| |
Main
Date: 22 Aug 2006 16:36:21
From: multi
Subject: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
Some geniuses are still citing Tom Watson as an example to prove that
Jack had tougher competition than Tiger, no matter how many times they
are told that Watson won his first PGA event in Jack's 13th year on
tour. Tiger's Tom Watson may have just shown up.
Billy Horschel, a U of FL sophomore, shot a 60 in the stroke play
portion of this week's US Amateur. That shatters the old record of 62
for ANY USGA event, held by Christina Kim (2001 Girls Junior) and
Loren Roberts (2006 Senior Open).
|
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 21:32:15
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
Close the deal? I would say that Trevino and Watson both played great
and beat Jack. As Jack said during the awards ceremony after Watson won
at Turnerry. "I gave it my best shot. It wasn't good enough.".
Ken
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
rich wrote:
> "multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
> news:maine2tsr4mrn7ce8eio7us1hkjdo29dlg@4ax.com...
> >
> > Victories: Watson 39, Trevino 29.
> > Majors: Watson 8, Trevino 6.
> > Times beat Jack for a major (i.e., Jack finished second): 4 each.
>
> So another way of looking at it is that if Jack had been able to close the
> deal when he finished 2nd to them they would only have had 4 and 2 majors
> respectively.
>
> Rich
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 19:50:11
From: Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
> : Some geniuses are still citing Tom Watson as an example to prove that
> : Jack had tougher competition than Tiger, no matter how many times they
> : are told that Watson won his first PGA event in Jack's 13th year on
> : tour. Tiger's Tom Watson may have just shown up.
>
> I'd settle for Tiger's Lee Trevino, honestly.
That's a strange comment. Are you saying lee was inferior to tom? I'd
say the two were about the same.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 03:09:57
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <xeton2001@yahoo.com > wrote:
:
: Chris Bellomy wrote:
: > multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
: > : Some geniuses are still citing Tom Watson as an example to prove that
: > : Jack had tougher competition than Tiger, no matter how many times they
: > : are told that Watson won his first PGA event in Jack's 13th year on
: > : tour. Tiger's Tom Watson may have just shown up.
: >
: > I'd settle for Tiger's Lee Trevino, honestly.
:
: That's a strange comment. Are you saying lee was inferior to tom? I'd
: say the two were about the same.
Good observation, I did imply that. And, upon reflection, I would
agree with you: they were roughly equal.
Mea culpa, and good post.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 20:25:58
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:09:57 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
>:
>: Chris Bellomy wrote:
>: > multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>: > : Some geniuses are still citing Tom Watson as an example to prove that
>: > : Jack had tougher competition than Tiger, no matter how many times they
>: > : are told that Watson won his first PGA event in Jack's 13th year on
>: > : tour. Tiger's Tom Watson may have just shown up.
>: >
>: > I'd settle for Tiger's Lee Trevino, honestly.
>:
>: That's a strange comment. Are you saying lee was inferior to tom? I'd
>: say the two were about the same.
>
>Good observation, I did imply that. And, upon reflection, I would
>agree with you: they were roughly equal.
I think you were right the first time.
Victories: Watson 39, Trevino 29.
Majors: Watson 8, Trevino 6.
Times beat Jack for a major (i.e., Jack finished second): 4 each.
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 04:28:59
From: rich
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:maine2tsr4mrn7ce8eio7us1hkjdo29dlg@4ax.com...
>
> Victories: Watson 39, Trevino 29.
> Majors: Watson 8, Trevino 6.
> Times beat Jack for a major (i.e., Jack finished second): 4 each.
So another way of looking at it is that if Jack had been able to close the
deal when he finished 2nd to them they would only have had 4 and 2 majors
respectively.
Rich
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 03:52:47
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
: On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:09:57 GMT, Chris Bellomy
: <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
:
: >Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
: >:
: >: Chris Bellomy wrote:
: >: > multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
: >: > : Some geniuses are still citing Tom Watson as an example to prove that
: >: > : Jack had tougher competition than Tiger, no matter how many times they
: >: > : are told that Watson won his first PGA event in Jack's 13th year on
: >: > : tour. Tiger's Tom Watson may have just shown up.
: >: >
: >: > I'd settle for Tiger's Lee Trevino, honestly.
: >:
: >: That's a strange comment. Are you saying lee was inferior to tom? I'd
: >: say the two were about the same.
: >
: >Good observation, I did imply that. And, upon reflection, I would
: >agree with you: they were roughly equal.
:
: I think you were right the first time.
:
: Victories: Watson 39, Trevino 29.
: Majors: Watson 8, Trevino 6.
