| |
Main
Date: 05 Sep 2006 15:37:12
From: Brian Foster
Subject: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
He did it in 1945. I think it is an amazing record but he did it during war
time, when the talent pool had to have been greatly depleted.
I don't know if anyone will ever be able to win 11 in a row again.
|
|
| |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 12:45:40
From: TJM
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
> He did it in 1945. I think it is an amazing record but he did it during war
> time, when the talent pool had to have been greatly depleted.
>
> I don't know if anyone will ever be able to win 11 in a row again.
Tiger will definitely shatter Jack's 18 majors and Snead's 82 tour victories and
be unanimously regarded as the Greatest Golfer of All Time, but there will
always be those assholes who keep bringing up Nelson's 11-win streak in 1945.
Fact is, Nelson was playing against a field depleted by World War II........HUGE
asterisk next to that coveted record.
Plain simple truth.....put Tiger's A-game against any golfer in history and they
cant touch him......case closed.
|
| |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 09:03:26
From: multi
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:37:12 GMT, "Brian Foster"
<brianfoster@houston.rr.com > wrote:
>He did it in 1945. I think it is an amazing record but he did it during war
>time, when the talent pool had to have been greatly depleted.
>
>I don't know if anyone will ever be able to win 11 in a row again.
Nelson was a great golfer and a great man, but his winning against the
1945 fields would be like Tiger going back to Stanford and winning
against NCAA fields. And that's not fair to the NCAA.
And an awful lot of golfers who went to war either didn't come back,
or couldn't play as well when they did, so Hogan's six consecutive
victories in 1948 should also have an asterisk. I also believe,
pending verification, that both Nelson and Hogan included a four-ball
match in their string, i.e. each counted a team event as a victory.
That means Tiger is the only player in history to have won five
individual PGA events in a row against non-depleted fields --- and
he's done it twice.
This streak is actually more impressive than his 1999-2000 streak of
six, for two reasons: he only won four in a calendar year then, and
he lost a non-PGA event during that string. Not to mention he won the
DB immediately after winning a major, a WGC, and showing the rookies
around Ireland.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 15:58:12
From: Loudon Briggs
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:37:12 GMT, "Brian Foster"
><brianfoster@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>>He did it in 1945. I think it is an amazing record but he did it during war
>>time, when the talent pool had to have been greatly depleted.
>>
>>I don't know if anyone will ever be able to win 11 in a row again.
>
>Nelson was a great golfer and a great man, but his winning against the
>1945 fields would be like Tiger going back to Stanford and winning
>against NCAA fields. And that's not fair to the NCAA.
Not exactly... the wartime depletion of talent is usually overstated.
Off the top of my head, I can recall his competitors included the
likes of Sam Snead, Ben Hogan, Jimmy Thomson, Harold (Jug) McSpaden,
Johnny Bulla etc. Not exactly chopped liver! 11 in a row was a
terrific feat against any competition.
--
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: 06 Sep 2006 06:17:11
From: rich
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
"Loudon Briggs" <larebe@bbz.net > wrote in message
news:aeurf2dg1vf57tumhepk0hadr5n37n45t1@4ax.com...
> Not exactly... the wartime depletion of talent is usually overstated.
> Off the top of my head, I can recall his competitors included the
> likes of Sam Snead, Ben Hogan, Jimmy Thomson, Harold (Jug) McSpaden,
> Johnny Bulla etc. Not exactly chopped liver! 11 in a row was a
> terrific feat against any competition.
How many of the 11 did Ben Hogan play in? How many did Snead play in?
Rich
|
| | |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 16:46:10
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote
>
> This streak is actually more impressive than his 1999-2000 streak of
> six, for two reasons: he only won four in a calendar year then, and
> he lost a non-PGA event during that string.
The loss in the non-PGA event notwithstanding, I wonder about whether it's
more impressive to have a streak of consecutive victories in a single
season, or whether it's more impressive to have such a streak stretch over
two seasons, as was the case with Tiger's 6-in-a-row.
I was just having this debate on the phone with a friend of mine last night.
He agrees with you. I played devil's advocate and suggested it might be
more impressive to extend a streak like this over two seasons. Here's
why...
Consider: It's one thing to keep a streak going while you're on a roll.
Momentum counts for something, I would think. But to take a long break for
the off-season while every other pro is retooling his swing and gearing up
to knock you off your pedestal come January, and then to pick right up where
you left off when the new season begins -- with no real momentum to carry
you into the new year -- is, I think, just as impressive, if not more so.
Both are impressive, for sure. Perhaps equally so, but for different
reasons.
Just a different perspective.
Randy
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 19:21:58
From:
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
No, two season is much better to actually base an integrity duration on,
but harder.
Either way is commendable.
>m h o
>=A0v =83e
>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0e s p r i t =A0d e =A0c o r p
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 14:11:27
From: multi
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 16:46:10 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>Consider: It's one thing to keep a streak going while you're on a roll.
>Momentum counts for something, I would think. But to take a long break for
>the off-season while every other pro is retooling his swing and gearing up
>to knock you off your pedestal come January, and then to pick right up where
>you left off when the new season begins -- with no real momentum to carry
>you into the new year -- is, I think, just as impressive, if not more so.
That would make more sense if there were only two or three people in
the PGA, and Tiger played them every week. If he were on his game, it
would be easy to keep beating them week after week, and their best
chance to improve would be over the winter break.
But if you're playing against a pool of maybe 400 guys who are capable
of winning, then there is bound to be someone new getting hot each
week --- Ben Curtis this week, JB Holmes next week, Geoff Ogilvy the
week after. Guys who mostly play in the southern hemisphere may be
retooling their swings during our summer. There's no worldwide off
season, and each victory takes a little more out of him. I'd say it's
much harder to win them all in one season, and to win three in three
weeks, as he just did, is really something.
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 17:27:26
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:hbprf2p7goalrpolqlto49f0msstcdkjoq@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 16:46:10 -0400, "\"R&B\""
> <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
>>Consider: It's one thing to keep a streak going while you're on a roll.
>>Momentum counts for something, I would think. But to take a long break
>>for
>>the off-season while every other pro is retooling his swing and gearing up
>>to knock you off your pedestal come January, and then to pick right up
>>where
>>you left off when the new season begins -- with no real momentum to carry
>>you into the new year -- is, I think, just as impressive, if not more so.
>
> That would make more sense if there were only two or three people in
> the PGA, and Tiger played them every week. If he were on his game, it
> would be easy to keep beating them week after week, and their best
> chance to improve would be over the winter break.
>
> But if you're playing against a pool of maybe 400 guys who are capable
> of winning, then there is bound to be someone new getting hot each
> week --- Ben Curtis this week, JB Holmes next week, Geoff Ogilvy the
> week after. Guys who mostly play in the southern hemisphere may be
> retooling their swings during our summer. There's no worldwide off
> season, and each victory takes a little more out of him. I'd say it's
> much harder to win them all in one season, and to win three in three
> weeks, as he just did, is really something.
Oh, believe me, I agree with you. As someone on ABC said, usually when
someone wins on TOUR, they'll miss the cut (or, I think he was implying,
they rarely "contend" two weeks in a row). Tiger gets on these rolls and he
just doesn't stop winning...seemingly until he just runs out of gas.
I'm not arguing that one kind of streak is necessarily more impressive than
the other. I'm not smart enough to know. But I think your argument about
there being no worldwide off season in golf helps prove my point -- that a
streak across two US seasons is no LESS impressive than one that continues
within a given season.
But again, both are very impressive...maybe for different reasons.
Randy
|
| | | | | |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 21:36:59
From: Bradley K. Sherman
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
11 was a much smaller number in the 40's than it is now.
--bks
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 16:41:34
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 21:36:59 +0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:
>11 was a much smaller number in the 40's than it is now.
>
> --bks
Were all numbers smaller then, or just 11?
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 07:41:36
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
On 5-Sep-2006, bks@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
> 11 was a much smaller number in the 40's than it is now.
Damned inflation!
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 00:25:09
From: SteveASmith
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
"Brian Foster" <brianfoster@houston.rr.com > wrote in message
news:IQgLg.12669$dl.2600@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> He did it in 1945. I think it is an amazing record but he did it during
> war time, when the talent pool had to have been greatly depleted.
>
> I don't know if anyone will ever be able to win 11 in a row again.
>Very interesting thread. It's hard to compare golfers from two era's. Tiger
>is simply the best golfer of all time or will be when his career is over.
>Just conditioning and training alone make his the best. What you would like
>to see but never will is starting Jack, Byron and Tiger at the same time in
>modern day and see who would be the best. I still take Tiger. His
>determination and power of will just seems stronger than anyone who has
>ever played. If Tiger played against Jack I just thing he would elevate his
>game to another level.
|
| |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 19:12:13
From:
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
>I don't know if anyone will ever be able to win 11
>in a row again.
=3D=3D=3D=3D
But it is still a challenge, and yes - someone will, most likely.
>m h o
>=A0v =83e
>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0e s p r i t =A0d e =A0c o r p
|
| |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 16:33:39
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
"R&B" wrote:
>
> Y'know, I've heard this argument over and over about Nelson's streak. But
> nobody ever names names.
>
> What proven TOUR winners were gone fighting the war during Nelson's streak?
> I'm not doubting that there were some -- and perhaps even one or two "big
> names," but nobody ever names them. Who were they? How many players that
> were viable contenders were missing from the TOUR in '45? Name them.
I think you make a good point ..... sort of.
While Nelson played in 30 events in 1945, Hogan played in 18 of them,
winning 5. Presumably, these were near the end of the year, after the
war. Sam Snead only played 4 events in 1944, but played in 28 of them
in '45, winning 6.
Herman Kaiser and Jimmy Demaret were no-shows in '44 & '45, but each
won 3 times in 1946. So these guys (Hogan, Snead, Demaret, Kaiser) were
Nelson's primary competition during that time period, and they all saw
limited action in the 1945 season.
In 1946, however, Ben Hogan won 13 times, Nelson won 6, Snead won 5,
Demaret & Kaiser won 3, and Herman Barron and Frank Stranahan were the
only other multiple-winners with 2 wins each.
So I think it's fair to say that the talent pool back in those days
wasn't very deep to begin with, and became even shallower with the
removal of Hogan, Snead, etc. For Tiger to win 11 in a row today,
you'd probably have to remove the entire Top-10 list from the field.
Kinda like last week when Tiger and Vijay were the only top players in
the field and the scores showed it. Then Tiger would just have to wax
Brian Bateman's ass 11 times in a row.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 00:49:34
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
> So I think it's fair to say that the talent pool back in those days
> wasn't very deep to begin with, and became even shallower with the
> removal of Hogan, Snead, etc. For Tiger to win 11 in a row today,
> you'd probably have to remove the entire Top-10 list from the field.
Or, he could match Nelson's scoring record from that year.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 21:45:59
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
Didn't Tiger already break Nelson's scoring record a few years ago?
Randy
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3enqrtI14tN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> So I think it's fair to say that the talent pool back in those days
>> wasn't very deep to begin with, and became even shallower with the
>> removal of Hogan, Snead, etc. For Tiger to win 11 in a row today,
>> you'd probably have to remove the entire Top-10 list from the field.
>
> Or, he could match Nelson's scoring record from that year.
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 03:51:06
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
"\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
> Didn't Tiger already break Nelson's scoring record a few years ago?
Yeah, and ISTR his winning a few tournaments around that time. :)
>
> Randy
>
> "Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote in message
> news:0T3enqrtI14tN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
>> annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So I think it's fair to say that the talent pool back in those days
>>> wasn't very deep to begin with, and became even shallower with the
>>> removal of Hogan, Snead, etc. For Tiger to win 11 in a row today,
>>> you'd probably have to remove the entire Top-10 list from the field.
>>
>> Or, he could match Nelson's scoring record from that year.
>>
>> --
>> Chris Bellomy
>> C-List Charter Member
>> http://clist.org/
>
>
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 20:01:31
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote ...
>
> "R&B" wrote:
>>
>> Y'know, I've heard this argument over and over about Nelson's streak.
>> But
>> nobody ever names names.
>>
>> What proven TOUR winners were gone fighting the war during Nelson's
>> streak?
>> I'm not doubting that there were some -- and perhaps even one or two
>> "big
>> names," but nobody ever names them. Who were they? How many players
>> that
>> were viable contenders were missing from the TOUR in '45? Name them.
>
> I think you make a good point ..... sort of.
> While Nelson played in 30 events in 1945, Hogan played in 18 of them,
> winning 5. Presumably, these were near the end of the year, after the
> war. Sam Snead only played 4 events in 1944, but played in 28 of them
> in '45, winning 6.
