for these guys.
>>
>> Add to that the fact that travelling between events was a huge chore
>>in itself, Nelson's record is rekable. This is the link to the
>>article:
>>
>>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/magazine/09/26/recreating.nelson.streak/index.html
>>
>>Highly recommended.
>
> Thank you very much for that link. It has more details on the streak
> than I've seen anywhere else.
>
> An interesting detail from the article is that Bobby Jones was
> apparently enjoying perfect health at the 1945 Atlanta event, shooting
> a 65 in a practice round. Many people are under the mistaken
> impression that he quit golf after 1930 because his paralysis began
> about then, despite the instructional movies on TGC that show him in
> robust health. Authoritative sources say his disease was actually
> diagnosed in 1948. His early retirement from competition was
> completely voluntary (not counting nagging from his wife).
>
> Other interesting tidbits from this article, listed mostly for myself,
> so I can easily find them again:
>
> -- The first player to take his own plane between events was not
> Tiger, or even Arnie. It was apparently the king of second place, Jug
> McSpaden, who flew his own Piper. The article said that Byron got
> flack for not enlisting when people saw him driving a car with out of
> state plates. I wonder what kind of flak Jug got, flying his own
> plane.
>
> -- The 1945 PGA was the first time they roped off the spectators.
> Before that, they could walk along with the players.
>
> -- Sam Byrd, who may have been Byron's most consistent competition in
> 1945 other than McSpaden, was a former NY Yankee who often replaced
> Babe Ruth in late innings.
>
> -- Nelson got $5,000 (in war bonds, convertible immediately to $3750
> in cash) for winning the 1945 PGA. This illustrates how diminished
> the Open Championship had become before Palmer made it a major again.
> In the early 1960's, nearly 20 years after the PGA paid the winner
> $3750, the winner of the Open got about $1500. No wonder so many US
> pros either played it once, or not at all.
>
Since you are one of the few on this newsgroup with the intelligence to read
an actual book, I recommend "The Greatest Game Ever Played", and "The Grand
Slam." Both by k Frost. They will supply the information to correct some
of your errors concerning golf history. Perhaps you will than consider
Harry Vardon as perhaps the "greatest." Both are excellent reads. They
should be read in order for the full effect. They are available at the
library in my town.
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Sep 2006 15:12:33
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:32:05 -0700, "Booker Little"
<bookerlives@earthlink.net > wrote:
>Since you are one of the few on this newsgroup with the intelligence to read
>an actual book,
I doubt that, although I agree with k Twain, who said that a man
who doesn't read books has no advantage over a man who can't.
> I recommend "The Greatest Game Ever Played", and "The Grand
>Slam." Both by k Frost.
I have read the former, and I second your recommendation. I'm still
looking for the latter.
> They will supply the information to correct some
>of your errors concerning golf history.
Rather than keep me in suspense, please feel free to correct them
here.
> Perhaps you will than consider
>Harry Vardon as perhaps the "greatest."
I already do, and have said so in RSG several times.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 29 Sep 2006 15:43:39
From: Booker Little
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:646rh25rk072oeh5f290tcdb58q6lepfrm@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:32:05 -0700, "Booker Little"
> <bookerlives@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>Since you are one of the few on this newsgroup with the intelligence to
>>read
>>an actual book,
>
> I doubt that, although I agree with k Twain, who said that a man
> who doesn't read books has no advantage over a man who can't.
>
>> I recommend "The Greatest Game Ever Played", and "The Grand
>>Slam." Both by k Frost.
>
> I have read the former, and I second your recommendation. I'm still
> looking for the latter.
>
>> They will supply the information to correct some
>>of your errors concerning golf history.
>
> Rather than keep me in suspense, please feel free to correct them
> here.
>
>> Perhaps you will than consider
>>Harry Vardon as perhaps the "greatest."
>
> I already do, and have said so in RSG several times
|
| | |
Date: 29 Sep 2006 19:44:39
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Tiger on 11 in a row
|
"David" <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote in message
news:elhqh29u2om9ro879d60mul49v5kkh8rjm@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:04:01 -0600, Steven Paul
> <listcatcher@fastOUTmail.fm> wrote:
>
> >
> >-----------
> >Asked whether 11 in a row was possible now, Woods said probably not.
> >
> >"The competition is so much deeper now," he said. "Back in his day -- I
> >actually talked to him about this -- he said he had to beat four or
> >five guys every week. And when you're hot, that's not hard to do.
> >That's not the case anymore. It's 40 or 50 now, so it's a lot
> >different."
> >------------
>
> Well, the way the tour looks these days, how many more than four or
> five golfers does Woods have ot beat on a regular basis? Snead was
> playing during Nelson's run--hardly a nobody in the golfing world.
> Also, on the CNN website a there was an article chronicling Nelson's
> run. It was very eye-opening, indeed. There was one golfer who
> finished second to Nelson five times during the streak. I had never
> heard of him, but his name was McSpade. Also, Nelson was destroying
> course records while doing it.
>
> snip
Not to take anything away from Lord Byron's accomplishments, but I believe
that a number of the major forces in professional golf of that era were not
competing in 1945. For example neither Hogan or Snead competed in the PGA
tourney in 1945.
dave
|
|