: Times beat Jack for a major (i.e., Jack finished second): 4 each.
Trevino got off to a much later start and got struck by
lightning in his prime. Each, at his peak, was nearly
unbeatable.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 21:42:11
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:52:47 GMT, Chris Bellomy
<puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
>Trevino got off to a much later start and got struck by
>lightning in his prime.
All true, but if we go by what-ifs instead of the actual record, I'm
back to Vardon as being the greatest ever.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 05:32:03
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:52:47 GMT, Chris Bellomy
> <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>>Trevino got off to a much later start and got struck by
>>lightning in his prime.
>
> All true, but if we go by what-ifs instead of the actual record, I'm
> back to Vardon as being the greatest ever.
I'm thinking more than anything of the quality of the golf
they played at their peaks. Of course, this introduces the
ever troublesome Johnny Miller Conundrum into the equation,
but I'm too tired to try to address that right now. :)
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 16:02:53
From: Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:25:58 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:09:57 GMT, Chris Bellomy
><puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <xeton2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>:
>>: Chris Bellomy wrote:
>>: > multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>>: > : Some geniuses are still citing Tom Watson as an example to prove that
>>: > : Jack had tougher competition than Tiger, no matter how many times they
>>: > : are told that Watson won his first PGA event in Jack's 13th year on
>>: > : tour. Tiger's Tom Watson may have just shown up.
>>: >
>>: > I'd settle for Tiger's Lee Trevino, honestly.
>>:
>>: That's a strange comment. Are you saying lee was inferior to tom? I'd
>>: say the two were about the same.
>>
>>Good observation, I did imply that. And, upon reflection, I would
>>agree with you: they were roughly equal.
>
>I think you were right the first time.
>
>Victories: Watson 39, Trevino 29.
>Majors: Watson 8, Trevino 6.
>
Lee had a short career in that he didn't join the PGA tour till he was
28. He was as good as watson.
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 19:42:36
From: gp
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
Let's not forget BOB MAY!! He was the only guy to "outshoot" Tiger at
a major on Sunday (May shot 66, Tiger a 67).
Future "Tom Watsons" for El Tigre IMO, and this list is short:
1.) Luke Donald
2.) Geoff Ogilvy
3.) Adam Scott
Hmmm...that's about it...
Other "Tom Watson Wannabes" who never lived up to expectations:
1.) Charlie Howell the 3rd
2.) Aaron Baddelly
3.) El Nino Sergio
Tigers current Trevino's and Palmers:
1.) Phil
2.) Vijay
3.) Ernie
4.) Retief
5.) Furyk
I'd say, of Tiger's Palmers, Phil has fared the best.
multi wrote:
> Some geniuses are still citing Tom Watson as an example to prove that
> Jack had tougher competition than Tiger, no matter how many times they
> are told that Watson won his first PGA event in Jack's 13th year on
> tour. Tiger's Tom Watson may have just shown up.
>
> Billy Horschel, a U of FL sophomore, shot a 60 in the stroke play
> portion of this week's US Amateur. That shatters the old record of 62
> for ANY USGA event, held by Christina Kim (2001 Girls Junior) and
> Loren Roberts (2006 Senior Open).
|
| | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 04:31:26
From: rich
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
"gp" <gopher70@sbcglobal.net > wrote in message
news:1156300956.551976.63190@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> Let's not forget BOB MAY!! He was the only guy to "outshoot" Tiger at
> a major on Sunday (May shot 66, Tiger a 67).
>
> Future "Tom Watsons" for El Tigre IMO, and this list is short:
>
> 1.) Luke Donald
> 2.) Geoff Ogilvy
> 3.) Adam Scott
>
> Hmmm...that's about it...
>
> Other "Tom Watson Wannabes" who never lived up to expectations:
>
> 1.) Charlie Howell the 3rd
> 2.) Aaron Baddelly
> 3.) El Nino Sergio
The thing about Tom is, until he started winning majors no one knew *he* was
going to be "Tom Watson".
Rich
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 20:09:59
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
On 22 Aug 2006 19:42:36 -0700, "gp" <gopher70@sbcglobal.net > wrote:
>Let's not forget BOB MAY!! He was the only guy to "outshoot" Tiger at
>a major on Sunday (May shot 66, Tiger a 67).
Not bad, but how about DiMarco last year at Augusta. Chris 68, Tiger
71.
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 19:38:06
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
What is your point? He certainly was in the prime of his career, not
much older than Tiger is now and Tiger is commonly regarded (certainly
around here) as being bullt proof.
Ken
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The World Wide Wade wrote:
> In article
> <1156295849.160104.214280@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > God, you are a moron. Ever heard of Lee Trevino? Won US, Canadian and
> > Open Chmpionship in the same year?