And of Hogan's 18 tournaments, how many times was he in the field with
Nelson? All 11? If so, even if there were no other players in the field,
if Nelson beat Hogan 11 in a row, that's pretty impressive in itself.
And I would guess that if Snead played in 28 events in '45, that had to be
just about the entire schedule, so he was likely there in most, if not all,
of the tournaments Nelson won. Sweeping Snead in 11 straight is also pretty
impressive.
> Herman Kaiser and Jimmy Demaret were no-shows in '44 & '45, but each
> won 3 times in 1946. So these guys (Hogan, Snead, Demaret, Kaiser) were
> Nelson's primary competition during that time period, and they all saw
> limited action in the 1945 season.
Do we know that Kaiser and Demaret were both off fighting in the war?
> I think it's fair to say that the talent pool back in those days
> wasn't very deep to begin with, and became even shallower with the
> removal of Hogan, Snead, etc.
"Removal" of Hogan and Snead? Snead was there for 28 events in '45, so he
wasn't removed in the year we're talking about.
Was Hogan fighting in the war? If he was, he was the smallest infantryman
in the nation's history.
> For Tiger to win 11 in a row today, you'd probably have to remove
> the entire Top-10 list from the field. Kinda like last week when
> Tiger and Vijay were the only top players in the field and the
> scores showed it. Then Tiger would just have to wax
> Brian Bateman's ass 11 times in a row.
Brian Bateman might not be the one to do it, but I'll bet sooner or later,
some other "nobody" would creep up, have a career week and edge him. Such
is the nature of golf.
And I say that without taking anything away from Tiger. I know he'd be the
first to tell you that it's hard to win....any tournament.
Randy
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 17:21:58
From: multi
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 20:01:31 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>"Removal" of Hogan and Snead? Snead was there for 28 events in '45, so he
>wasn't removed in the year we're talking about.
Snead was discharged from the Navy in 1944 because of a bad back.
From that, I assume he was not 100% in 1945.
>Was Hogan fighting in the war? If he was, he was the smallest infantryman
>in the nation's history.
Hogan was discharged from the Army Air Corps in August, 1945. And he
was as big as some 1945 DBs :-)
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 18:09:00
From: multi
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:21:58 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
>Hogan was discharged from the Army Air Corps in August, 1945. And he
>was as big as some 1945 DBs :-)
Coincidentally, I just found a book about Nelson that said his streak
ended in August, 1945. Apparently, Snead and Hogan only played in
one individual event of the streak each, and both played in the Miami
Four-Ball.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 06:45:41
From: rich
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:MqGdnXyO99xGkmPZnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@giganews.com...
> And of Hogan's 18 tournaments, how many times was he in the field with
> Nelson? All 11?
More like none. The streak was over before Hogan was discharged. Hogan
himself apparently thought the whole Nelson 1944-45 phenomenon was tainted.
"Hogan was dominating the tour but his immediate future was being shaped by
a few men unacquainted with Hogan, in Berlin and Tokyo. He felt strongly
that he should do his bit for ‘Uncle Sam’ an did so by enrolling in the US
Air force. It galled Hogan considerably that his ex-friend from the caddie
yard and fellow Texan, Byron Nelson was ruling golf with an iron hand.
Nelson, was said to be dangerously Haemophiliac and therefore spared the
tedium of National service. During Hogans absence from the tour, Nelson
rewrote the record books with 1944 & 1945 crammed with victories and par
shattering performances. To the public, Nelson became ‘Lord Nelson’ and
newspaper people, eager to sell papers, proclaimed him ‘Mr Golf.’ All this
had a tremendous motivating factor on Hogan, and upon his release in the
latter part of 1945, reestablished his dominance very quickly with five
victories. Said Hogan to his close friend Jimmy Demaret after shooting 27
under par at Portland and beating Nelson by 17 shots, "I guess that takes
care of this Mr Golf business." Nelson retired within months to the cattle
ranch he had long dreamed of and claimed was his reason for playing pro
golf. Hogan continued his relentless march and in 1948 won 11 times with
near perfect golf."
http://www.golflegends.org/ben-hogan.php
Maybe Nelson was fantastically unlucky to have his best years when no one
was around, but the fact remains that except for 1944 and 1945 he never won
a money title - he never had the most wins in a season - he never won a
player of the year award - he never seems to have been considered the best
player.
Rich
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 09:20:21
From: multi
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 06:45:41 GMT, "rich" <dummy@nothere.com > wrote:
>Maybe Nelson was fantastically unlucky to have his best years when no one
>was around, but the fact remains that except for 1944 and 1945 he never won
>a money title - he never had the most wins in a season - he never won a
>player of the year award - he never seems to have been considered the best
>player.
To be fair, the POY began in 1948. Also to be fair, I'm sure that a
significant percentage of golf fans did consider Nelson to be the best
player immediately before the war. He didn't break records like he
did in 44-45, but he won a lot of events, including several majors
(assuming that the Masters, which was less than ten years old then,
was a major). There is no doubt in my mind that his victory string in
1945 was due to the war, but there is also no doubt that he was denied
the chance to play in several majors during his prime. He might
easily have ended up with ten or more.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 13:01:22
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote ...
> On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 06:45:41 GMT, "rich" <dummy@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>>Maybe Nelson was fantastically unlucky to have his best years when no one
>>was around, but the fact remains that except for 1944 and 1945 he never
>>won
>>a money title - he never had the most wins in a season - he never won a
>>player of the year award - he never seems to have been considered the best
>>player.
>
> To be fair, the POY began in 1948. Also to be fair, I'm sure that a
> significant percentage of golf fans did consider Nelson to be the best
> player immediately before the war. He didn't break records like he
> did in 44-45, but he won a lot of events, including several majors
> (assuming that the Masters, which was less than ten years old then,
> was a major). There is no doubt in my mind that his victory string in
> 1945 was due to the war, but there is also no doubt that he was denied
> the chance to play in several majors during his prime. He might
> easily have ended up with ten or more.
Not to mention that he went out on top...and likely would have won more if
he'd kept playing.
Any way you slice it, 1945 was an anomoly. Would he have won 11 in a row if
the players that were missing had been there? We'll never know for sure;
you can only speculate. While it may seem likely he would not have had such
a streak, it's hard to escape the fact that his scoring average during this
stretch would have been tough for *anyone* to beat. His scoring record did,
after all, hold up for FIFTY-FIVE years. Nicklaus couldn't match it, Miller
couldn't match it (even when he was white hot), and neither could Hogan,
Snead, Watson, Trevino, or any of the others since...until some guy named
Tiger came along and had a year unlike any the game has seen.
It's easy to take a cynical view of Nelson's streak. I prefer to believe
simply that it is what it is, and that players can only be asked to compete
against the players that are in the fields in which they're entered. It's
not like Byron Nelson went out and selected only the weakest-field events he
could find to keep the streak going. He played in the only events available
to him at that level, and it wasn't his fault that certain other players
weren't there.
As for the team event in his streak being an "official" win, you can't
really fault him for that either. It wasn't up to him to decide whether
that event would be considered an "official" tournament or not. But even if
you took that one away, then his streak would still be 10, which is mighty
impressive by anybody's standard, and is four tournaments longer than any
other streak in history.
Randy
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 11:19:49
From: multi
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 13:01:22 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>"multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote ...
>> On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 06:45:41 GMT, "rich" <dummy@nothere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Maybe Nelson was fantastically unlucky to have his best years when no one
>>>was around, but the fact remains that except for 1944 and 1945 he never
>>>won
>>>a money title - he never had the most wins in a season - he never won a
>>>player of the year award - he never seems to have been considered the best
>>>player.
>>
>> To be fair, the POY began in 1948. Also to be fair, I'm sure that a
>> significant percentage of golf fans did consider Nelson to be the best
>> player immediately before the war. He didn't break records like he
>> did in 44-45, but he won a lot of events, including several majors
>> (assuming that the Masters, which was less than ten years old then,
>> was a major). There is no doubt in my mind that his victory string in
>> 1945 was due to the war, but there is also no doubt that he was denied
>> the chance to play in several majors during his prime. He might
>> easily have ended up with ten or more.
>
>
>Not to mention that he went out on top...and likely would have won more if
>he'd kept playing.
He would likely have won more events, but he also would likely have
won less than Hogan and Snead. Whether that factored into his
decision to retire, nobody but he knows. But it is a cold fact that
his 1945 record was suspect, and he failed to validate it when he had
the chance.
>Any way you slice it, 1945 was an anomoly. Would he have won 11 in a row if
>the players that were missing had been there? We'll never know for sure;
>you can only speculate.
I agree we can't know for sure, but I think "speculate" is way too
weak. I would bet my net worth (all $38) against a nickel that he
would not have won eleven events total, let alone consecutively,
against normal fields. I know this because he never won more than six
in a year against even semi-normal fields. Technically, we can only
speculate that if the war hadn't happened, he would have won every
event that was cancelled, including all 14 majors. Hell, he might
have been more motivated to practice, and won even the events that he
actually lost. 150 wins in a row!
>While it may seem likely he would not have had such
>a streak, it's hard to escape the fact that his scoring average during this
>stretch would have been tough for *anyone* to beat. His scoring record did,
>after all, hold up for FIFTY-FIVE years. Nicklaus couldn't match it, Miller
>couldn't match it (even when he was white hot), and neither could Hogan,
>Snead, Watson, Trevino, or any of the others since...until some guy named
>Tiger came along and had a year unlike any the game has seen.
His scoring average has the same problem. It looks more objective,
but it's actually easier to rig. All the event organizers have to do
is move the tees up, widen the fairways, shorten the rough, and put
the pins in the middle of the greens. You have noted on many, many
occasions that the PGA tour is a business, so don't think for a second
that the PGA didn't know that it had weak fields, and that the fans
want to see birdies and eagles, and therefore you don't make the
courses too tough when you have a weak field. 1945 was the year Babe
Zaharias made her cuts, for chrissake.
The weakest fields in the PGA today are those that play in the same
week as the elite events, yet for some strange reason, they have the
lowest scoring averages. Look at the 2005 BC Open, played the same
week as the British Open. The guy who finished dead last, Tjaart Van
der Walt, shot -5 to come in 77th. 66 players finished -10 or better.
An incredible 42 players finished -15 or better. Tiger won the Open
that week with a score of -14. Objective, irrefutable proof that
those 42 guys are better than Tiger. I would list them here if I
could remember any of their names.
>It's easy to take a cynical view of Nelson's streak. I prefer to believe
>simply that it is what it is, and that players can only be asked to compete
>against the players that are in the fields in which they're entered. It's
>not like Byron Nelson went out and selected only the weakest-field events he
>could find to keep the streak going. He played in the only events available
>to him at that level, and it wasn't his fault that certain other players
>weren't there.
I am the first to acknowledge that Nelson didn't invade Poland,
therefore WW II was not his fault.
>As for the team event in his streak being an "official" win, you can't
>really fault him for that either. It wasn't up to him to decide whether
>that event would be considered an "official" tournament or not. But even if
>you took that one away, then his streak would still be 10, which is mighty
>impressive by anybody's standard, and is four tournaments longer than any
>other streak in history.
All true. All he could do was beat whoever showed up. That makes him
blameless, but it doesn't make his records authentic, IMO.
Incidentally, it wasn't just golf that had this happen. Before WW II,
the West Point football program was a joke. Came the war, and all the
strapping young men went into the service, except those who were able
to get appointments to the military academies. West Point went 7-2-1
in 1943, was undefeated for the next three years, and produced the
Heisman Trophy winners for 1945 and 1946.
http://www.davidpietrusza.com/Davis.html
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 16:33:04
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:3o0uf2tl360t2a8o59corcian5566bis08@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 13:01:22 -0400, "\"R&B\""
> <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
>
>>"multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote ...
>>> On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 06:45:41 GMT, "rich" <dummy@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Maybe Nelson was fantastically unlucky to have his best years when no
>>>>one
>>>>was around, but the fact remains that except for 1944 and 1945 he never
>>>>won
>>>>a money title - he never had the most wins in a season - he never won a
>>>>player of the year award - he never seems to have been considered the
>>>>best
>>>>player.
>>>
>>> To be fair, the POY began in 1948. Also to be fair, I'm sure that a
>>> significant percentage of golf fans did consider Nelson to be the best
>>> player immediately before the war. He didn't break records like he
>>> did in 44-45, but he won a lot of events, including several majors
>>> (assuming that the Masters, which was less than ten years old then,
>>> was a major). There is no doubt in my mind that his victory string in
>>> 1945 was due to the war, but there is also no doubt that he was denied
>>> the chance to play in several majors during his prime. He might
>>> easily have ended up with ten or more.
