| |
Main
Date: 23 Aug 2006 07:14:57
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: By Nicklaus' own standard, Woods will take his crown
|
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/sports_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_83_4937870,00.html
Lincicome: By Nicklaus' own standard, Woods will take his crown (Rocky
Mountain News):
August 23, 2006
Back when the The Players Championship was less than it is - and what
it aims to be is the golf's fifth major title - Jack Nicklaus had won
it for the second of three times, and he seemed more pleased than
necessary.
This was before it had its own home and was being shopped around to
assorted courses, most of which took it only under protest. Remind me
to tell you my Jackie Gleason story sometime.
Why, I asked Nicklaus, was this one so important?
Well, he said, you never know. I want to win as many of these as I can
just in case it becomes a major championship.
Nicklaus invented the standard by which to judge golfing greatness.
Not wins in a row (Byron Nelson) or wins in a season (also Nelson) or
most PGA Tour wins all time (Sam Snead) or most money won in a season
(Vijay Singh) or cuts made (Tiger Woods) or scoring average (Woods).
Nicklaus created the major measure, and if it was good enough for him,
it was good enough for us, never mind that Snead might be the greatest
golfer ever even though he never won an Open.
Or Palmer, who never won the PGA, or Ben Hogan, who passed a chance at
the Grand Slam or, for one brief, bright bit of time, even Johnny
Miller, who could not miss a fairway or a putt.
Even now it can be argued that if Woods had to play with the same
clubs that Walter Hagen did, Hagen would beat him 3 and 2 every time.
But, it is too late for all of that. Majors is the measurement, and,
like Nicklaus, Woods can call it anything he wants to because there is
no measurement by which he cannot be considered the best to ever play
Mark Twain's good walk spoiled.
Being more contemporary to Nicklaus than to Tiger Woods, my
inclination is to help figure out why Woods will never surpass the
great man, when Woods certainly shall do that.
Still, I wondered if adding the TPC to the majors list would at least
stretch Woods' mission into Woods' 40s. Allowing that Nicklaus' last
major came at age 46 and no major has ever been won by anyone older
than 48 (Julius Boros, PGA), that gives Woods another 16 to 18 years
to get seven more majors and pass Nicklaus.
At his current rate of two or so a year, Woods will get there much too
quickly, even adding in Nicklaus' three TPCs to Woods' one. Whether
Nicklaus has 21 majors or 23, figuring in his amateur titles, makes no
difference. Woods is going to sail past all of them.
What I concluded is there is no way around the inevitable. The player
of my youth will be displaced just as Palmer was by Nicklaus and like
Hogan and Hagen and even Bobby Jones were before.
We are all living in the Age of Tiger, a more remarkable achievement
since no age, even in sports, should be defined by golf.
What can stop Woods? Boredom, maybe. That hit Nicklaus right around
Woods' age, when he was so clearly the best that challenging himself
grew tiresome. This was early Lee Trevino and not yet Tom Watson.
That might be why Nicklaus invented the majors incentive, causing
someone to call him a Legend in his Spare Time.
Injury? Golf does not present significant peril, like football or
hockey or even baseball. But it happens.
Hogan is the most famous, surviving a head-on crash with a bus. Payne
Stewart is the most tragic. Miller went suddenly ordinary and blamed
new muscles he got from building a house with all the money he had
won. Nicklaus had to eventually get a new hip.
Competition? The great gap between Watson and Woods fades now from
memory but was very real. Think that the most dominant golfer of that
time was Greg Norman, the Phil Mickelson of his day, finding ways to
lose.
There might not be another Woods for 20 years, about the time Woods
himself is ready for the Champions Tour.
As much as golf wishes it, as much as it needs it, there is not going
to be any great rival to Woods. Clearly Mickelson is not the man. He
is too content, or too doomed or just too Phil to have more than the
occasional success. And what is more clear is that Mickelson at his
best will never beat Woods at his best and, more often than not, when
Woods is less than his best.
Foreign challengers? Who, Sergio Garcia, who looks at the last round
of a golf tournament the same way a spaniel looks at a fire hydrant?
Garcia simply cannot putt and never will. Luke Donald, the English kid
who was paired with Woods in the last round of the PGA? Keeping Woods'
score is as close as he will get.