> >
> > Add to that the fact that Watson won his first major when Jack was
> > still in his early thirties.
>
> Jack was 35 when Watson won his first major.
>
> > Oh, Watson also dueled Jack and won in
> > three of the four majors. I still regard the 1977 Open Championship at
> > Turnberry as the best of them all.
> >
> > Palmer and Nicklaus are certainly regarded as rivals. Palmer is about
> > as much older than Nicklaus than Nicklaus is over Watson.
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > multi wrote:
> > > Some geniuses are still citing Tom Watson as an example to prove that
> > > Jack had tougher competition than Tiger, no matter how many times they
> > > are told that Watson won his first PGA event in Jack's 13th year on
> > > tour. Tiger's Tom Watson may have just shown up.
> > >
> > > Billy Horschel, a U of FL sophomore, shot a 60 in the stroke play
> > > portion of this week's US Amateur. That shatters the old record of 62
> > > for ANY USGA event, held by Christina Kim (2001 Girls Junior) and
> > > Loren Roberts (2006 Senior Open).
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 22:00:28
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
In article
<1156300686.258840.227350@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
"Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com > wrote:
> What is your point? He certainly was in the prime of his career, not
> much older than Tiger is now and Tiger is commonly regarded (certainly
> around here) as being bullt proof.
It was your point, not mine. You said early thirties. He was 35.
I like to get my facts right if I can. You don't.
And you have an annoying habit of top-posting.
> Ken
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> The World Wide Wade wrote:
> > In article
> > <1156295849.160104.214280@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > God, you are a moron. Ever heard of Lee Trevino? Won US, Canadian and
> > > Open Chmpionship in the same year?
> > >
> > > Add to that the fact that Watson won his first major when Jack was
> > > still in his early thirties.
> >
> > Jack was 35 when Watson won his first major.
> >
> > > Oh, Watson also dueled Jack and won in
> > > three of the four majors. I still regard the 1977 Open Championship at
> > > Turnberry as the best of them all.
> > >
> > > Palmer and Nicklaus are certainly regarded as rivals. Palmer is about
> > > as much older than Nicklaus than Nicklaus is over Watson.
> > >
> > > Ken
> > >
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > multi wrote:
> > > > Some geniuses are still citing Tom Watson as an example to prove that
> > > > Jack had tougher competition than Tiger, no matter how many times they
> > > > are told that Watson won his first PGA event in Jack's 13th year on
> > > > tour. Tiger's Tom Watson may have just shown up.
> > > >
> > > > Billy Horschel, a U of FL sophomore, shot a 60 in the stroke play
> > > > portion of this week's US Amateur. That shatters the old record of 62
> > > > for ANY USGA event, held by Christina Kim (2001 Girls Junior) and
> > > > Loren Roberts (2006 Senior Open).
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 18:17:29
From: Bow Tie
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
God, you are a moron. Ever heard of Lee Trevino? Won US, Canadian and
Open Chmpionship in the same year?
Add to that the fact that Watson won his first major when Jack was
still in his early thirties. Oh, Watson also dueled Jack and won in
three of the four majors. I still regard the 1977 Open Championship at
Turnberry as the best of them all.
Palmer and Nicklaus are certainly regarded as rivals. Palmer is about
as much older than Nicklaus than Nicklaus is over Watson.
Ken
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
multi wrote:
> Some geniuses are still citing Tom Watson as an example to prove that
> Jack had tougher competition than Tiger, no matter how many times they
> are told that Watson won his first PGA event in Jack's 13th year on
> tour. Tiger's Tom Watson may have just shown up.
>
> Billy Horschel, a U of FL sophomore, shot a 60 in the stroke play
> portion of this week's US Amateur. That shatters the old record of 62
> for ANY USGA event, held by Christina Kim (2001 Girls Junior) and
> Loren Roberts (2006 Senior Open).
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 19:33:30
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
In article
<1156295849.160104.214280@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >,
"Bow Tie" <ken_pittsjr@yahoo.com > wrote:
> God, you are a moron. Ever heard of Lee Trevino? Won US, Canadian and
> Open Chmpionship in the same year?
>
> Add to that the fact that Watson won his first major when Jack was
> still in his early thirties.
Jack was 35 when Watson won his first major.
> Oh, Watson also dueled Jack and won in
> three of the four majors. I still regard the 1977 Open Championship at
> Turnberry as the best of them all.
>
> Palmer and Nicklaus are certainly regarded as rivals. Palmer is about
> as much older than Nicklaus than Nicklaus is over Watson.