>>
>>
>>Not to mention that he went out on top...and likely would have won more if
>>he'd kept playing.
>
> He would likely have won more events, but he also would likely have
> won less than Hogan and Snead. Whether that factored into his
> decision to retire, nobody but he knows. But it is a cold fact that
> his 1945 record was suspect, and he failed to validate it when he had
> the chance.
Well, I think that's a little unfair. If you've ever read any of his
writings about the subject of his retirement, you'd know that he was pretty
much driven by one thing only -- to earn enough money to buy his ranch north
of Fort Worth. The minute he did, he got out of golf and retired from
competition.
I got to know Mr. Nelson a little bit through my years working at a radio
station in Dallas that had a longtime association with the Salesmanship Club
and the Byron Nelson Classic. I visited with Mr. Nelson on several
occasions and we talked about why he retired so abruptly. I believe him
when he says that his reason for retiring was simply that he'd reached his
financial goal that made it possible for him to retire to his ranch.
Everybody's ambitions are different. But you've gotta respect a guy who
achieved his goals and didn't pull a Johnny Unitas and keep playing long
after his skills had eroded to the point where he was no longer able to
compete.
Rare is the athlete who does out on top.
>>Any way you slice it, 1945 was an anomoly. Would he have won 11 in a row
>>if
>>the players that were missing had been there? We'll never know for sure;
>>you can only speculate.
>
> I agree we can't know for sure, but I think "speculate" is way too
> weak. I would bet my net worth (all $38) against a nickel that he
> would not have won eleven events total, let alone consecutively,
> against normal fields.
A bold bet (not), since there's no way to prove it either way. What we do
know is that he did what he did.
Anything else is speculation, whether you wish to call it that or not. Like
it or not, an educated guess is still only a guess.
> I know this because he never won more than six
> in a year against even semi-normal fields. Technically, we can only
> speculate that if the war hadn't happened, he would have won every
> event that was cancelled, including all 14 majors. Hell, he might
> have been more motivated to practice, and won even the events that he
> actually lost. 150 wins in a row!
No, not at all. What we know is he won what he won. Anything else is
speculation.
>>While it may seem likely he would not have had such
>>a streak, it's hard to escape the fact that his scoring average during
>>this
>>stretch would have been tough for *anyone* to beat. His scoring record
>>did,
>>after all, hold up for FIFTY-FIVE years. Nicklaus couldn't match it,
>>Miller
>>couldn't match it (even when he was white hot), and neither could Hogan,
>>Snead, Watson, Trevino, or any of the others since...until some guy named
>>Tiger came along and had a year unlike any the game has seen.
>
> His scoring average has the same problem. It looks more objective,
> but it's actually easier to rig. All the event organizers have to do
> is move the tees up, widen the fairways, shorten the rough, and put
> the pins in the middle of the greens. You have noted on many, many
> occasions that the PGA tour is a business, so don't think for a second
> that the PGA didn't know that it had weak fields, and that the fans
> want to see birdies and eagles, and therefore you don't make the
> courses too tough when you have a weak field. 1945 was the year Babe
> Zaharias made her cuts, for chrissake.
Well, the TOUR in 1945 wasn't exactly the well-oiled machine that it is
today. In fact, the PGA TOUR, in name anyway, didn't even exist at that
time, although the old PGA Tournament Players Division events of that era
have since been absorbed into the PGA TOUR record book we know today.
Whether the PGA's Tournament Players Division of the 1940s was savvy enough
or even inclined to modify the course setup to make it more pleasing to a
weaker field, thereby giving fans more birdies for their buck, is, again,
nothing but pure speculation on your part since no hard evidence or even
narrative recollections by anyone involved exists to suggest such a thing.
It's an interesting thesis. But it's still speculation on your part.
> The weakest fields in the PGA today are those that play in the same
> week as the elite events, yet for some strange reason, they have the
> lowest scoring averages. Look at the 2005 BC Open, played the same
> week as the British Open. The guy who finished dead last, Tjaart Van
> der Walt, shot -5 to come in 77th. 66 players finished -10 or better.
> An incredible 42 players finished -15 or better. Tiger won the Open
> that week with a score of -14. Objective, irrefutable proof that
> those 42 guys are better than Tiger. I would list them here if I
> could remember any of their names.
Of course, as you know, this is due in large part to the fact that major
championships are played on far more demanding golf courses that are tweaked
to major championship standards that most garden-variety tournaments are
not.
The difference, though, is that the scores registered in what I like to call
the "Denny's Grand Slam Events" (the tournaments scheduled opposite the four
majors) are not being entered by the same players who are competing in the
majors. And yet your suggestion that the PGA weakened the courses in 1945
to accommodate weaker fields -- pure speculation (or fantasy) on your
part -- ignores the fact that if Nelson had been playing against Hogan and
Snead and the others, they all would have been playing under the same
conditions.
Your argument here falls apart because we don't know if the PGA was setting
up courses in an "easier" fashion in 1945. (Hell, we don't even know if the
USGA was doing so for the US Open back then, let alone the PGA doing it for
garden-variety tournaments.)
But even if they were, then Snead and Hogan should have averaged as low, or
lower, than Nelson in the few tourmaments they entered that year. But alas,
over the full year, they didn't. And Nelson's average was over many more
events, making it all the more impressive.
And for the record, let's not overlook the fact that Nelson's long-standing
scoring record (69.25, if I recall, or something in that vicinity) was
recorded on course conditions that do not compare favorably to the billiard
table-like surfaces the pros putt on nowadays.
>>It's easy to take a cynical view of Nelson's streak. I prefer to believe
>>simply that it is what it is, and that players can only be asked to
>>compete
>>against the players that are in the fields in which they're entered. It's
>>not like Byron Nelson went out and selected only the weakest-field events
>>he
>>could find to keep the streak going. He played in the only events
>>available
>>to him at that level, and it wasn't his fault that certain other players
>>weren't there.
>
> I am the first to acknowledge that Nelson didn't invade Poland,
> therefore WW II was not his fault.
LOL!
>>As for the team event in his streak being an "official" win, you can't
>>really fault him for that either. It wasn't up to him to decide whether
>>that event would be considered an "official" tournament or not. But even
>>if
>>you took that one away, then his streak would still be 10, which is mighty
>>impressive by anybody's standard, and is four tournaments longer than any
>>other streak in history.
>
> All true. All he could do was beat whoever showed up. That makes him
> blameless, but it doesn't make his records authentic, IMO.
Not "authenic?" What would it take to make them authentic? They are what
they are. He played by the rules and carded the scores in legitimate
competitoins against legitimate fields.
You may not like the fact that his record seems insurmountable (we'll see
about that), and therefore, questionable, given the supposed "weakness" of
the fields.
But I pose this question:
Does that mean that players who win such tournaments on the modern-day PGA
TOUR like the Sony Open in Hawaii, the Chrysler Classic of Tucscon, the
Zurich Classic of New Orleans, the FedEx St. Jude Classic, the Barclays
Classic, the John Deere Classic, the Buick Championship, the Reno-Tahoe
Open, the 84 LUMBER Classic, the Valero Texas Open, the Southern Farm Bureau
Classic, the Chrysler Classic of Greensboro, the Bose Championship at Las
Vegas, the FUNAI Classic at Walt DisneyWorld or the Chrysler Championship --
all tournaments that typically do not attract a majority of the top-ranked
players in the world -- should not be considered to have garnered
"authentic" wins?
That's simply preposterous. Yet by your logic, it should be so.
There are plenty of TOUR events even today where the percentage of the
game's top players in the field is roughly equivalent to the percentage of
top-ranked players who entered some of the tournaments in 1945. To assert
that the champions of these events have somehow registered "tainted"
victories -- through no fault of their own -- is just ludicrious.
You'll have to forgive me, multi, for taking you to task on some of this.
It's not that I'm in an argumentative mood. I just think you are
unjustifiably trivializing Nelson's accomplishments, which, even under the
most favorable (to him) conditions, are still quite remarkable.
Like I said elsewhere, if you put Tiger Woods in 11 straight John Deere
Classics, I think the chances are far less than 50-50 (more like about 1 in
100) that he'd win 'em all, if for no other reason that he'd just flat burn
out. Nelson, on the other hand, just kept right on going...and going...and
going.
Maybe it was against weaker fields than what we're used to seeing. But it's
not like those other guys in the 1945 tournaments were a bunch of schmucks
that the PGA rounded up at local club championships just to fill out the
fields. They could play, too.
I think you don't give enough credit to Byron Nelson for what he achieved.
Certainly there were very few, if any, players of his era (and young players
just coming up who are still around today) who viewed his accomplishment
with the same cynicism that you seem to view it with. And I've always
believed that the players are in a much better position than we are to judge
such things.
Randy
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 15:30:51
From: multi
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 16:33:04 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>multi wrote:
>> He would likely have won more events, but he also would likely have
>> won less than Hogan and Snead. Whether that factored into his
>> decision to retire, nobody but he knows. But it is a cold fact that
>> his 1945 record was suspect, and he failed to validate it when he had
>> the chance.
>
>
>Well, I think that's a little unfair. If you've ever read any of his
>writings about the subject of his retirement, you'd know that he was pretty
>much driven by one thing only -- to earn enough money to buy his ranch north
>of Fort Worth. The minute he did, he got out of golf and retired from
>competition.
Well, sure. And if you've ever read any of *anybody's* writings about
themselves, you won't find many lines to the effect of, "I knew I
wasn't as good as those other guys, so I quit before it became too
obvious."
I freely admit that, unlike my opinion about his win streak, this *is*
sheer speculation. But your citing Nelson on Nelson does not bring
any new evidence to light.
>I got to know Mr. Nelson a little bit through my years working at a radio
>station in Dallas that had a longtime association with the Salesmanship Club
>and the Byron Nelson Classic. I visited with Mr. Nelson on several
>occasions and we talked about why he retired so abruptly. I believe him
>when he says that his reason for retiring was simply that he'd reached his
>financial goal that made it possible for him to retire to his ranch.
I'm sure that was the major reason. I just said the other might have
been a factor.
>Everybody's ambitions are different. But you've gotta respect a guy who
>achieved his goals and didn't pull a Johnny Unitas and keep playing long
>after his skills had eroded to the point where he was no longer able to
>compete.
False dichotomy. Hogan and Snead, who were the same age, played well
for another 20 years or so. All Nelson had to do to validate his
records was play two or three more years.
>...
>Anything else is speculation, whether you wish to call it that or not. Like
>it or not, an educated guess is still only a guess.
And evolution (or gravity) is only a theory.
>> His scoring average has the same problem. It looks more objective,
>> but it's actually easier to rig. All the event organizers have to do
>> is move the tees up, widen the fairways, shorten the rough, and put
>> the pins in the middle of the greens. You have noted on many, many
>> occasions that the PGA tour is a business, so don't think for a second
>> that the PGA didn't know that it had weak fields, and that the fans
>> want to see birdies and eagles, and therefore you don't make the
>> courses too tough when you have a weak field. 1945 was the year Babe
>> Zaharias made her cuts, for chrissake.
>
>
>Well, the TOUR in 1945 wasn't exactly the well-oiled machine that it is
>today. In fact, the PGA TOUR, in name anyway, didn't even exist at that
>time, although the old PGA Tournament Players Division events of that era
>have since been absorbed into the PGA TOUR record book we know today.
>
>Whether the PGA's Tournament Players Division of the 1940s was savvy enough
>or even inclined to modify the course setup to make it more pleasing to a
>weaker field, thereby giving fans more birdies for their buck, is, again,
>nothing but pure speculation on your part since no hard evidence or even
>narrative recollections by anyone involved exists to suggest such a thing.
>It's an interesting thesis. But it's still speculation on your part.
Who said the order had to come from the tour? I said the event
organizers. My speculation is that they wanted to attract more fans,
rather than less. But it's only a guess.
>> The weakest fields in the PGA today are those that play in the same
>> week as the elite events, yet for some strange reason, they have the
>> lowest scoring averages. Look at the 2005 BC Open, played the same
>> week as the British Open. The guy who finished dead last, Tjaart Van
>> der Walt, shot -5 to come in 77th. 66 players finished -10 or better.
>> An incredible 42 players finished -15 or better. Tiger won the Open
>> that week with a score of -14. Objective, irrefutable proof that
>> those 42 guys are better than Tiger. I would list them here if I
>> could remember any of their names.
