| |
Main
Date: 24 Sep 2006 14:27:37
From: B.J.Wilkinson
Subject: What was it that Johnny Miller said?
|
What was it that Johnny Miller said about Scott Verplanck when he
thought the mike was off?
B. J. Wilkinson
|
|
| |
Date: 25 Sep 2006 06:13:58
From: Simon
Subject: Re: What was it that Johnny Miller said?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Simon wrote:
> > > Zach Johnson's back says hi!
> >
> > Johnson just happened to play really well that round. You can't blame
> > Verplank for that :-)
>
> And Verplank had a good point that some of Johnson's fine play may have
> been attributed to the fact that Verplank kept him loose. Once Lehman
> broke them up, Johnson's play suffered.
> Gives new meaning to the term, "Better golf through Chemistry."
That's why team golf (especially fourball) is a different animal to
single strokeplay. There are some guys who can lift their partners and
make them play better regardless of how they play themselves. The
perfect partner for a nervous talented rookie is a reliable,
experienced player who'll encourage the younger player, keep telling
how good he is and giving him the chance to play his game.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Sep 2006 12:42:28
From: Wayne
Subject: Re: What was it that Johnny Miller said?
|
Simon wrote:
>
> annika1980 wrote:
>
>> Simon wrote:
>> > > Zach Johnson's back says hi!
>> >
>> > Johnson just happened to play really well that round. You can't blame
>> > Verplank for that :-)
>>
>> And Verplank had a good point that some of Johnson's fine play may have
>> been attributed to the fact that Verplank kept him loose. Once Lehman
>> broke them up, Johnson's play suffered.
>> Gives new meaning to the term, "Better golf through Chemistry."
>
> That's why team golf (especially fourball) is a different animal to
> single strokeplay. There are some guys who can lift their partners and
> make them play better regardless of how they play themselves. The
> perfect partner for a nervous talented rookie is a reliable,
> experienced player who'll encourage the younger player, keep telling
> how good he is and giving him the chance to play his game.
I'm reminded of Seve with David Gilford back in 1995 with this talk. Seve
was all over the yard, but he made Gilford play way over his head.
Definitely a great partnership in four ball.
Wayne
--
www.nhlfa.com
"There are only two things I can't stand in this world: people who are
intolerant of other peoples' cultures, and the Dutch."
-Nigel Powers
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Sep 2006 14:37:17
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: What is wrong with the Ryder Cup?
|
In article <1159202798.758204.23660@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote:
> Jack Thompson wrote:
> > The_Professor wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > When you and I play for fun, golf is a game. When they play the Ryder
> > > Cup, golf is a game; the only value there is the fun of it. Take that
> > > away, and there is no point to it. The regular tour events are
> > > business. It's a totally different thing. To be good, you have to get
> > > over the fun idea and be able to prepare and play well when it counts.
> > > This should not be news to anyone.
> > >
> >
> > So what you're saying is because money isn't involved and the players
> > have to work together to achieve a common goal, that makes it less
> > significant than regular tour events?
>
> Why do you have to reinterpret what I said? It is quite clear. Playing
> for fun and playing as your profession are two different things. You
> can have fun playing for your profession, but the pressure is a lot
> different. I mentioned nothing about any sort of common goal. That is
> your spin.
Oh, so you don't think that these professional golfers don't see what
Ryder Cup success has done for the game? It attracts bigger TV audiences
than the majors, so you think that the golfers don't realize that
playing well there adds greatly to their endorsement value?
>
> >
> > The people who enjoy the Ryder Cup like it for those very reasons
> > (among others). You obviously prefer the everyone out for themselves
> > and lots of cash, but the Ryder Cup is special to me and others because
> > it's one time where selfishness doesn't rule in golf.
> >
> I said nothing about money. You want to obsess on other people and
> their money, that's you. I could care as little for someone else's
> money as whether they win the Ryder Cup.
Then what is the special value of tour events over this? Why do four
rounds of medal play produce a better measure of a player than head to
head matchplay, for a team? Seems to me that the great ones should be
able to do both.
>
> > >
> > > Nationalism is always at the root of the death and destruction we see;
> > > regardless of any other factor it's always our group of doorknobs is
> > > better than your group of wicker baskets. God is always on "our" side
> > > becasue "we" say so. "We" are always getting cheated out of something
> > > because "we" want it. People need to behave the way "we" want them to,
> > > have to have "our" religion, have "our" poltical system. Whatever.