>
> Ken
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> multi wrote:
> > Some geniuses are still citing Tom Watson as an example to prove that
> > Jack had tougher competition than Tiger, no matter how many times they
> > are told that Watson won his first PGA event in Jack's 13th year on
> > tour. Tiger's Tom Watson may have just shown up.
> >
> > Billy Horschel, a U of FL sophomore, shot a 60 in the stroke play
> > portion of this week's US Amateur. That shatters the old record of 62
> > for ANY USGA event, held by Christina Kim (2001 Girls Junior) and
> > Loren Roberts (2006 Senior Open).
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 01:03:22
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
: Some geniuses are still citing Tom Watson as an example to prove that
: Jack had tougher competition than Tiger, no matter how many times they
: are told that Watson won his first PGA event in Jack's 13th year on
: tour. Tiger's Tom Watson may have just shown up.
I'd settle for Tiger's Lee Trevino, honestly. Is there anybody
on Tour right now who's a more accurate ballstriker than he was
in his prime?
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 14:50:55
From: Cesar Neri
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
Just heard an interview with Lee Trevino on a local radio station and his
opinion is that Tiger would have "kicked everyone's butt" including himself
and all his contemporaries like Player, Palmer, Watson, Nicklaus, assuming,
of course, they all played at their peak. I respect the opinion of the Merry
Mex, especially since he did play with all the aforementioned players.
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:0T3diualIgtgN34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
> : Some geniuses are still citing Tom Watson as an example to prove that
> : Jack had tougher competition than Tiger, no matter how many times they
> : are told that Watson won his first PGA event in Jack's 13th year on
> : tour. Tiger's Tom Watson may have just shown up.
>
> I'd settle for Tiger's Lee Trevino, honestly. Is there anybody
> on Tour right now who's a more accurate ballstriker than he was
> in his prime?
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 15:52:22
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
Cesar Neri <Cesar.Neri@hp.com > wrote:
> Just heard an interview with Lee Trevino on a local radio station and his
> opinion is that Tiger would have "kicked everyone's butt" including himself
> and all his contemporaries like Player, Palmer, Watson, Nicklaus, assuming,
> of course, they all played at their peak. I respect the opinion of the Merry
> Mex, especially since he did play with all the aforementioned players.
I agree with him, but Tiger is nowhere near as accurate a
ballstriker as he was. Lee was just nowhere near as long,
nor as good a putter, nor as good around the greens...
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 16:27:26
From: Cesar Neri
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
I was in no way implying that Lee Trevino came even close to being a player
that Tiger is. The point Lee was trying to make is that he doesn't agree
that Tiger does *not* have the competition that Jack had; competition like
Watson, Player, Palmer,etc. To say that would be to disrespect the current
top players like Mickelson, Singh, Els, etc. The current top players are
just as good as the top players of yesteryear; that's was his point.
"Chris Bellomy" <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote in message
news:2T3dkiggIrh7N34@redshark.goodshow.net...
> Cesar Neri <Cesar.Neri@hp.com> wrote:
>> Just heard an interview with Lee Trevino on a local radio station and his
>> opinion is that Tiger would have "kicked everyone's butt" including
>> himself
>> and all his contemporaries like Player, Palmer, Watson, Nicklaus,
>> assuming,
>> of course, they all played at their peak. I respect the opinion of the
>> Merry
>> Mex, especially since he did play with all the aforementioned players.
>
> I agree with him, but Tiger is nowhere near as accurate a
> ballstriker as he was. Lee was just nowhere near as long,
> nor as good a putter, nor as good around the greens...
>
> --
> Chris Bellomy
> C-List Charter Member
> http://clist.org/
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 10:36:01
From: Mark A
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
"Cesar Neri" <Cesar.Neri@hp.com > wrote in message
news:Ol%Gg.120$Be2.73@news.cpqcorp.net...
>I was in no way implying that Lee Trevino came even close to being a player
>that Tiger is. The point Lee was trying to make is that he doesn't agree
>that Tiger does *not* have the competition that Jack had; competition like
>Watson, Player, Palmer,etc. To say that would be to disrespect the current
>top players like Mickelson, Singh, Els, etc. The current top players are
>just as good as the top players of yesteryear; that's was his point.
>
When it comes to competition, it is not just the quality of the top players,
but the number of quality players who are capable of winning a tournament on
any given week. The number of people who learn to play golf at a young age
and aspire to become professional golfers is much higher than 30 years ago,
and the overall talent pool is much more competitive now. Also, because of
easier, faster, and cheaper travel, there are far more international players
than during Jack's prime.