Pick a number. I say 30 majors. And more if Woods decides to invent
some of his own.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
|
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 16:11:22
From: Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Subject: Re: By Nicklaus' own standard, Woods will take his crown
|
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 07:14:57 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>
>Competition? The great gap between Watson and Woods fades now from
>memory but was very real. Think that the most dominant golfer of that
>time was Greg Norman, the Phil Mickelson of his day, finding ways to
>lose.
>
Now that is BS. Norman is a great great golfer and well beyond mickey
who is pretty good himself. I think Greg is number 4 of all time right
behind Sam, jack, and tiger. As i've said before you can't judge
international golfers by majors since 3 of the 4 majors are played in
america. Greg never played a major at home in his entire career.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 10:26:28
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: By Nicklaus' own standard, Woods will take his crown
|
In article <g8voe2hrngcgiv99s3av0vo5b19jjv7jsv@4ax.com >,
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS <xeton2001@yahoo.com >
wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 07:14:57 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Competition? The great gap between Watson and Woods fades now from
> >memory but was very real. Think that the most dominant golfer of that
> >time was Greg Norman, the Phil Mickelson of his day, finding ways to
> >lose.
> >
>
> Now that is BS. Norman is a great great golfer and well beyond mickey
> who is pretty good himself. I think Greg is number 4 of all time right
> behind Sam, jack, and tiger. As i've said before you can't judge
> international golfers by majors since 3 of the 4 majors are played in
> america. Greg never played a major at home in his entire career.
Boo hoo ... somehow Player managed to win 9 of them.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 10:16:13
From: Mark A
Subject: Re: By Nicklaus' own standard, Woods will take his crown
|
"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com > wrote in
message > Now that is BS. Norman is a great great golfer and well beyond
mickey
> who is pretty good himself. I think Greg is number 4 of all time right
> behind Sam, jack, and tiger. As i've said before you can't judge
> international golfers by majors since 3 of the 4 majors are played in
> america. Greg never played a major at home in his entire career.
Greg Norman has had his permanent residence in Florida for almost all of his
prime golfing years. He even shared ownership in a boat with Nicklaus.
Norman's inability to win majors (he didn't win a huge number of PGA tour
events either) had nothing to do with the fact that he was born in Oz.
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 14:47:12
From: Cesar Neri
Subject: Re: By Nicklaus' own standard, Woods will take his crown
|
During the week of the PGA championship, I was somewhat baffled by a comment
that Jack made when asked about Tiger. He said something to the effect that
if "I had known Tiger would be this good, I would have tried harder". Even
Trevino was totally confused by that comment, when he as interviewed by a
local radio station. According to Trevino, Tiger would have kicked every one
of his contemporaries' butt including himself, Player, Palmer, Watson, and
to a lesser extent, Nicklaus, if they all played at their peak together.
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:04loe2t6cj6ht7u4tdmm6nnpu2p9dko35j@4ax.com...
> http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/sports_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_83_4937870,00.html
>
> Lincicome: By Nicklaus' own standard, Woods will take his crown (Rocky
> Mountain News):
>
> August 23, 2006
> Back when the The Players Championship was less than it is - and what
> it aims to be is the golf's fifth major title - Jack Nicklaus had won
> it for the second of three times, and he seemed more pleased than
> necessary.
>
> This was before it had its own home and was being shopped around to
> assorted courses, most of which took it only under protest. Remind me
> to tell you my Jackie Gleason story sometime.
>
> Why, I asked Nicklaus, was this one so important?
>
> Well, he said, you never know. I want to win as many of these as I can
> just in case it becomes a major championship.
>
> Nicklaus invented the standard by which to judge golfing greatness.
> Not wins in a row (Byron Nelson) or wins in a season (also Nelson) or
> most PGA Tour wins all time (Sam Snead) or most money won in a season
> (Vijay Singh) or cuts made (Tiger Woods) or scoring average (Woods).
>
> Nicklaus created the major measure, and if it was good enough for him,
> it was good enough for us, never mind that Snead might be the greatest
> golfer ever even though he never won an Open.
>
> Or Palmer, who never won the PGA, or Ben Hogan, who passed a chance at
> the Grand Slam or, for one brief, bright bit of time, even Johnny
> Miller, who could not miss a fairway or a putt.
>
> Even now it can be argued that if Woods had to play with the same
> clubs that Walter Hagen did, Hagen would beat him 3 and 2 every time.
>
> But, it is too late for all of that. Majors is the measurement, and,
> like Nicklaus, Woods can call it anything he wants to because there is
> no measurement by which he cannot be considered the best to ever play
> Mark Twain's good walk spoiled.
