[Craig Sweet]

Ponder this...Phil is 38...Els is 39...VJ is 45 and Furyk is 38

Nicklaus, the Greatest of All Time won only three majors after age 40...

Player won 1 as did Trevino...Palmer and Watson never won a major after age 40...I don't believe Watson won after age 38....

[Art Roselle]

The great things about these debates is that they are the same in every sport for every generation.  People almost always think that the guys from their generation were the best.  They argued their dads about why they are better than prior generations and they argue their sons about why they are better then later ones.  The circle goes around and around.  Sometimes, you will find a fan advocating a player from a different generation, but even they tend to use the same arguments.  Usually, it is based on who you saw most closely (when you cared the most) and who is closest to your age.

The main argument that the younger guys use against the older (in every sport) is that competition is better and deeper now.  More people play. The money draws more talent.  International talent is better.  Fitness has improved.  Etc.

The main arguments on the older vs. younger side is some combination of a) talent has been diluted by expansion, b) young guys don't have to care as much due to the excessive money and so older guys had more "heart" and c) (the ultimate fallback)  "I saw them both and the old guy was better.  You have only seen this young whippersnapper and so you have no idea."

I love it because you can never win the argument and there is no right answer, and yet people will get very worked up and KNOW they are right.  That is why we have all those Top 10 shows on TV.  Not only can you never lose today, even if your current argument gets debunked next year, you can always just change your reasoning. 

My dad used to argue to the death that Nicklaus was better than Tiger (he has actually converted now, which is some indication of just what  a phenom Tiger is).  Of course, my grandfather never did accept that Nicklaus was better than Hogan.  I supposed his father would have been just as convinced that Jones was better than Hogan. 

So, I have to hear how Wilt was better than anyone in the modern NBA and then have to listen to my son explain to me why Kobe and Lebron are better than Jordan.  Maybe I should start to follow track and field.  Nobody argues that Jesse Owens was faster than Michael Johnson, because they timed them and he wasn't. 

[Jim Nugent]

Maybe I should start to follow track and field.  Nobody argues that Jesse Owens was faster than Michael Johnson, because they timed them and he wasn't. 

Yeah, but Art, suppose Jesse had gotten modern training?  Benefited from the advanced nutritional knowledge we now have?  What if he could run on today's ultra-fast surfaces? 

Who knows what records he might have set?

 

[Doug Siebert]

And had the steroids, with masking agents, available today

[George Pazin]

Hey Matt -

If Immelman wins a few more majors, does he get credit for taking down Tiger on this one?

[tlavin]

Hey Matt -

If Immelman wins a few more majors, does he get credit for taking down Tiger on this one?

He should get all the credit for a well-earned win.  He got out front and stayed there, despite adverse conditions and the pressure of his first major win, all with the specter of Tiger lurking.  Whether he will continue to win is the real question.

[Art Roselle]

Maybe I should start to follow track and field.  Nobody argues that Jesse Owens was faster than Michael Johnson, because they timed them and he wasn't. 

Yeah, but Art, suppose Jesse had gotten modern training?  Benefited from the advanced nutritional knowledge we now have?  What if he could run on today's ultra-fast surfaces? 

Who knows what records he might have set?

 

Yep, and he clearly had a lot more heart.  None of these pampered modern athletes had to deal with Hitler.

[Phil McDade]

Maybe I should start to follow track and field.  Nobody argues that Jesse Owens was faster than Michael Johnson, because they timed them and he wasn't. 

Yeah, but Art, suppose Jesse had gotten modern training?  Benefited from the advanced nutritional knowledge we now have?  What if he could run on today's ultra-fast surfaces? 

Who knows what records he might have set?

 

Jesse Owens was so much better than any of his contemporaries, it's kind of silly to compare his accomplishments to modern-day athletes.

To wit: In 1933, when Owens was a high schooler at Cleveland East Tech, he set an Ohio state record in the 100-yard dash of 9.4 seconds. The record stood until 1972.