This myth about Jack having more competition is another one of his sour
grapes whining about the fact that Tiger will someday surpass him in major
wins.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 00:03:04
From: David
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:27:26 GMT, "Cesar Neri" <Cesar.Neri@hp.com >
wrote:
>I was in no way implying that Lee Trevino came even close to being a player
>that Tiger is. The point Lee was trying to make is that he doesn't agree
>that Tiger does *not* have the competition that Jack had; competition like
>Watson, Player, Palmer,etc. To say that would be to disrespect the current
>top players like Mickelson, Singh, Els, etc. The current top players are
>just as good as the top players of yesteryear; that's was his point.
Which, of course, is not true. The top players today, Woods
excluded, cannot hold a candle to the top players of yesteryear. I
always felt Els would be the player to match Woods, but that never
materialzed. So, Phil is the second best golfer over the last 10
years and I don't see how his playing record can match up to the names
mentioned above.
David
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 18:10:16
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
I disagree.
The money is deeper, the pool is deeper, and the talent is deeper.
Not only is there better talent, but there is more of it.
Tiger is just that good.
Was Jack on the late show when he was in preschool because he was a prodigy?
Hell no.
I love him but he didn't have the same raw, natural talent.
I would consider it a disappointment if Tiger didn't double Jack's major
record and blow Sam's tour event wins out of the water.
Sit back and enjoy it.
We won't see it again in our lifetime.
Otto
"David" <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote in message
news:gujpe2lfmb8lsrd3h4rineqmiinhneb83g@4ax.com...
> Which, of course, is not true. The top players today, Woods
> excluded, cannot hold a candle to the top players of yesteryear. I
> always felt Els would be the player to match Woods, but that never
> materialzed. So, Phil is the second best golfer over the last 10
> years and I don't see how his playing record can match up to the names
> mentioned above.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 05:09:36
From: rich
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
"Otto" <ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:_m4Hg.6084$L6.1151@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> I disagree.
>
> The money is deeper, the pool is deeper, and the talent is deeper.
>
> Not only is there better talent, but there is more of it.
>
> Tiger is just that good.
>
> Was Jack on the late show when he was in preschool because he was a
> prodigy?
>
> Hell no.
>
> I love him but he didn't have the same raw, natural talent.
Jack also never worked at it anywhere near as hard as Tiger does.
Rich
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 12:13:42
From: Fuse
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
"rich" <dummy@nothere.com > wrote in message
news:kwaHg.20518$Te.1855@trnddc07...
>
> "Otto" <ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:_m4Hg.6084$L6.1151@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>> I disagree.
>>
>> The money is deeper, the pool is deeper, and the talent is deeper.
>>
>> Not only is there better talent, but there is more of it.
>>
>> Tiger is just that good.
>>
>> Was Jack on the late show when he was in preschool because he was a
>> prodigy?
>>
>> Hell no.
>>
>> I love him but he didn't have the same raw, natural talent.
>
> Jack also never worked at it anywhere near as hard as Tiger does.
Jack started playing golf much later (at age 10),had a family early on in
his career (Jack II was born when Jack was 21), he graduated from college.
I keep hearing that the talent pool is much deeper today, but I do not see
any golfers with stones that stand up to Tiger on a consistent basis. Who
of this deep pool today will win more than 5 majors? Who will win 3? There
is no Palmer, Trevino, Watson, Player...
It was a different game back then. The courses were different as was the
equipment. It is very hard to compare players from different eras. Jack
played many sports and was not pushed into golf at 2 years old. It was not
his whole life, where Tiger has lived and breathed golf since he could walk.
Tiger is an awesome player, but the competition is just not there.
As far as Nicklaus not having raw talent, I am not sure how you can make
that comment. He did some amazing things . To each his own opinion, but
please look at the whole rather than the number of majors. nicklaus player
more tournaments per year too.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 20:16:40
From: rich
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
"Fuse" <andydothahaatnoway.com > wrote in message
news:58f89$44edd037$927a2d94$7642@FUSE.NET...
> "rich" <dummy@nothere.com> wrote in message
> Jack started playing golf much later (at age 10),had a family early on in
> his career (Jack II was born when Jack was 21), he graduated from college.
> I keep hearing that the talent pool is much deeper today, but I do not see
> any golfers with stones that stand up to Tiger on a consistent basis. Who
> of this deep pool today will win more than 5 majors? Who will win 3?
> There is no Palmer, Trevino, Watson, Player...
But your conclusion does not follow from your premise. It is the very fact
that the talent pool is so deep that means no one can win a lot of majors
the way Palmer and Player could. Except for someone who is astoundingly
good, as is Tiger.