>
> Being more contemporary to Nicklaus than to Tiger Woods, my
> inclination is to help figure out why Woods will never surpass the
> great man, when Woods certainly shall do that.
>
> Still, I wondered if adding the TPC to the majors list would at least
> stretch Woods' mission into Woods' 40s. Allowing that Nicklaus' last
> major came at age 46 and no major has ever been won by anyone older
> than 48 (Julius Boros, PGA), that gives Woods another 16 to 18 years
> to get seven more majors and pass Nicklaus.
>
> At his current rate of two or so a year, Woods will get there much too
> quickly, even adding in Nicklaus' three TPCs to Woods' one. Whether
> Nicklaus has 21 majors or 23, figuring in his amateur titles, makes no
> difference. Woods is going to sail past all of them.
>
> What I concluded is there is no way around the inevitable. The player
> of my youth will be displaced just as Palmer was by Nicklaus and like
> Hogan and Hagen and even Bobby Jones were before.
>
> We are all living in the Age of Tiger, a more remarkable achievement
> since no age, even in sports, should be defined by golf.
>
> What can stop Woods? Boredom, maybe. That hit Nicklaus right around
> Woods' age, when he was so clearly the best that challenging himself
> grew tiresome. This was early Lee Trevino and not yet Tom Watson.
>
> That might be why Nicklaus invented the majors incentive, causing
> someone to call him a Legend in his Spare Time.
>
> Injury? Golf does not present significant peril, like football or
> hockey or even baseball. But it happens.
>
> Hogan is the most famous, surviving a head-on crash with a bus. Payne
> Stewart is the most tragic. Miller went suddenly ordinary and blamed
> new muscles he got from building a house with all the money he had
> won. Nicklaus had to eventually get a new hip.
>
> Competition? The great gap between Watson and Woods fades now from
> memory but was very real. Think that the most dominant golfer of that
> time was Greg Norman, the Phil Mickelson of his day, finding ways to
> lose.
>
> There might not be another Woods for 20 years, about the time Woods
> himself is ready for the Champions Tour.
>
> As much as golf wishes it, as much as it needs it, there is not going
> to be any great rival to Woods. Clearly Mickelson is not the man. He
> is too content, or too doomed or just too Phil to have more than the
> occasional success. And what is more clear is that Mickelson at his
> best will never beat Woods at his best and, more often than not, when
> Woods is less than his best.
>
> Foreign challengers? Who, Sergio Garcia, who looks at the last round
> of a golf tournament the same way a spaniel looks at a fire hydrant?
> Garcia simply cannot putt and never will. Luke Donald, the English kid
> who was paired with Woods in the last round of the PGA? Keeping Woods'
> score is as close as he will get.
>
> Pick a number. I say 30 majors. And more if Woods decides to invent
> some of his own.
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com
|
| | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 08:14:03
From: multi
Subject: Re: By Nicklaus' own standard, Woods will take his crown
|
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:47:12 GMT, "Cesar Neri" <Cesar.Neri@hp.com >
wrote:
>During the week of the PGA championship, I was somewhat baffled by a comment
>that Jack made when asked about Tiger. He said something to the effect that
>if "I had known Tiger would be this good, I would have tried harder". Even
>Trevino was totally confused by that comment, when he as interviewed by a
>local radio station.
It's simple. Jack would rather be remembered as a goof-off, than
admit that Tiger is better than he was.
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 12:17:02
From: Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Subject: Re: By Nicklaus' own standard, Woods will take his crown
|
Mark A wrote:
> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote in
> message > Now that is BS. Norman is a great great golfer and well beyond
> mickey
> > who is pretty good himself. I think Greg is number 4 of all time right
> > behind Sam, jack, and tiger. As i've said before you can't judge
> > international golfers by majors since 3 of the 4 majors are played in
> > america. Greg never played a major at home in his entire career.
>
> Greg Norman has had his permanent residence in Florida for almost all of his
> prime golfing years. He even shared ownership in a boat with Nicklaus.
> Norman's inability to win majors (he didn't win a huge number of PGA tour
> events either) had nothing to do with the fact that he was born in Oz.
HAHAHA. So he and nicklaus owned a boat!!! HAHAHA. And FL never was
his permanent residence though yes he owns a house there. Don't prove
a thing. Tiger has homes all over the world. Greg is an aussie and has
won like 40 events on the Australasian tour.
You're crazy if you think there is no home advantage in the majors.
|
|