>
>Of course, as you know, this is due in large part to the fact that major
>championships are played on far more demanding golf courses that are tweaked
>to major championship standards that most garden-variety tournaments are
>not.
No, it has nothing to do with major championship standards. You can
prove me wrong if you can name one garden-variety event, i.e. not a
major and not an alternative to an elite event, where over 40 guys
were -15 or better. The 2005 BC was an extreme case, but you can look
at all the alternative events, i.e. Chrysler Tucson, So Farm Bureau,
Reno-Tahoe. Different courses, different times of the year. Yet in
each of them, in each year, the same guys who normally shoot 8 over
and miss the cut, suddenly are shooting 10 or 15 under. I can't
believe you don't see it.
>The difference, though, is that the scores registered in what I like to call
>the "Denny's Grand Slam Events" (the tournaments scheduled opposite the four
>majors) are not being entered by the same players who are competing in the
>majors. And yet your suggestion that the PGA weakened the courses in 1945
>to accommodate weaker fields -- pure speculation (or fantasy) on your
>part -- ignores the fact that if Nelson had been playing against Hogan and
>Snead and the others, they all would have been playing under the same
>conditions.
If Nelson had been playing normal fields, they wouldn't have had to
make the courses easier, or invite Babe to play. I gave reasons why
Hogan and Snead were not 100% in 1945, but there may have been some
other good players who were. If you have data that shows that Nelson
lowered his average by a stroke or two while nobody else did, then
I'll admit I'm wrong about the course setup. Apparently, nobody has
that data.
>And for the record, let's not overlook the fact that Nelson's long-standing
>scoring record (69.25, if I recall, or something in that vicinity) was
>recorded on course conditions that do not compare favorably to the billiard
>table-like surfaces the pros putt on nowadays.
You are not going to convince me that it's easier to break par at
Augusta today than in Nelson's time. Almost all the course changes in
the past few decades have made them harder.
>>>As for the team event in his streak being an "official" win, you can't
>>>really fault him for that either. It wasn't up to him to decide whether
>>>that event would be considered an "official" tournament or not. But even
>>>if
>>>you took that one away, then his streak would still be 10, which is mighty
>>>impressive by anybody's standard, and is four tournaments longer than any
>>>other streak in history.
>>
>> All true. All he could do was beat whoever showed up. That makes him
>> blameless, but it doesn't make his records authentic, IMO.
>
>Not "authenic?" What would it take to make them authentic? They are what
>they are. He played by the rules and carded the scores in legitimate
>competitoins against legitimate fields.
>
>You may not like the fact that his record seems insurmountable (we'll see
>about that), and therefore, questionable, given the supposed "weakness" of
>the fields.
>
>But I pose this question:
>
>Does that mean that players who win such tournaments on the modern-day PGA
>TOUR like the Sony Open in Hawaii, the Chrysler Classic of Tucscon, the
>Zurich Classic of New Orleans, the FedEx St. Jude Classic, the Barclays
>Classic, the John Deere Classic, the Buick Championship, the Reno-Tahoe
>Open, the 84 LUMBER Classic, the Valero Texas Open, the Southern Farm Bureau
>Classic, the Chrysler Classic of Greensboro, the Bose Championship at Las
>Vegas, the FUNAI Classic at Walt DisneyWorld or the Chrysler Championship --
>all tournaments that typically do not attract a majority of the top-ranked
>players in the world -- should not be considered to have garnered
>"authentic" wins?
Depends on the context -- see below.
>That's simply preposterous. Yet by your logic, it should be so.
>
>There are plenty of TOUR events even today where the percentage of the
>game's top players in the field is roughly equivalent to the percentage of
>top-ranked players who entered some of the tournaments in 1945. To assert
>that the champions of these events have somehow registered "tainted"
>victories -- through no fault of their own -- is just ludicrious.
No, it isn't. It depends on the context. To draw an analogy, if
you're a manager hiring a guy to sell shoes, you'll be happy if he has
a college degree. If you're hiring him to design the Mars rocket,
you'll probably look a little closer, and see what school the degree
is from, what his grades were, etc. The more important the
consequences, the closer you look.
By the same token, if a guy wins the Reno-Tahoe, I give him a win.
But if a guy won the Tucson, then the BC Open, then the Reno-Tahoe,
then the So Farm Bureau, then the Valero Texas, then the Greensboro,
I would NOT be happy about saying he had matched Hogan with six
consecutive victories, and I would NOT be happy if he won POY over
somebody who won the Masters, the Doral, and the Memorial. When you
are talking about all-time records, or even yearly awards, the quality
of wins becomes more important.
I am completely consistent in this. When Vijay won nine events and
the money title in 2004, I complained that he got some cheap wins at
events that the top pros usually skip. Since I might be alone on that
one, a better example is from this year. Nobody begrudged John
Rollins his win at the BC, but a LOT of people were upset that he got
more Ryder Cup points for winning the BC than DiMarco did for
finishing second at the Open. So a win was a win, but when something
more important was at stake, a BC win was not only tainted compared to
another win, it was tainted compared to a 2nd place finish!
>You'll have to forgive me, multi, for taking you to task on some of this.
No worries. I enjoy debate, as long as it's intelligent and civil,
and IMO this qualifies.
>It's not that I'm in an argumentative mood. I just think you are
>unjustifiably trivializing Nelson's accomplishments, which, even under the
>most favorable (to him) conditions, are still quite remarkable.
I don't mean to trivialize them. Eleven straight wins is impressive,
even in the amateur ranks. But again, it's a false dichotomy. Saying
that Nelson's record should have an asterisk is not saying it's
worthless, it's just acknowledging that it wasn't set under normal
conditions.
>Like I said elsewhere, if you put Tiger Woods in 11 straight John Deere
>Classics, I think the chances are far less than 50-50 (more like about 1 in
>100) that he'd win 'em all, if for no other reason that he'd just flat burn
>out. Nelson, on the other hand, just kept right on going...and going...and
>going.
>
>Maybe it was against weaker fields than what we're used to seeing. But it's
>not like those other guys in the 1945 tournaments were a bunch of schmucks
>that the PGA rounded up at local club championships just to fill out the
>fields. They could play, too.
Nelson had to play well to do what he did, and I can't prove that it's
harder to win five in a row against today's fields than 11 in a row
against Nelson's fields. But I'd bet it is.
>I think you don't give enough credit to Byron Nelson for what he achieved.
>Certainly there were very few, if any, players of his era (and young players
>just coming up who are still around today) who viewed his accomplishment
>with the same cynicism that you seem to view it with. And I've always
>believed that the players are in a much better position than we are to judge
>such things.
Did you see the story about Hogan that Rich posted in this thread?
"I guess that takes care of this Mr Golf business." LOL.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 19:10:02
From: Loudon Briggs
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
(CLIP)
>I don't mean to trivialize them. Eleven straight wins is impressive,
>even in the amateur ranks. But again, it's a false dichotomy. Saying
>that Nelson's record should have an asterisk is not saying it's
>worthless, it's just acknowledging that it wasn't set under normal
>conditions.
I've enjoyed this interchange... good arguments both ways, but the
above statement makes me curious about your position on "records" in
general. From this statement it would appear that you feel that Roger
Maris "home run" record should bear an asterisk... more games played!
Should any Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa or Mark McGuire record sport one
too... a little help from "outside" to "inside." Etc., etc., etc.
--
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: 06 Sep 2006 20:07:48
From: multi
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 19:10:02 -0700, Loudon Briggs <larebe@bbz.net >
wrote:
>multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>(CLIP)
>
>>I don't mean to trivialize them. Eleven straight wins is impressive,
>>even in the amateur ranks. But again, it's a false dichotomy. Saying
>>that Nelson's record should have an asterisk is not saying it's
>>worthless, it's just acknowledging that it wasn't set under normal
>>conditions.
>
>I've enjoyed this interchange... good arguments both ways, but the
>above statement makes me curious about your position on "records" in
>general. From this statement it would appear that you feel that Roger
>Maris "home run" record should bear an asterisk... more games played!
Well, a stat isn't just a number; it has to mean something. The US
still runs races like the mile and 100 yards, while the rest of the
world has 1500 meters (I never understood why it wasn't 1600, but
that's a different question) and 100 meters. Do you think that in a
list of world record times, it doesn't matter whether the race was a
mile or 1500 meters?
In Maris's case, I wouldn't give him an asterisk, I'd just have a list
or records for the shorter season, and another list for the longer
season. Same with NFL season records --- it's a lot harder to gain
1,000 yards in 12 games than in 16.
But with Nelson, they didn't change the rules, or the number of holes
on a course, they just had a temporary situation where the fields were
depleted. So in that case, I'd give him an asterisk. I don't see
what's so scary about that; all it would do is inform the reader of
the circumstances, and let him decide whether it matters or not.
>Should any Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa or Mark McGuire record sport one
>too... a little help from "outside" to "inside." Etc., etc., etc.
Again, they should have separate lists. One for natural players, and
one for juiced players.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 23:57:15
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 20:07:48 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
>>Should any Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa or Mark McGuire record sport one
>>too... a little help from "outside" to "inside." Etc., etc., etc.
>
>Again, they should have separate lists. One for natural players, and
>one for juiced players.
At least one for illegally juiced players.
It's different when players work out all year round with weights than
when people needed off-season jobs and smoked.
One reason the Steelers had their dynasty is that they were the first
NFL team to really use steroids on their linemen. We still count
those championships, even though it took a couple of years for the
rest of the league to catch up and even longer for steroids to be
proscribed.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 19:34:07
From: long&left
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
Loudon Briggs wrote:
(snip)
> Should any Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa or Mark McGuire record sport one
> too... a little help from "outside" to "inside." Etc., etc., etc.
> Loudon R. Briggs larebe@bbz.net Phoenix, AZ
>
absolutely no question in my mind. Any records set by these folks will
always include a question mark in history...
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 22:40:05
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
"long&left" <nospam@diespammers.com > wrote in message
news:uyLLg.640$Ve5.141@newsfe03.lga...
> Loudon Briggs wrote:
> (snip)
>> Should any Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa or Mark McGuire record sport one
>> too... a little help from "outside" to "inside." Etc., etc., etc.
>
>> Loudon R. Briggs larebe@bbz.net Phoenix, AZ
>>
>
> absolutely no question in my mind. Any records set by these folks will
> always include a question mark in history...
Then, under the same sort of thinking, any record set by a modern-day golfer
should carry an asterisk because he's not using hickory shafts, feathery
balls and persimmon headed-drivers?
Randy
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 20:12:23
From: multi
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 22:40:05 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>"long&left" <nospam@diespammers.com> wrote in message
>news:uyLLg.640$Ve5.141@newsfe03.lga...
>> Loudon Briggs wrote:
>> (snip)
>>> Should any Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa or Mark McGuire record sport one
>>> too... a little help from "outside" to "inside." Etc., etc., etc.
>>
>>> Loudon R. Briggs larebe@bbz.net Phoenix, AZ
>>>
>>
>> absolutely no question in my mind. Any records set by these folks will
>> always include a question mark in history...
>
>
>Then, under the same sort of thinking, any record set by a modern-day golfer
>should carry an asterisk because he's not using hickory shafts, feathery
>balls and persimmon headed-drivers?
If you're talking about records dealing with wins, no problem, as long
as the other players have the same equipment. But if you're talking
about something like driving distance, then sure, have separate
records for the old guys. If MLB switches to aluminum bats, same
thing.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 23:54:06
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 20:12:23 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
>If you're talking about records dealing with wins, no problem, as long
>as the other players have the same equipment. But if you're talking
>about something like driving distance, then sure, have separate
>records for the old guys. If MLB switches to aluminum bats, same
>thing.
The interesting thing is that home field doesn't seem to make a
difference to home run records.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 21:58:39
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
When Tiger was asked about Nelson's streak, he said:
It means never having a bad week, or maybe Byron won in his bad weeks.
=======
I wonder what his competition was in his "bad" weeks during that
streak.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 02:59:17
From: Rick Brandt
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
"R&B" wrote:
> "long&left" <nospam@diespammers.com> wrote in message
> news:uyLLg.640$Ve5.141@newsfe03.lga...
> > Loudon Briggs wrote:
> > (snip)
> > > Should any Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa or Mark McGuire record sport
> > > one too... a little help from "outside" to "inside." Etc., etc.,
> > > etc.
> >
> > > Loudon R. Briggs larebe@bbz.net Phoenix, AZ
> > >
> >
> > absolutely no question in my mind. Any records set by these folks
> > will always include a question mark in history...