> It was a different game back then. The courses were different as was the
> equipment. It is very hard to compare players from different eras. Jack
> played many sports and was not pushed into golf at 2 years old. It was
> not his whole life, where Tiger has lived and breathed golf since he could
> walk. Tiger is an awesome player, but the competition is just not there.
Again, the logic is faulty. Everyone played with the same equipment on the
same courses in Jack's day and everyone plays with the same equipment on the
same courses in Tiger's day.
>
> As far as Nicklaus not having raw talent, I am not sure how you can make
> that comment.
I didn't make that comment. I said that Jack didn;t work at it as hard as
Tiger does, as anyone who reads Jack's autobiography can easily tell.
>He did some amazing things .
Yes he did. But Tiger has done more amazing things.
>To each his own opinion, but please look at the whole rather than the
>number of majors. nicklaus player more tournaments per year too.
Nope, this is factually incorrect.
Rich
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 21:17:31
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 20:16:40 GMT, "rich" <dummy@nothere.com > wrote:
>> It was a different game back then. The courses were different as was the
>> equipment. It is very hard to compare players from different eras. Jack
>> played many sports and was not pushed into golf at 2 years old. It was
>> not his whole life, where Tiger has lived and breathed golf since he could
>> walk. Tiger is an awesome player, but the competition is just not there.
>
>Again, the logic is faulty. Everyone played with the same equipment on the
>same courses in Jack's day and everyone plays with the same equipment on the
>same courses in Tiger's day.
Much of the new equipment makes it harder to hit bad shots. That
would seem to make poorer players more competitive.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 02:57:40
From: rich
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:8q5se2p31mjpd17kkqmkjrf1albbnghgf1@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 20:16:40 GMT, "rich" <dummy@nothere.com> wrote:
> Much of the new equipment makes it harder to hit bad shots. That
> would seem to make poorer players more competitive.
Maybe for us but I doubt it is so for the pros. The new equipment makes it
possible to hit the ball further, but not necessarily more accurately. So
it depends on your definition of bad shot. It is inherently harder to keep
a 330 yd. drive in play with current equipment than it was to keep a 290
yard shot in play in Jack's day, IMO. I don't think too many players were
bouncing it off of the corporate tents in Jacks day (or, rather would have
if the tents had been there).
Add to that the narrowing of fairways and lengthening of courses, and the
poorer players are not more competitive. There are just very few "poorer"
players around nowadays than there were in Jack's days. And lots more
"darned good" players now than in Jack's day. Jack himself says in his bio
that in majors he only considered a pretty small handful of players as
having a reasonable chance to win. Nowadays any one of the top 30 or 40 can
get hot and win a major.
What is most disappointing about Jack's recent rhetoric is that on these
issues much of it is at odds with what he had to say in his biography before
the Tiger phenomena really started. His bio was published in 1997 and was
written in 1996 before Tiger had won his first major.
Rich
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 20:57:16
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 02:57:40 GMT, "rich" <dummy@nothere.com > wrote:
>What is most disappointing about Jack's recent rhetoric is that on these
>issues much of it is at odds with what he had to say in his biography before
>the Tiger phenomena really started. His bio was published in 1997 and was
>written in 1996 before Tiger had won his first major.
Can you give some examples of what he said in that book?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 05:59:15
From: rich
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:s7tse2hrh2jbmluojoqcg7inc536ufeat5@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 02:57:40 GMT, "rich" <dummy@nothere.com> wrote:
>>What is most disappointing about Jack's recent rhetoric is that on these
>>issues much of it is at odds with what he had to say in his biography
>>before
>>the Tiger phenomena really started. His bio was published in 1997 and was
>>written in 1996 before Tiger had won his first major.
>
> Can you give some examples of what he said in that book?
Sure.
Pg 109 he talks about Bobby Jones and says that when Bobby was winning his
Grand Slam there were only about 10 guys who had any chance to beat him but
that during Jack's career standards had so risen that 2/3rds of the field
could contend in a major. Which is the opposite of the "no competition for
Tiger" argument now, since standards have continued to rise.
On page 111 he talks about how he thought about the Grand Slam after winning
the Masters in 1963 yet now he claims he never accorded majors much thought
until someone told him he had broken Bobby Jones total in the early 70's.
On page 313 he says that all he could do is try to be the best golfer of his
time, as Vardon, Jones and Hogan were. That to be called the greatest of
all time would cast a shadow on those who went before. But now he has no
problem with trying to cast a shadow on what is going on now with claims of
having to face superior competition than Tiger does - claims that fly in the
face of what he said on page 109.