> > > Usually some megalomaniac nutcase like Chavez or Amenidijad behind it
> > > in the end, and it really has nothing to do with religion, resource or
> > > anything else, just the greater glory ofd those in power. There is no
> > > "we" that is better than anyone else. "We" in sports causes a lot of
> > > destruction and death every year. People need to be able to play a
> > > simple fun golf match without it being blown out of proportion so that
> > > some "we" can say "we" are better than some "they". Most people could
> > > care less.
> >
> > Yes, that's the most negative interpretation of "we." But "we" also
> > involves looking out for others in your group, sacrificing your own
> > needs and desires, and doing what's best for the majority
>
> There is no other interpretation. Look out for all others, not just
> "us". A bunch of guys get together for some golf, dchoose up sides and
> play for the fun of it. That's the Ryder Cup. There is nothing more to
> it.
And that is precisely what makes it so important. It makes it a game
again, that you play not just for yourself, but for others, too.
>
> > Golf is normally a very selfish sport, but the Ryder Cup shows a
> > different side to these players. Some relate well to anyone and team
> > play only enhances their games, while others show that their style in
> > individual tournaments does not translate well when playing with
> > someone else. They have to actually relate to others.
> >
> > You see this as making it an insignificant game. I see it as making it
> > a very significant world class sporting event.
>
> You are as free to hold your opinion as I am to hold mine. The Ryder
> Cup to me is a fluff event that means virtually nothing to the golf
> world. It could be meaningful in a sporting sense if others didn't blow
> it out of proportion...but they do, and it makes them look catty.
No, you decry it, and it makes you look whiny, and a sore loser.
>
> Geoff Ogilvy does not think he is the best golfer to have played in the
> US this year because he won the US Open. Tiger Woods is the best golfer
> to have played in Britian this past year, and not because he won the
> British Open. Lacking silly nationalistic poltical spin, just seeing
> the obvious, these statements are easy to understand. That you play in
> the Ryder Cup is a measure of your standing as a golfer. Winning or not
> is not. Monty is still an ofer in any event including the top players
> in the world, for example. Woods, Toms, Mickleson, Olazabal, Ogilvy,
> Micheel, Furyk, Woosnam, Seve, Faldo, are not...all these players can
> say they topped the best at least once....and that's the real measure.
> The Ryder Cup is nowhere near that, IMHO.
Your first two sentences contradict each other, but no matter. Ogilvy
and Woods were the best medal play players in the US and GB,
respectively, during the week of these two Opens. Period. A month later
- who knows? All we know is that last week a team of Europeans knocked
the stuffing out of the highest ranked Americans in a team matchplay
event. Period. Oh, yes, and it was great television.
William Clark
|
| |
Date: 25 Sep 2006 06:04:41
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: What was it that Johnny Miller said?
|
Simon wrote:
> > Zach Johnson's back says hi!
>
> Johnson just happened to play really well that round. You can't blame
> Verplank for that :-)
And Verplank had a good point that some of Johnson's fine play may have
been attributed to the fact that Verplank kept him loose. Once Lehman
broke them up, Johnson's play suffered.
Gives new meaning to the term, "Better golf through Chemistry."
|
| |
Date: 25 Sep 2006 05:09:25
From: Simon
Subject: Re: What was it that Johnny Miller said?
|
Ben. wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
> > Ben. wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.golfonline.com/golfonline/tours/rydercup/article/0,17742,1538602,00.html
> > >
> > > Funny stuff...funny, but true. Typical Miller.
> >
> > I don't think the part about Verplank being a lead weight was true.
>
> Zach Johnson's back says hi!
Johnson just happened to play really well that round. You can't blame
Verplank for that :-)
I thought Verplank was one of the few Americans that had some feel for
the event and had a bit of fight in them (the others being Johnson &
Henry). Also, I think he was the only US player who cracked a smile in
the 3 days.
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2006 21:06:21
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: What was it that Johnny Miller said?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> Ben. wrote:
> >
> > http://www.golfonline.com/golfonline/tours/rydercup/article/0,17742,1538602,00.html
> >
> > Funny stuff...funny, but true. Typical Miller.
>
> I don't think the part about Verplank being a lead weight was true.
Zach Johnson's back says hi!