>
>
> Then, under the same sort of thinking, any record set by a modern-day
> golfer should carry an asterisk because he's not using hickory
> shafts, feathery balls and persimmon headed-drivers?
>
> Randy
No. Records of wins and losses are created by people playing against other
people all using equipment from the same era.
If there is a lifetime hole-in-one record in golf or a lifetime driving distance
average record then those would fit your analogy, but the records everyone cares
about (most wins or most majors) are not tarnished because equipment has changed
since it has changed for all competitors equally.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 21:45:02
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 22:40:05 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>"long&left" <nospam@diespammers.com> wrote in message
>news:uyLLg.640$Ve5.141@newsfe03.lga...
>> Loudon Briggs wrote:
>> (snip)
>>> Should any Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa or Mark McGuire record sport one
>>> too... a little help from "outside" to "inside." Etc., etc., etc.
>>
>>> Loudon R. Briggs larebe@bbz.net Phoenix, AZ
>>>
>>
>> absolutely no question in my mind. Any records set by these folks will
>> always include a question mark in history...
>
>
>Then, under the same sort of thinking, any record set by a modern-day golfer
>should carry an asterisk because he's not using hickory shafts, feathery
>balls and persimmon headed-drivers?
>
>Randy
>
You can't compare using modernnized equipment to using performance
enhancment drugs Randy.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 22:57:58
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:pq1vf2dlh4skl0ttpus2ah3jcv37hale0l@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 22:40:05 -0400, "\"R&B\""
> <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
>
>>"long&left" <nospam@diespammers.com> wrote in message
>>news:uyLLg.640$Ve5.141@newsfe03.lga...
>>> Loudon Briggs wrote:
>>> (snip)
>>>> Should any Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa or Mark McGuire record sport one
>>>> too... a little help from "outside" to "inside." Etc., etc., etc.
>>>
>>>> Loudon R. Briggs larebe@bbz.net Phoenix, AZ
>>>>
>>>
>>> absolutely no question in my mind. Any records set by these folks will
>>> always include a question mark in history...
>>
>>
>>Then, under the same sort of thinking, any record set by a modern-day
>>golfer
>>should carry an asterisk because he's not using hickory shafts, feathery
>>balls and persimmon headed-drivers?
>>
>>Randy
>>
> You can't compare using modernnized equipment to using performance
> enhancment drugs Randy.
Why not? It's just as addicting.
Randy
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 20:12:53
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote
>
> By the same token, if a guy wins the Reno-Tahoe, I give him a win.
> But if a guy won the Tucson, then the BC Open, then the Reno-Tahoe,
> then the So Farm Bureau, then the Valero Texas, then the Greensboro,
> I would NOT be happy about saying he had matched Hogan with six
> consecutive victories, and I would NOT be happy if he won POY over
> somebody who won the Masters, the Doral, and the Memorial. When you
> are talking about all-time records, or even yearly awards, the quality
> of wins becomes more important.
Well, of course it does. That's why Tom Lehman was the '96 POY. Phil
Mickelson had more victories (twice as many, to be precise, 4 to 2). But
Lehman won the British Open.
I agree. But in your example (which I snipped), you've painted a purely
hypothetical situation.
Nelson's 1945 was not hypothetical. He actually won those tournaments. No
one else has ever approached the same accomplishment.
Speculate all you want about what might have been.
But as Dr. Laura likes to say, "I don't deal in the world of 'what if, I
deal in the world of "what IS."
>>It's not that I'm in an argumentative mood. I just think you are
>>unjustifiably trivializing Nelson's accomplishments, which, even under the
>>most favorable (to him) conditions, are still quite remarkable.
>
> I don't mean to trivialize them. Eleven straight wins is impressive,
> even in the amateur ranks. But again, it's a false dichotomy. Saying
> that Nelson's record should have an asterisk is not saying it's
> worthless, it's just acknowledging that it wasn't set under normal
> conditions.
Still, an "official win" is an "official win" is an "official win." You
can't say his wins were unofficial or "unauthentic" just because the field
may have been weakened. As I pointed out earlier, there are plenty of wins
registered each and every year by players who rise above a relatively weak
field, and there's no reason to consider those wins as any less "authentic"
than another, as long as they are deemed, by the governing body (in this
case, the PGA TOUR) as "official" events.
And that, as Walter Cronkite used to say, is the way it is.
>>Like I said elsewhere, if you put Tiger Woods in 11 straight John Deere
>>Classics, I think the chances are far less than 50-50 (more like about 1
>>in
>>100) that he'd win 'em all, if for no other reason that he'd just flat
>>burn
>>out. Nelson, on the other hand, just kept right on going...and
>>going...and
>>going.
>>
>>Maybe it was against weaker fields than what we're used to seeing. But
>>it's
>>not like those other guys in the 1945 tournaments were a bunch of schmucks
>>that the PGA rounded up at local club championships just to fill out the
>>fields. They could play, too.
>
> Nelson had to play well to do what he did, and I can't prove that it's
> harder to win five in a row against today's fields than 11 in a row
> against Nelson's fields. But I'd bet it is.
Again, you take these easy bets because there's no way to prove them one way
or the other.
But I guess that's what sports fans do over a beer at their local sports
bar.
>>I think you don't give enough credit to Byron Nelson for what he achieved.
>>Certainly there were very few, if any, players of his era (and young
>>players
>>just coming up who are still around today) who viewed his accomplishment
>>with the same cynicism that you seem to view it with. And I've always
>>believed that the players are in a much better position than we are to
>>judge
>>such things.
>
> Did you see the story about Hogan that Rich posted in this thread?
> "I guess that takes care of this Mr Golf business." LOL.
Hogan was a sour bird 'til the day he died, and except for a very few who
were in his inner circle, that perception was widely held by most, if not
almost all, who were around him.
I would say the same thing about Hogan's comments that you said about
Nelson's comments. A player is likely going to say things most favorable to
himself. You should apply the same standards to both men's comments, not
just to Nelson's. The difference, however, is that Byron Nelson is a nice
man who has always been a gentleman. Hogan was an asshole who was also one
of the games best-ever players.
I'd take Hogan over Nelson in a bet any day. But if the contest was about
choosing the one man who consistently demonstrated more humility, I'd take
Nelson every time. And I think most everyone who knew both men would agree
with me on that one.
Randy
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 18:57:23
From: multi
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 20:12:53 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>But as Dr. Laura likes to say, "I don't deal in the world of 'what if, I
>deal in the world of "what IS."
Godwin's Law, I win :-)/
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 22:06:22
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:f3vuf21cuvhi1ndplsliksalfmeokkee79@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 20:12:53 -0400, "\"R&B\""
> <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote:
>
>>But as Dr. Laura likes to say, "I don't deal in the world of 'what if, I
>>deal in the world of "what IS."
>
> Godwin's Law, I win :-)/
BZZZZZZZZT.
Thanks for playing our game. We have some lovely parting gifts.
Randy
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 02:50:34
From: rich
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:p1ttf2t4hmnb8p2ehifigphd015solp5o2@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 06:45:41 GMT, "rich" <dummy@nothere.com> wrote:
>
> To be fair, the POY began in 1948.
You're right - mea culpa. I was looking at a money leader list and thought
it was a player of the year list.
Rich
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 09:14:42
From: multi
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 06:45:41 GMT, "rich" <dummy@nothere.com > wrote:
>More like none. The streak was over before Hogan was discharged. Hogan
>himself apparently thought the whole Nelson 1944-45 phenomenon was tainted.
Thanks for the quote. I found this book on Amazon: "Byron Nelson: The
Story of Golf's Finest Gentleman and The Greatest Winning Streak in
History, " by Martin Davis. Amazon lets you search inside the book.
Do a search for Hogan, and page 23 tells you that Hogan and Snead each
played in two events of the streak --- Hogan at Miami and Tam
O'Shanter, Snead at Miami and Charlotte. Miami was a four-ball event,
and Nelson was teamed with a great player, Jug McSpaden, so IMO that
shouldn't even count in the streak. It would be like Tiger counting a
Ryder Cup victory playing with Furyk. That leaves one event each that
Hogan and Snead played in. Snead had been discharged with a bad back,
so he was not at his best; Hogan was still in the Air Corps, and could
play and practice only at the discretion of his superiors.
So yes, there were good players around during 1945, but they all had
problems traveling with gas and tire shortages, and most had more
serious problems playing or practicing because of the war. I agree
that it's *possible* that Nelson just happened to play the best golf
ever seen that year, but I think it's more likely that it was similar
to Boston last week: he really only had one or two guys per event with
any chance of beating him, and even they weren't 100%.
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 17:23:27
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
"\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
> Was Hogan fighting in the war? If he was, he was the smallest infantryman
> in the nation's history.
He served in uniform, but not in anything resembling a combat
capacity. Mostly he played golf exhibitions stateside, IIRC.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 16:19:28
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
"R&B" wrote:
>
> The truth is, if you consider a tournament such as the modern-day John Deere
> Classic to be a "weak" field (and it is, by comparison to, say, the majors),
> I would bet you a thousand dollars right now that Tiger Woods, as good as he
> is, wouldn't win 11 in a row against John Deere fields (he might win a bunch
> of 'em, but he woudn't win 11 in a row). Sooner or later, he'd have an off
> week and some wannabe would step up his game, putt out of his mind, and win
> one.
It's doubtful that Tiger would win 11 in a row even on the Nationwide
Tour.
He'd probably card 11 Top-10s, however.
|
| | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 02:01:50
From: Brian Foster
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1157498368.380974.234410@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> It's doubtful that Tiger would win 11 in a row even on the Nationwide
> Tour.
> He'd probably card 11 Top-10s, however.
U R out of your mind. Tiger would win every week on the NW tour if he wanted
to. His biggest problem would be boredom.
|
| |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 13:56:41
From: newellsatwsu
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
larry wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:37:12 GMT, "Brian Foster"
> <brianfoster@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >He did it in 1945. I think it is an amazing record but he did it during war
> >time, when the talent pool had to have been greatly depleted.
> >
> >I don't know if anyone will ever be able to win 11 in a row again.
>
> Nelson won 11 tournaments in a year when nearly every good golfer was
> away in uniform--he got a deferment of some sort. Additionally that
> year there was almost no international travel other than military.
> Nelson certainly faced no great golfers from Europe, S. Africa, etc.
>
> So Nelson's one year record was far from an analogous situation to
> today when Tiger plays every tournament against the best golfers on
> the planet.
I'd take a look at Lord Byron's scoring average that year instead of
looking at the fields he was winning against when judging just how good
that season/streak was.
You might change your tune a bit...esp. when considering the equipment
used both by the golfers and the course superintendents of that era.
He shot a majority of those rounds in the 60s on greens that stimped
slower than most collars and fairways of 20 years ago.
|
| |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 12:17:29
From: larry
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:37:12 GMT, "Brian Foster"
<brianfoster@houston.rr.com > wrote:
>He did it in 1945. I think it is an amazing record but he did it during war
>time, when the talent pool had to have been greatly depleted.
>
>I don't know if anyone will ever be able to win 11 in a row again.
Nelson won 11 tournaments in a year when nearly every good golfer was
away in uniform--he got a deferment of some sort. Additionally that
year there was almost no international travel other than military.
Nelson certainly faced no great golfers from Europe, S. Africa, etc.
So Nelson's one year record was far from an analogous situation to
today when Tiger plays every tournament against the best golfers on
the planet.
Larry
|
| | |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 17:05:59
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
"larry" <larry@delmardata.com > wrote
>
> Nelson won 11 tournaments in a year when nearly every good golfer was
> away in uniform--he got a deferment of some sort. Additionally that
> year there was almost no international travel other than military.
> Nelson certainly faced no great golfers from Europe, S. Africa, etc.
>
> So Nelson's one year record was far from an analogous situation to
> today when Tiger plays every tournament against the best golfers on
> the planet.
Y'know, I've heard this argument over and over about Nelson's streak. But
nobody ever names names.
What proven TOUR winners were gone fighting the war during Nelson's streak?
I'm not doubting that there were some -- and perhaps even one or two "big
names," but nobody ever names them. Who were they? How many players that
were viable contenders were missing from the TOUR in '45? Name them.
Lookit, you could send a third of all the card-carrying PGA TOUR members of
2006 to Iraq and you might not send a single one who's ever registered a
victory or WILL EVER register a victory in their careers. So I'm not
entirely convinced this argument holds as much water as some would have us
believe.
As far as I can tell, most of the names I know from that era either won some
time during the 1943-1945 period or finished second somewhere along the way,
indicating they weren't missing at all. So I'm not sure who these players
were who were really away. And if it's only one or two players, that
doesn't really mean much. Even great players go winless for years at a
time, especially back then when there weren't as many events on the annual
TOUR calendar.