And finally, on the topic of that tough competition he faced:
"The truth is that most players give tournaments away, particularly major
championships. In at least a third of my major wins, I was simply there to
accept the gift." Pg. 427
Rich
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Aug 2006 01:15:18
From: multi
Subject: Jack's Paper Trail
|
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 05:59:15 GMT, "rich" <dummy@nothere.com > wrote:
>"multi" <multi@asm.org> wrote in message
>news:s7tse2hrh2jbmluojoqcg7inc536ufeat5@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 02:57:40 GMT, "rich" <dummy@nothere.com> wrote:
>>>What is most disappointing about Jack's recent rhetoric is that on these
>>>issues much of it is at odds with what he had to say in his biography
>>>before
>>>the Tiger phenomena really started. His bio was published in 1997 and was
>>>written in 1996 before Tiger had won his first major.
>>
>> Can you give some examples of what he said in that book?
>
>Sure.
>
>Pg 109 he talks about Bobby Jones and says that when Bobby was winning his
>Grand Slam there were only about 10 guys who had any chance to beat him but
>that during Jack's career standards had so risen that 2/3rds of the field
>could contend in a major. Which is the opposite of the "no competition for
>Tiger" argument now, since standards have continued to rise.
>
>On page 111 he talks about how he thought about the Grand Slam after winning
>the Masters in 1963 yet now he claims he never accorded majors much thought
>until someone told him he had broken Bobby Jones total in the early 70's.
>
>On page 313 he says that all he could do is try to be the best golfer of his
>time, as Vardon, Jones and Hogan were. That to be called the greatest of
>all time would cast a shadow on those who went before. But now he has no
>problem with trying to cast a shadow on what is going on now with claims of
>having to face superior competition than Tiger does - claims that fly in the
>face of what he said on page 109.
>
>And finally, on the topic of that tough competition he faced:
>
>"The truth is that most players give tournaments away, particularly major
>championships. In at least a third of my major wins, I was simply there to
>accept the gift." Pg. 427
Thanks. It turns out that this is one of the books that Amazon lets
you search, so I found some, too.
First, let's recall what he said recently:
*********
http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Golf/News/2006/08/08/1724861-cp.html
"I went through a period from 1967-70 where I was winning six or seven
tournaments a year but I wasn't winning the majors and it really
wasn't a big deal to me until my father passed away," said Nicklaus,
who is competing in the Telus Skins Game.
"I realized I was wasting a lot of my time and my effort on not really
working that hard at what I was doing. I passed a lot of good years
there and I don't think Tiger has done that."
***************
He's factually wrong here, of course. According to his own website,
he won 5, 2, 3, and 3 times in those years, not 6 or 7. It's kind of
a strange mistake to make, because 7 was the most he ever won in a
year, so you would think he would remember that, as well as the fact
that *never* won six in a year. I think that Babe Ruth could have
been drunk as a skunk, and still wouldn't think that he hit 60 homers
in an off year.
On the other hand, Jack was more accurate than Fox News, who misquoted
him as saying he had only played six or seven events in those years
(he actually played between 19 and 23 each of those years). I believe
this is the first time they ever got anything wrong.
http://msn.foxsports.com/golf/story/5890184?FSO1&ATT=HMA
But let's not nitpick. His main point is, he didn't take the majors
seriously until after his father died in 1970, and especially in the
years 1967-1970, but his father's death made him renew his dedication
to playing.
Here are a few more quotes from the book (Jack Nicklaus, My Story,
1997):
******
p203:
"You can probably tell from these sentiments that the US Open has
always been extra special for me, and it was never more so than in the
spring and early summer of 1967."
P 268:
"The better prepared you are, the more confident you become; and the
more confident you become, the less room there is in your mind for
negative thoughts, and the better your chance of getting them out if
they do manage to sneak in. Which, of course, is why I have always
worked so hard at preparing myself for golf's major championships."
p235:
"I hope I wasn't only a taker during my early years in golf, but there
is no doubt that my desire to put something back into the game grew
with the maturing process that followed my father's death. The form
it took was my ever-increasing interest in golf architecture.
Designing courses was a sound business proposition, as well as an
enjoyable creative challenge. No less a motivation was the feeling of
making a more lasting contribution to golf than I ever could as a
player."
************
So according to the pre-Tiger Jack, majors always got his special
attention, and his father's death was a source of motivation, but
toward course design, not for his playing career. In fact, Jack's
website shows that during his so-called lazy years, he averaged nearly
22 events a year, and even more if you go back further. In the years
after his father died, he never played over 19 events, and before his
prime was over in 1980, he played as few as 12.
I think it's pretty obvious what's going on here. Jack just wants to
be admired. That's only human, but Jack has already received more
admiration than most people can dream of. He's had at least 20 years
as the undisputed Greatest, and he milked it for all it was worth ---
like playing "his last major" at least half a dozen times, basking in
the "final" tributes at each one. Well, OK, that doesn't hurt
anybody, but he shouldn't have to undermine the accomplishments of
others just to hang on a few months longer.