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2006 19:43:57
From:
Subject: Re: What was it that Johnny Miller said?
|
Larry Bud wrote:
> spring wrote:
> > "B.J.Wilkinson" <bjwilkin@ilstu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:numdh295bojppr9i6pl0ogu1k1v0aguid5@4ax.com...
> > > What was it that Johnny Miller said about Scott Verplanck when he
> > > thought the mike was off?
> > >
> > > B. J. Wilkinson
> >
> > My apron is falling off :-)
> >
> > He was apparently ridiculing the entire team as well.
>
> Should he have been admiring how well the American's were playing
> instead?
Nothing like calling a spade a spade....
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2006 19:39:57
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: What was it that Johnny Miller said?
|
Ben. wrote:
>
> http://www.golfonline.com/golfonline/tours/rydercup/article/0,17742,1538602,00.html
>
> Funny stuff...funny, but true. Typical Miller.
I don't think the part about Verplank being a lead weight was true.
I do believe that Lehman needed to grow a set and sit Mickelson and
Tiger for at least one Foursomes match.
I'm always afraid to criticize Miller too much when I consider the
alternative .... Lanny.
Lanny would have spent 5 hours telling us how Nicklaus and Trevino
would've whipped the entire European team by themselves.
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2006 19:18:44
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: What was it that Johnny Miller said?
|
Larry Bud wrote:
> That's all he said? What part was he wrong? Tiger did play like crap,
> and Mick was an oh-for.
The ability to objectively face harsh reality is not a quality I would
attribute to the garden variety upper echelon PGA TOUR golfer, LB...not
by a long shot. When confronted with it, they typically file it in the
grudge directory and nurse it like a child.
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2006 19:06:28
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: What was it that Johnny Miller said?
|
Ben. wrote:
> Birdie Bill wrote:
> > B.J.Wilkinson wrote:
> > > What was it that Johnny Miller said about Scott Verplanck when he
> > > thought the mike was off?
> >
> > The full story is at golfonline.com. I like the part where Miller
> > says "greetings" to the US team after he finds out his off-air
> > comments are being piped into their room.
>
> It's a busy-ass homepage, so here's the link:
>
> http://www.golfonline.com/golfonline/tours/rydercup/article/0,17742,1538602,00.html
>
> Funny stuff...funny, but true. Typical Miller.
That's all he said? What part was he wrong? Tiger did play like crap,
and Mick was an oh-for.
Hell, I thought he tossed out the N word or commented on Amy
Mickelson's tits.
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2006 18:36:17
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: What was it that Johnny Miller said?
|
Birdie Bill wrote:
> B.J.Wilkinson wrote:
> > What was it that Johnny Miller said about Scott Verplanck when he
> > thought the mike was off?
>
> The full story is at golfonline.com. I like the part where Miller
> says "greetings" to the US team after he finds out his off-air
> comments are being piped into their room.
It's a busy-ass homepage, so here's the link:
http://www.golfonline.com/golfonline/tours/rydercup/article/0,17742,1538602,00.html
Funny stuff...funny, but true. Typical Miller.
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2006 18:05:15
From: Birdie Bill
Subject: Re: What was it that Johnny Miller said?
|
B.J.Wilkinson wrote:
> What was it that Johnny Miller said about Scott Verplanck when he
> thought the mike was off?
The full story is at golfonline.com. I like the part where Miller
says "greetings" to the US team after he finds out his off-air
comments are being piped into their room.
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2006 15:50:26
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: What was it that Johnny Miller said?
|
spring wrote:
> "B.J.Wilkinson" <bjwilkin@ilstu.edu> wrote in message
> news:numdh295bojppr9i6pl0ogu1k1v0aguid5@4ax.com...
> > What was it that Johnny Miller said about Scott Verplanck when he
> > thought the mike was off?
> >
> > B. J. Wilkinson
>
> My apron is falling off :-)
>
> He was apparently ridiculing the entire team as well.
Should he have been admiring how well the American's were playing
instead?
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2006 16:15:19
From: spring
Subject: Re: What was it that Johnny Miller said?
|
"B.J.Wilkinson" <bjwilkin@ilstu.edu > wrote in message
news:numdh295bojppr9i6pl0ogu1k1v0aguid5@4ax.com...
> What was it that Johnny Miller said about Scott Verplanck when he
> thought the mike was off?
>
> B. J. Wilkinson
My apron is falling off :-)
He was apparently ridiculing the entire team as well.
what an idiot Miller is. Any one in Europe want to take him?
Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you
Bill
|
|