So I ask you: Who were all these great players that were gone fighting the
war, leaving a substantially diluted field week after week for Byron Nelson
to more "easily" win 11 in a row?
The truth is, if you consider a tournament such as the modern-day John Deere
Classic to be a "weak" field (and it is, by comparison to, say, the majors),
I would bet you a thousand dollars right now that Tiger Woods, as good as he
is, wouldn't win 11 in a row against John Deere fields (he might win a bunch
of 'em, but he woudn't win 11 in a row). Sooner or later, he'd have an off
week and some wannabe would step up his game, putt out of his mind, and win
one. Someone like a Rich Beem at the '02 PGA Championship, who, as history
has proven, was a flash-in-the-pan who caught lightning in a bottle for one
glorious week to become an unlikely winner.
The point I'm making here is I think people tend to dismiss Nelson's
11-in-a-row as somehow tainted because of the war and its presumed effect on
the strength of the fields. I think that unjustifiably trivializes the
remarkable accomplishment that it truly is, and how it defied all odds, even
against a fluke winner ("the Beem factor") along the way.
You can't ask any more of a player than to beat the field he's presented
with. Nelson did that. 11 times in a row. By ANY measure, that's as
impressive an accomplishment as there is in golf...and quite possibly, in
sport.
Randy
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 15:38:19
From: multi
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 17:05:59 -0400, "\"R&B\""
<noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
>Y'know, I've heard this argument over and over about Nelson's streak. But
>nobody ever names names.
Which is why I would kill for full field listings of those events.
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Sep 2006 22:07:30
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
"\"R&B\"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote:
> "larry" <larry@delmardata.com> wrote
>>
>> Nelson won 11 tournaments in a year when nearly every good golfer was
>> away in uniform--he got a deferment of some sort. Additionally that
>> year there was almost no international travel other than military.
>> Nelson certainly faced no great golfers from Europe, S. Africa, etc.
>>
>> So Nelson's one year record was far from an analogous situation to
>> today when Tiger plays every tournament against the best golfers on
>> the planet.
>
> Y'know, I've heard this argument over and over about Nelson's streak. But
> nobody ever names names.
>
> What proven TOUR winners were gone fighting the war during Nelson's streak?
> I'm not doubting that there were some -- and perhaps even one or two "big
> names," but nobody ever names them. Who were they? How many players that
> were viable contenders were missing from the TOUR in '45? Name them.
I'll put it this way: he had to beat Hogan and Snead. Not in
all eleven wins, mind you, but in several of them.
What's also lost in his are the accounts of how he played.
Basically, he never missed fairways and rarely missed greens.
I don't care who's in the field, that's hard to beat.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 06:19:42
From: rich
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3enh93Ir9fN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> I'll put it this way: he had to beat Hogan and Snead. Not in
> all eleven wins, mind you, but in several of them.
How many of the 11 were Hogan and/or Snead in?
Rich
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 13:52:14
From: DanL
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
> Someone like a Rich Beem at the '02 PGA Championship, who, as history has
> proven, was a flash-in-the-pan who caught lightning in a bottle for one
> glorious week to become an unlikely winner.
>
And, as history has shown, you're so wrapped up in clichés and hyperbole,
you can't get the facts straight. You must be a golf journalist.
Last time I looked, Beem had three wins on Tour, including the week before
the PGA in '02.
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 10:03:43
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
"DanL" <a@b.c > wrote ...
>> Someone like a Rich Beem at the '02 PGA Championship, who, as history
>> has proven, was a flash-in-the-pan who caught lightning in a bottle for
>> one glorious week to become an unlikely winner.
>>
>
> And, as history has shown, you're so wrapped up in clichés and hyperbole,
> you can't get the facts straight. You must be a golf journalist.
>
But I feel safe taking such liberties knowing the world is safe from my
hyperbole with you around to pop out of the woodwork and always straighten
things out.
We can all sleep better knowing we have you to protect us..
> Last time I looked, Beem had three wins on Tour, including the week before
> the PGA in '02.
And NONE since his win at the PGA.
Randy
|
| | | | |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 09:02:24
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:52:14 GMT, "DanL" <a@b.c > wrote:
>> Someone like a Rich Beem at the '02 PGA Championship, who, as history has
>> proven, was a flash-in-the-pan who caught lightning in a bottle for one
>> glorious week to become an unlikely winner.
>>
>
>And, as history has shown, you're so wrapped up in clichés and hyperbole,
>you can't get the facts straight. You must be a golf journalist.
>
>Last time I looked, Beem had three wins on Tour, including the week before
>the PGA in '02.
>
The Kemper in '99, and the International in '02, neither a big
tournament. The one stroke win over TW can certainly be called
unlikely,and a flash-in-the-pan, since he's currently ranked 121 on
the tour. You must not be a golf journalist.
___,
\o
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 15:25:20
From: DanL
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
> The Kemper in '99, and the International in '02, neither a big
> tournament. The one stroke win over TW can certainly be called
> unlikely,and a flash-in-the-pan, since he's currently ranked 121 on
> the tour. You must not be a golf journalist.
Don't let facts get in the way of defending your bend-over-buddy's
inaccurate goober-speak. LOL!! Your beefalo friend claimed Beem got lucky
once ... apparently he caught "lightning in a bottle" THREE times, makes no
difference in which tournament. Beem's current world ranking has nothing
to do with the fact he's won three times. Imagine if an on-air commentator
of a major network made the same ridiculous statement ... f*$%!ing
hilarious!!! This clown can say 1+1=3 and you would stand behind him ...
what a schmuck!
And although you may not consider The International a "Big" event, I'd
hardly call it a weak field. In the field the year Beem won: Norman, Els,
Janzen, Lehman, Garcia, Couples, Singh, Love III, Olazabal, Mickelson and
some other Major winners along with several other pretty good Tour Pros with
no majors (Appleby, Perry, DiMarco, Cink, etc.). In fact, Steve Lowery
threw a birdie,eagle,double-eagle at Beem near the end and Beem held on, but
since it's not a "big" event I guess great playing doesn't matter. Right -
Beem only played well for "one glorious week". LOL!!!!
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 10:45:17
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:25:20 GMT, "DanL" <a@b.c > wrote:
>> The Kemper in '99, and the International in '02, neither a big
>> tournament. The one stroke win over TW can certainly be called
>> unlikely,and a flash-in-the-pan, since he's currently ranked 121 on
>> the tour. You must not be a golf journalist.
>
>Don't let facts get in the way of defending your bend-over-buddy's
>inaccurate goober-speak. LOL!! Your beefalo friend claimed Beem got lucky
>once ... apparently he caught "lightning in a bottle" THREE times, makes no
>difference in which tournament. Beem's current world ranking has nothing
>to do with the fact he's won three times. Imagine if an on-air commentator
>of a major network made the same ridiculous statement ... f*$%!ing
>hilarious!!! This clown can say 1+1=3 and you would stand behind him ...
>what a schmuck!
>
Let's see. What the fuck have you contributed here? The fact is
that you have a hard on for Randy because he has some brains, and has
put you in your place a couple of times. Anyone that does that should
have a gold star. When it comes to what goes on with tour players, he
damned sure has more experience than you, or everyone on this ng, for
that matter. What's your expertise in that area? I know....zero.
>And although you may not consider The International a "Big" event, I'd
>hardly call it a weak field. In the field the year Beem won: Norman, Els,
>Janzen, Lehman, Garcia, Couples, Singh, Love III, Olazabal, Mickelson and
>some other Major winners along with several other pretty good Tour Pros with
>no majors (Appleby, Perry, DiMarco, Cink, etc.). In fact, Steve Lowery
>threw a birdie,eagle,double-eagle at Beem near the end and Beem held on, but
>since it's not a "big" event I guess great playing doesn't matter. Right -
>Beem only played well for "one glorious week". LOL!!!!
Even the tour players don't care for the International because of the
format. Lehman would've won it this year if they had been playing
stroke play. One glorious week was exactly it. LOL!!
>
Well, at least you finally see the situation. He just isn't a serious
contender on tour, and has had three good weeks out of the last seven
years. Made the cut 8 times in 2006 out of 21 starts. Yep, he's one
to be reckoned with.
What a maroon you are.
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Sep 2006 03:54:33
From: DanL
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:she0g257ppo64b1a5u85rqmvcg3rtrlhje@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:25:20 GMT, "DanL" <a@b.c> wrote:
>
>>> The Kemper in '99, and the International in '02, neither a big
>>> tournament. The one stroke win over TW can certainly be called
>>> unlikely,and a flash-in-the-pan, since he's currently ranked 121 on
>>> the tour. You must not be a golf journalist.
>>
>>Don't let facts get in the way of defending your bend-over-buddy's
>>inaccurate goober-speak. LOL!! Your beefalo friend claimed Beem got
>>lucky
>>once ... apparently he caught "lightning in a bottle" THREE times, makes
>>no
>>difference in which tournament. Beem's current world ranking has
>>nothing
>>to do with the fact he's won three times. Imagine if an on-air
>>commentator
>>of a major network made the same ridiculous statement ... f*$%!ing
>>hilarious!!! This clown can say 1+1=3 and you would stand behind him ...
>>what a schmuck!
>>
> Let's see. What the fuck have you contributed here? The fact is
> that you have a hard on for Randy because he has some brains, and has
> put you in your place a couple of times.
Actually, he has made hyperbolic mis-statements of fact to make players out
to be better/worse than they really are. He was called on it, and
subsequently changed his story every time! Now he has changed this story to
say he was talking about "majors" when the subject was about win streaks and
he was writing about Tiger not being able to win 11 straight WEAK FIELD
events. Maybe now he can lecture me with two paragraphs on the meaning of
hyperbole again after I've shown I already know the meaning. Yeah, he's
really put me in my place. LOL!!!
Let's look, again at what he wrote that I responded to: "The truth is, if
you consider a tournament such as the modern-day John Deere Classic to be a
"weak" field (and it is, by comparison to, say, the majors), I would bet
you a thousand dollars right now that Tiger Woods, as good as he is,
wouldn't win 11 in a row against John Deere fields (he might win a bunch of
'em, but he woudn't win 11 in a row). Sooner or later, he'd have an off
week and some wannabe would step up his game, putt out of his mind, and win
one. Someone like a Rich Beem at the '02 PGA Championship, who, as history
has proven, was a flash-in-the-pan who caught lightning in a bottle for one
glorious week to become an unlikely winner."
So R&B offers an opinion about Tiger not being able to win 11 in a row
against a WEAK FIELD, that some "wannabe" could get hot and beat him. To
back up this opinion, he uses Beem as an example of a guy who "caught
lightning in a bottle for one glorious week to become an unlikely winner".
Now here's the fact again, asshole, I'll type it slow so you can understand:
As the records show, Beem has won three times, R&B stated he got lucky once.
That is what I pointed out to Mr. PGA-Tour-Know-It-All.
Now R&B is changing his story to say his Beem reference was about unlikely
MAJOR winners, when it was clearly used to back up his point about breaking
a streak in WEAK FIELD events. He is completely full of shit as the
paragraph shows. What's even *funnier* is that BEEM WON THE PREVIOUS
TOURNAMENT he played before he won the PGA in '02, so the PGA win really
wasn't completely out of nowhere, Beem was playing well at the time. Funny
how this R&B guy displays his amazing knowledge of the PGA Tour, isn't
it?!?!?! For a guy who supposedly knows so much about the PGA Tour, he
sure gets a lot of "facts" incorrect. But he dressed it up in nice, pretty
cliches and other adjectives, so in your book that makes him "knowledgable".
LOL!!! You two are so full of shit, it's unbelievable.
>
>>And although you may not consider The International a "Big" event, I'd
>>hardly call it a weak field. In the field the year Beem won: Norman, Els,
>>Janzen, Lehman, Garcia, Couples, Singh, Love III, Olazabal, Mickelson and
>>some other Major winners along with several other pretty good Tour Pros
>>with
>>no majors (Appleby, Perry, DiMarco, Cink, etc.). In fact, Steve Lowery
>>threw a birdie,eagle,double-eagle at Beem near the end and Beem held on,
>>but
>>since it's not a "big" event I guess great playing doesn't matter.
>> Right -
>>Beem only played well for "one glorious week". LOL!!!!
>
> Even the tour players don't care for the International because of the
> format. Lehman would've won it this year if they had been playing
> stroke play. One glorious week was exactly it. LOL!!