Before Tiger came along, Jack wanted to be admired for his hard work
and preparation, rather than have people think that he just won
because of his natural talent. But now that Tiger seems destined to
break his records, Jack has changed his story, and says that he could
have won more if he had cared to.
What he apparently doesn't realize is that he is, and always will be,
admired for all three --- hard work, mental preparation, and natural
talent. But before this, he was also admired for his graciousness in
both victory and defeat. He should learn from Arnie, and know that
you don't have to be number one to be admired.
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 01:15:17
From:
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
In this modern day and time frame, there is no historical parallel to
today's pga pro golf talent. It's a new ball game.
The excellent players of the past have become history.
The above is not peculiar to golf only.
>mho
>v fe
>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0"d R i V e =A0L e $ s"
|
| | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 07:01:08
From: rowdy rod
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
Interesting take on whether there is a Watson for Woods:
http://tinyurl.com/gd7kr
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 01:38:24
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 07:01:08 GMT, rowdy rod <poetryrocksnow@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>Interesting take on whether there is a Watson for Woods:
>http://tinyurl.com/gd7kr
Thanks for the link, and an interesting quote from Jack, but even I
thought this was over the top w/regard to Tiger. And it seems like
(wait a minute, it was!) only a couple of months ago that they were
saying Tiger was yesterday's news, and Phil was the true number one,
about to win his third major in a row. They said it right up to his
second shot on the 72nd hole of the US Open.
Rich Beem got it right. Sports reporters jump ship more often than
plague rats.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 07:00:17
From: rowdy rod
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
In article <5002-44EBF275-1@storefull-3312.bay.webtv.net >,
<fiveiron@webtv.net > wrote:
> In this modern day and time frame, there is no historical parallel to
> today's pga pro golf talent. It's a new ball game.
>
You're right. It's the new balls. The USGA did little to control the
onslaught of them and concerned itself more with the trampoline effect
of drivers.
> The excellent players of the past have become history.
If you mean they have faded into the past and become part of the
history of the game, well, yeah. If you mean that today's players
overall are better, well, maybe some like Tiger.
> The above is not peculiar to golf only.
>
every sport has its own era and pool of players who are the stars of
that era. Tiger is the star today. Nicklaus and Palmer were the
stars, before them Hogan, Snead, and Nelson. Before them Jones and
Hagen.
I think each era has players who rise to the fore.
>
> > "d R i V e L e $ s"
>
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 09:42:58
From:
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
Fuse wrote:
It was not
> his whole life, where Tiger has lived and breathed golf since he could walk.
Speaking of which, I was at the Buick open when Tiger appeared at the
practice putting green, a young mother with her child was there, I
don't think either of them knew much about golf, but she pointed to
Tiger as he walked by and said to her son, "see that man, all he ever
does is play golf", I kinda chuckled, but it's true
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 00:46:10
From:
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
if you want to compare oranges to oranges, an particularly Tiger's
counterpart to Watson, you'll need to get a pga pro with time under
their belt..
The new kids on the block can have beginners luck, and offer competition
for a short duration, but for the week in week out grind, you'll need
someone who has "levelled" out, before you choose Tiger's Watson.
Maybe a long shot, but someone in Sergio's league. The "hot" ones
initially, usually end up with a "roller coaster" type score.
>mho
>v fe
>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0"d R i V e =A0L e $ s"
|
| |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 18:02:56
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 20:16:40 GMT, "rich" <dummy@nothere.com> wrote:
>
> >> It was a different game back then. The courses were different as was the
> >> equipment. It is very hard to compare players from different eras. Jack
> >> played many sports and was not pushed into golf at 2 years old. It was
> >> not his whole life, where Tiger has lived and breathed golf since he could
> >> walk. Tiger is an awesome player, but the competition is just not there.
> >
> >Again, the logic is faulty. Everyone played with the same equipment on the
> >same courses in Jack's day and everyone plays with the same equipment on the
> >same courses in Tiger's day.
>
> Much of the new equipment makes it harder to hit bad shots. That
> would seem to make poorer players more competitive.
To some extent, it also make it harder to intentionally hit curving
shots...
|
| | |
Date: 24 Aug 2006 21:17:32
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Tiger's Tom Watson?
|
Without a doubt.
It also makes the ball go further which can be a curse if the initial
direction is bad.
Otto
"dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote in message
news:1156467776.211293.116960@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> To some extent, it also make it harder to intentionally hit curving
> shots...
|
|