BUT THEY WEREN'T PLAYING STROKE PLAY, DIPSHIT! Lehman knew that when he
entered, so your "point" is meaningless. The guys that don't care for the
format don't play in it, it's as simple as that. There's plenty of big $$$
in the stroke play events. Maybe you can tell us who would have won if
they played match play ... or unModified Stableford.... or used a Callaway
handicapping system so we can feel sorry for them. too LOL!!!. Talk about
a fucking moron, you take the cake.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Sep 2006 00:03:18
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
Dearest DanL,
Whatever "changes" I made in the story were made exclusively for you, since
you're evidently too stupid to know what I meant in the first place.
Everyone else seemed to get it. But not you.
Never you.
You never get dick.
Or do you?
Randy
"DanL" <a@b.c > wrote in message
news:ZP5Mg.26751$bZ6.11566@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
> news:she0g257ppo64b1a5u85rqmvcg3rtrlhje@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:25:20 GMT, "DanL" <a@b.c> wrote:
>>
>>>> The Kemper in '99, and the International in '02, neither a big
>>>> tournament. The one stroke win over TW can certainly be called
>>>> unlikely,and a flash-in-the-pan, since he's currently ranked 121 on
>>>> the tour. You must not be a golf journalist.
>>>
>>>Don't let facts get in the way of defending your bend-over-buddy's
>>>inaccurate goober-speak. LOL!! Your beefalo friend claimed Beem got
>>>lucky
>>>once ... apparently he caught "lightning in a bottle" THREE times, makes
>>>no
>>>difference in which tournament. Beem's current world ranking has
>>>nothing
>>>to do with the fact he's won three times. Imagine if an on-air
>>>commentator
>>>of a major network made the same ridiculous statement ... f*$%!ing
>>>hilarious!!! This clown can say 1+1=3 and you would stand behind him ...
>>>what a schmuck!
>>>
>> Let's see. What the fuck have you contributed here? The fact is
>> that you have a hard on for Randy because he has some brains, and has
>> put you in your place a couple of times.
>
> Actually, he has made hyperbolic mis-statements of fact to make players
> out to be better/worse than they really are. He was called on it, and
> subsequently changed his story every time! Now he has changed this story
> to say he was talking about "majors" when the subject was about win
> streaks and he was writing about Tiger not being able to win 11 straight
> WEAK FIELD events. Maybe now he can lecture me with two paragraphs on the
> meaning of hyperbole again after I've shown I already know the meaning.
> Yeah, he's really put me in my place. LOL!!!
>
> Let's look, again at what he wrote that I responded to: "The truth is, if
> you consider a tournament such as the modern-day John Deere Classic to be
> a "weak" field (and it is, by comparison to, say, the majors), I would
> bet you a thousand dollars right now that Tiger Woods, as good as he is,
> wouldn't win 11 in a row against John Deere fields (he might win a bunch
> of 'em, but he woudn't win 11 in a row). Sooner or later, he'd have an
> off week and some wannabe would step up his game, putt out of his mind,
> and win one. Someone like a Rich Beem at the '02 PGA Championship, who,
> as history has proven, was a flash-in-the-pan who caught lightning in a
> bottle for one glorious week to become an unlikely winner."
>
> So R&B offers an opinion about Tiger not being able to win 11 in a row
> against a WEAK FIELD, that some "wannabe" could get hot and beat him. To
> back up this opinion, he uses Beem as an example of a guy who "caught
> lightning in a bottle for one glorious week to become an unlikely winner".
> Now here's the fact again, asshole, I'll type it slow so you can
> understand: As the records show, Beem has won three times, R&B stated he
> got lucky once. That is what I pointed out to Mr. PGA-Tour-Know-It-All.
>
> Now R&B is changing his story to say his Beem reference was about unlikely
> MAJOR winners, when it was clearly used to back up his point about
> breaking a streak in WEAK FIELD events. He is completely full of shit as
> the paragraph shows. What's even *funnier* is that BEEM WON THE PREVIOUS
> TOURNAMENT he played before he won the PGA in '02, so the PGA win really
> wasn't completely out of nowhere, Beem was playing well at the time.
> Funny how this R&B guy displays his amazing knowledge of the PGA Tour,
> isn't it?!?!?! For a guy who supposedly knows so much about the PGA
> Tour, he sure gets a lot of "facts" incorrect. But he dressed it up in
> nice, pretty cliches and other adjectives, so in your book that makes him
> "knowledgable". LOL!!! You two are so full of shit, it's unbelievable.
>
> >
>>>And although you may not consider The International a "Big" event, I'd
>>>hardly call it a weak field. In the field the year Beem won: Norman,
>>>Els,
>>>Janzen, Lehman, Garcia, Couples, Singh, Love III, Olazabal, Mickelson and
>>>some other Major winners along with several other pretty good Tour Pros
>>>with
>>>no majors (Appleby, Perry, DiMarco, Cink, etc.). In fact, Steve Lowery
>>>threw a birdie,eagle,double-eagle at Beem near the end and Beem held on,
>>>but
>>>since it's not a "big" event I guess great playing doesn't matter.
>>>Right -
>>>Beem only played well for "one glorious week". LOL!!!!
>>
>> Even the tour players don't care for the International because of the
>> format. Lehman would've won it this year if they had been playing
>> stroke play. One glorious week was exactly it. LOL!!
>
> BUT THEY WEREN'T PLAYING STROKE PLAY, DIPSHIT! Lehman knew that when he
> entered, so your "point" is meaningless. The guys that don't care for the
> format don't play in it, it's as simple as that. There's plenty of big
> $$$ in the stroke play events. Maybe you can tell us who would have won
> if they played match play ... or unModified Stableford.... or used a
> Callaway handicapping system so we can feel sorry for them. too LOL!!!.
> Talk about a fucking moron, you take the cake.
>
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Sep 2006 05:15:39
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Dear DanL (wasRe: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row)
|
On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 03:54:33 GMT, "DanL" <a@b.c > wrote:
<clip crap >
Screw off numbnuts.
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Sep 2006 11:57:55
From: DanL
Subject: Re: Dear DanL (wasRe: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row)
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:qkg2g29i9flnbf050ruooinnqb394le7p4@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 03:54:33 GMT, "DanL" <a@b.c> wrote:
>
> <clip crap>
> Screw off numbnuts.
As usual, the best you can do when it's shown what an asshole you are.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Sep 2006 07:19:27
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Dear DanL (wasRe: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row)
|
On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 11:57:55 GMT, "DanL" <a@b.c > wrote:
>
>"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net> wrote in message
>news:qkg2g29i9flnbf050ruooinnqb394le7p4@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 03:54:33 GMT, "DanL" <a@b.c> wrote:
>>
>> <clip crap>
>> Screw off numbnuts.
>
>As usual, the best you can do when it's shown what an asshole you are.
>
No, you're just too much of a prick to admit that you don't have a
clue. If you were a little smarter, you'd be worth the time...but you
just aren't.
___,
\o
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 11:38:10
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
"DanL" <a@b.c > wrote in message
news:ARWLg.26510$JO5.983@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>> The Kemper in '99, and the International in '02, neither a big
>> tournament. The one stroke win over TW can certainly be called
>> unlikely,and a flash-in-the-pan, since he's currently ranked 121 on
>> the tour. You must not be a golf journalist.
>
> Don't let facts get in the way of defending your bend-over-buddy's
> inaccurate goober-speak. LOL!! Your beefalo friend claimed Beem got
> lucky once ... apparently he caught "lightning in a bottle" THREE times,
> makes no difference in which tournament. Beem's current world ranking
> has nothing to do with the fact he's won three times. Imagine if an
> on-air commentator of a major network made the same ridiculous statement
> ... f*$%!ing hilarious!!! This clown can say 1+1=3 and you would stand
> behind him ... what a schmuck!
>
> And although you may not consider The International a "Big" event, I'd
> hardly call it a weak field. In the field the year Beem won: Norman, Els,
> Janzen, Lehman, Garcia, Couples, Singh, Love III, Olazabal, Mickelson and
> some other Major winners along with several other pretty good Tour Pros
> with no majors (Appleby, Perry, DiMarco, Cink, etc.). In fact, Steve
> Lowery threw a birdie,eagle,double-eagle at Beem near the end and Beem
> held on, but since it's not a "big" event I guess great playing doesn't
> matter. Right - Beem only played well for "one glorious week". LOL!!!!
So which is it -- are you still sucking Rich Beem's dick one or twice a
week, DanL????
Since I apparently have to spell everything out for you -- he caught
lighting in a bottle only one time at a major.
I think most everyone with an active brain stem got it. But evidently, not
you.
What has Mr. Beem done doing that embarrassing jig on the 18th green when he
won the PGA? Because as far as I can tell, he's right up there in golf
history with the game's immortals like Paul Lawrie and Ben Curtis.
Randy
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Sep 2006 04:00:41
From: DanL
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:iqednSXh-KhDoZ3YnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "DanL" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> news:ARWLg.26510$JO5.983@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>> The Kemper in '99, and the International in '02, neither a big
>>> tournament. The one stroke win over TW can certainly be called
>>> unlikely,and a flash-in-the-pan, since he's currently ranked 121 on
>>> the tour. You must not be a golf journalist.
>>
>> Don't let facts get in the way of defending your bend-over-buddy's
>> inaccurate goober-speak. LOL!! Your beefalo friend claimed Beem got
>> lucky once ... apparently he caught "lightning in a bottle" THREE times,
>> makes no difference in which tournament. Beem's current world ranking
>> has nothing to do with the fact he's won three times. Imagine if an
>> on-air commentator of a major network made the same ridiculous statement
>> ... f*$%!ing hilarious!!! This clown can say 1+1=3 and you would stand
>> behind him ... what a schmuck!
>>
>> And although you may not consider The International a "Big" event, I'd
>> hardly call it a weak field. In the field the year Beem won: Norman,
>> Els, Janzen, Lehman, Garcia, Couples, Singh, Love III, Olazabal,
>> Mickelson and some other Major winners along with several other pretty
>> good Tour Pros with no majors (Appleby, Perry, DiMarco, Cink, etc.). In
>> fact, Steve Lowery threw a birdie,eagle,double-eagle at Beem near the end
>> and Beem held on, but since it's not a "big" event I guess great playing
>> doesn't matter. Right - Beem only played well for "one glorious week".
>> LOL!!!!
>
>
> So which is it -- are you still sucking Rich Beem's dick one or twice a
> week, DanL????
Man, when you get called on your incorrect facts, you really get pretty
lame.
>
> Since I apparently have to spell everything out for you -- he caught
> lighting in a bottle only one time at a major.
>
> I think most everyone with an active brain stem got it. But evidently,
> not you.
Here's what you wrote, asshole: "The truth is, if you consider a tournament
such as the modern-day John Deere
Classic to be a "weak" field (and it is, by comparison to, say, the majors),
I would bet you a thousand dollars right now that Tiger Woods, as good as he
is, wouldn't win 11 in a row against John Deere fields (he might win a bunch
of 'em, but he woudn't win 11 in a row). Sooner or later, he'd have an off
week and some wannabe would step up his game, putt out of his mind, and win
one. Someone like a Rich Beem at the '02 PGA Championship, who, as history
has proven, was a flash-in-the-pan who caught lightning in a bottle for one
glorious week to become an unlikely winner."
You were talking about Tiger not being able to win 11 straright weak field
events because some "wannabe" would get hot and break the streak. You
weren't talking about a guy getting lucky to win a major. You are
completely full of shit, but we knew that already.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Sep 2006 00:04:26
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
Dear Dan,
You can correct me all you want in the future. But I won't see it.
You just joined my killfile.
I'm tired of dealing with you. You're a complete waste of time.
Randy
"DanL" <a@b.c > wrote in message
news:JV5Mg.23358$Tg1.12317@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message
> news:iqednSXh-KhDoZ3YnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> "DanL" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>> news:ARWLg.26510$JO5.983@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>> The Kemper in '99, and the International in '02, neither a big
>>>> tournament. The one stroke win over TW can certainly be called
>>>> unlikely,and a flash-in-the-pan, since he's currently ranked 121 on
>>>> the tour. You must not be a golf journalist.
>>>
>>> Don't let facts get in the way of defending your bend-over-buddy's
>>> inaccurate goober-speak. LOL!! Your beefalo friend claimed Beem got
>>> lucky once ... apparently he caught "lightning in a bottle" THREE times,
>>> makes no difference in which tournament. Beem's current world ranking
>>> has nothing to do with the fact he's won three times. Imagine if an
>>> on-air commentator of a major network made the same ridiculous statement
>>> ... f*$%!ing hilarious!!! This clown can say 1+1=3 and you would stand
>>> behind him ... what a schmuck!
>>>
>>> And although you may not consider The International a "Big" event, I'd
>>> hardly call it a weak field. In the field the year Beem won: Norman,
>>> Els, Janzen, Lehman, Garcia, Couples, Singh, Love III, Olazabal,
>>> Mickelson and some other Major winners along with several other pretty
>>> good Tour Pros with no majors (Appleby, Perry, DiMarco, Cink, etc.). In
>>> fact, Steve Lowery threw a birdie,eagle,double-eagle at Beem near the
>>> end and Beem held on, but since it's not a "big" event I guess great
>>> playing doesn't matter. Right - Beem only played well for "one glorious
>>> week". LOL!!!!
>>
>>
>> So which is it -- are you still sucking Rich Beem's dick one or twice a
>> week, DanL????
>
> Man, when you get called on your incorrect facts, you really get pretty
> lame.
>
>>
>> Since I apparently have to spell everything out for you -- he caught
>> lighting in a bottle only one time at a major.
>>
>> I think most everyone with an active brain stem got it. But evidently,
>> not you.
>
> Here's what you wrote, asshole: "The truth is, if you consider a
> tournament such as the modern-day John Deere
> Classic to be a "weak" field (and it is, by comparison to, say, the
> majors),
> I would bet you a thousand dollars right now that Tiger Woods, as good as
> he
> is, wouldn't win 11 in a row against John Deere fields (he might win a
> bunch
> of 'em, but he woudn't win 11 in a row). Sooner or later, he'd have an
> off
> week and some wannabe would step up his game, putt out of his mind, and
> win
> one. Someone like a Rich Beem at the '02 PGA Championship, who, as
> history
> has proven, was a flash-in-the-pan who caught lightning in a bottle for
> one
> glorious week to become an unlikely winner."
>
> You were talking about Tiger not being able to win 11 straright weak field
> events because some "wannabe" would get hot and break the streak. You
> weren't talking about a guy getting lucky to win a major. You are
> completely full of shit, but we knew that already.
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Sep 2006 12:06:02
From: DanL
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com > wrote in message
news:yfidnbPXOrBedp3YnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Dear Dan,
>
> You can correct me all you want in the future. But I won't see it.
Why is so hard for you to admit you were wrong? You talk about Tiger not
being able to winn 11 consecutive WEAK FIELD events and the example you use
is a guy winning a MAJOR and then say you were talking about "unlikely major
winners" when clearly you weren't. Look AGAIN at what you wrote:
***The truth is, if you consider a tournament such as the modern-day John
Deere
Classic to be a "weak" field (and it is, by comparison to, say, the majors),
I would bet you a thousand dollars right now that Tiger Woods, as good as he
is, wouldn't win 11 in a row against John Deere fields (he might win a bunch
of 'em, but he woudn't win 11 in a row). Sooner or later, he'd have an off
week and some wannabe would step up his game, putt out of his mind, and win
one. Someone like a Rich Beem at the '02 PGA Championship, who, as history
has proven, was a flash-in-the-pan who caught lightning in a bottle for one
glorious week to become an unlikely winner.
The point I'm making here is I think people tend to dismiss Nelson's
11-in-a-row as somehow tainted because of the war and its presumed effect on
the strength of the fields. I think that unjustifiably trivializes the
remarkable accomplishment that it truly is, and how it defied all odds, even
against a fluke winner ("the Beem factor") along the way.***
You even state the "point" you're trying to make is trivializing Nelson's
accomplishment by calling the fields he played weak. Then you change your
story ... your point WASN'T ABOUT UNLIKELY MAJOR WINNERS, you just tried to
save face. And you were wrong. Period.
>
> You just joined my killfile.
>
> I'm tired of dealing with you. You're a complete waste of time.
>
> Randy
>
>
> "DanL" <a@b.c> wrote in message
> news:JV5Mg.23358$Tg1.12317@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>
>> ""R&B"" <noneofyourbusiness@all.com> wrote in message
>> news:iqednSXh-KhDoZ3YnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> "DanL" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>>> news:ARWLg.26510$JO5.983@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>>> The Kemper in '99, and the International in '02, neither a big
>>>>> tournament. The one stroke win over TW can certainly be called
>>>>> unlikely,and a flash-in-the-pan, since he's currently ranked 121 on
>>>>> the tour. You must not be a golf journalist.
>>>>
>>>> Don't let facts get in the way of defending your bend-over-buddy's
>>>> inaccurate goober-speak. LOL!! Your beefalo friend claimed Beem got
>>>> lucky once ... apparently he caught "lightning in a bottle" THREE
>>>> times, makes no difference in which tournament. Beem's current world
>>>> ranking has nothing to do with the fact he's won three times. Imagine
>>>> if an on-air commentator of a major network made the same ridiculous
>>>> statement ... f*$%!ing hilarious!!! This clown can say 1+1=3 and you
>>>> would stand behind him ... what a schmuck!
>>>>
>>>> And although you may not consider The International a "Big" event, I'd
>>>> hardly call it a weak field. In the field the year Beem won: Norman,
>>>> Els, Janzen, Lehman, Garcia, Couples, Singh, Love III, Olazabal,
>>>> Mickelson and some other Major winners along with several other pretty
>>>> good Tour Pros with no majors (Appleby, Perry, DiMarco, Cink, etc.).
>>>> In fact, Steve Lowery threw a birdie,eagle,double-eagle at Beem near
>>>> the end and Beem held on, but since it's not a "big" event I guess
>>>> great playing doesn't matter. Right - Beem only played well for "one
>>>> glorious week". LOL!!!!
>>>
>>>
>>> So which is it -- are you still sucking Rich Beem's dick one or twice a
>>> week, DanL????
>>
>> Man, when you get called on your incorrect facts, you really get pretty
>> lame.
>>
>>>
>>> Since I apparently have to spell everything out for you -- he caught
>>> lighting in a bottle only one time at a major.
>>>
>>> I think most everyone with an active brain stem got it. But evidently,
>>> not you.
>>
>> Here's what you wrote, asshole: "The truth is, if you consider a
>> tournament such as the modern-day John Deere
>> Classic to be a "weak" field (and it is, by comparison to, say, the
>> majors),
>> I would bet you a thousand dollars right now that Tiger Woods, as good as
>> he
>> is, wouldn't win 11 in a row against John Deere fields (he might win a
>> bunch
>> of 'em, but he woudn't win 11 in a row). Sooner or later, he'd have an
>> off
>> week and some wannabe would step up his game, putt out of his mind, and
>> win
>> one. Someone like a Rich Beem at the '02 PGA Championship, who, as
>> history
>> has proven, was a flash-in-the-pan who caught lightning in a bottle for
>> one
>> glorious week to become an unlikely winner."
>>
>> You were talking about Tiger not being able to win 11 straright weak
>> field events because some "wannabe" would get hot and break the streak.
>> You weren't talking about a guy getting lucky to win a major. You are
>> completely full of shit, but we knew that already.
>>
>>
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Sep 2006 10:15:52
From: multi
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
On Fri, 08 Sep 2006 12:06:02 GMT, "DanL" <a@b.c > wrote:
> Look AGAIN at what you wrote:
Thanks, because I missed it the first 50 times. You must have a great
deal of respect for RB, if it's this important to you to prove that
you're right and he's wrong on such a trivial matter. I'm sure that
Rich Beem's place in history is foremost in all our thoughts.
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 09:33:27
From: Thor
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
multi wrote:
Do you think that in a
> list of world record times, it doesn't matter whether the race was a
> mile or 1500 meters?
LOL... I guess you learned something from the
swimming records thread :-)
--
-- David "Thor" Collard
-- My It is golf.
-- 11th annual RSG-Ohio Sept 15-17 2006
-- Join us - send mail to host REMOVE at SPAM rsgohio SPAM dot SPAM com
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 09:52:29
From: multi
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
On 7 Sep 2006 09:33:27 -0700, "Thor" <thorpub@rsgohio.com > wrote:
>multi wrote:
> Do you think that in a
>> list of world record times, it doesn't matter whether the race was a
>> mile or 1500 meters?
>
>LOL... I guess you learned something from the
>swimming records thread :-)
Heh, not my brightest moment. But it wasn't that I didn't know the
difference, it was just that I couldn't read.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 20:10:05
From: Crispin Roche
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 12:17:29 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 15:37:12 GMT, "Brian Foster"
><brianfoster@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>He did it in 1945. I think it is an amazing record but he did it during war
>>time, when the talent pool had to have been greatly depleted.
>>
>>I don't know if anyone will ever be able to win 11 in a row again.
>
>Nelson won 11 tournaments in a year when nearly every good golfer was
>away in uniform--he got a deferment of some sort. Additionally that
>year there was almost no international travel other than military.
>Nelson certainly faced no great golfers from Europe, S. Africa, etc.
>
Yes in fact Nelson got such an easy ride in 1945 that he let Snead win
6 events and Hogan win 5. Other notable regulars in 1945 include Ky
Laffoon, Tony Penna, Denny Shute, EJ Harrison, Ed Furgol, Johnny
Revolta,Victor Ghezzi, Craig Wood, Henry Picard and Harold McSpadden.
Crispin Roche
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 15:17:58
From: multi
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 20:10:05 GMT, Crispin Roche
<crispin.roche@ntlworld.com > wrote:
>Yes in fact Nelson got such an easy ride in 1945 that he let Snead win
>6 events and Hogan win 5.
Snead and Hogan were in a combined total of three of the eleven events
of Nelson's streak, one of which was a team event.
> Other notable regulars in 1945 include Ky
>Laffoon, Tony Penna, Denny Shute, EJ Harrison, Ed Furgol, Johnny
>Revolta,Victor Ghezzi, Craig Wood, Henry Picard and Harold McSpadden.
Ah yes, Harold McSpadden, better known as "Jug." He holds some
impressive PGA records. Most times finished second in one year: 13.
Guess which year? Most top ten finishes in one year: 31. Guess which
year? Hint: like Nelson, he was rejected from the service for health
reasons.
He turned pro in 1927, but didn't win any PGA events for five years.
Starting in 1933, though, he won an event a year, and a couple times,
two events in a year. Then he suddenly won five events. Guess which
year? Nope, 1944. And that was the last year he won an individual
PGA event.
So here's a guy who never won a major, didn't make the Hall of Fame,
and didn't win much at all, except in 1944. And if Byron Nelson had
not gotten a deferment, Jug would hold the record for most wins in a
season, and people in RSG would be arguing that he really was better
than Tiger.
|
| |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 06:58:18
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
DanL wrote:
> > Someone like a Rich Beem at the '02 PGA Championship, who, as history =
has
> > proven, was a flash-in-the-pan who caught lightning in a bottle for one
> > glorious week to become an unlikely winner.
> >
>
> And, as history has shown, you're so wrapped up in clich=E9s and hyperbol=
e,
> you can't get the facts straight. You must be a golf journalist.
>=20
I think what he meant to say was that Beem took Glory's Last Shot.
|
| |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 18:29:38
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Byron Nelson and 11 victories in a row
|
"R&B" wrote:
>> I'd take Hogan over Nelson in a bet any day. But if the contest was about
> choosing the one man who consistently demonstrated more humility, I'd take
> Nelson every time. And I think most everyone who knew both men would agree
> with me on that one.
>
Agreed.
I admit that until you asked the question and I researched it a bit, I
always thought that Nelson's 11 wins in a row and 18 in a season were
some kind of superhuman achievement. But when you take away his primary
competition like the guys I mentioned, it really does deserve an
asterisk or two.
Nelson, Hogan, and Snead were all great. But the fact that Jug
McSpadden recorded 13 second place finishes in 1945 illustrates just
how weak the fields were during the war years. McSpaden also had 5 wins
in '44, but none in 1946 (when Hogan and Nelson returned) and only 2
seconds.
In 1946 Nelson won 6 times, Snead 5 times, and Hogan won 13 times.
So nobody questions whether Nelson could play with these guys, but to
even think that he would've won 11 in a row with them in the field is a
pretty big stretch. Nelson won 32 of his 52 career wins in the 3-year
period from 1944-1946. He was never anywhere near that dominant at any
other time in his career. Who knows what he could've won if he hadn't
retired so early. Perhaps Hogan and Snead wouldn't have amassed all
the wins they did?
Let's put it this way. Had Nelson joined up and Hogan stayed home and
played the tour, it's quite possible that he might have won 25
tournaments in 1945. He would've surely been the favorite in the
Esmeralda Open and the Glen Garden Invitational, two of the tournaments
that Nelson won.
|
|