The same year, he ran the 200-yard dash in a state record 21.2 seconds. It would be another 38 years (1971) until anyone in Ohio broke that record.

The year before, he ran a wind-aided 100 meters in 10.3 seconds. No Ohio high schooler would run as fast until 1975.

Finally, in 1933, he set an Ohio state record of 24-11-3/4s in the long jump. That record stood for 43 years.

[archie_struthers]

 


If only Tiger had shot 68 Sunday we could have ended this thread....

[JESII]

To that point Archie, isn't it amazing how different his attitude is when he starts out behind as opposed to ahead? I don't get it, I would think a guy like Tiger would relish the opportunity to chew those guys up when he is 3 or 5 back, but he just never does it...

[Dan Boerger]

Tiger does come back to win in the final round of professional golf tournaments, but he hasn't done it in a major. I think this is just an anomaly. Chances are he will.

He didn't lose ground to anyone that was ahead of him yesterday. It's rare for anyone to be six strokes behind and win the last day.

[archie_struthers]

 


I'm with Dan on the anomoly theory....it might happen this year

[George Pazin]

For Tiger, the reason he doesn't win from behind is simple - if he's playing well enough to mount a charge, he is usually killing everyone already. He hasn't really had an event where he was playing well and someone else was playing even better.

Depending on your point of view, you can use that to support either side of Jack's argument....

[JESII]

His body language in regular events is comparable...just so much different than when he is leading.

He really has not come from behind all that much in regular events either.

No doubt about two things...when he is on, he already has the lead, and when he is behind he is a different person. He does not miss the putt on #4 when he has a lead.

[Kirk Gill]

Again, it cannot be understated that the the top 3 contenders (sans Woods) at the beginning of the day that Immeleman faced shot a combined 18 over par. 18 over par. 3 players. All atop the leaderboard at the beginning of the day.

Is the reason for this GCA and the changes at Augusta, something lacking in Tiger's contemporaries (as Jack was apparently saying), or just the fact that it was very windy?

[Garland Bayley]

For Tiger, the reason he doesn't win from behind is simple - if he's playing well enough to mount a charge, he is usually killing everyone already. He hasn't really had an event where he was playing well and someone else was playing even better.

Depending on your point of view, you can use that to support either side of Jack's argument....

You don't think the PGA at Hazeltine qualifies?

[George Pazin]

Honestly, no, I don't think he was playing particularly well there. It probably is as close as anything else, though.

[Garland Bayley]

Honestly, no, I don't think he was playing particularly well there. It probably is as close as anything else, though.

Birdieing the last four is not playing particularly well, eh? I guess I would hate to see him play particularly well.

Beating DiMarco at Augusta with what should have been 3 finishing bogeys, is not playing particularly well.

[George Pazin]

Tiger finished well at Hazeltine, but I'd be hard pressed to say he played well there for 4 days.

Generally speaking, 1 of 2 Tigers show up at majors - the Immortal Tiger, who blows away the field, and the Mortal Tiger, who is still good enough to be in contention but generally doesn't play well enough to win.

The 2000 PGA with May was probably one of the few times (maybe the 99 PGA, too) where he played very well and someone was there to push him.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how many times Jack came from behind? How far was he down?

And with Trevino staring down Jack repeatedly, as Matt implies, can someone relate the facts there? I know they went to a playoff at Merion, but I don't know how they ended up there, nor the respective scores in the playoff.

These are all honest questions, not an attempt to deflect....

[Garland Bayley]

George,

Matt gave you the events in #187. I suggest you Google them.

[George Pazin]

I tried that last week and couldn't find the specifics.

I'll try again later.

[Garland Bayley]

From first result of Googling "1974 "PGA Championship" Trevino vs Nicklaus"

"Their battles are etched in memory. It was Nicklaus whom Trevino beat when the former driving-range pro exploded onto the scene to win the 1968 United States Open at Oak Hill. He beat Nicklaus again in a dramatic 18-hole playoff at the Open at Merion in 1971. He stopped Nicklaus's march to the Grand Slam at the 1972 British Open when he chipped in on the 71st hole. And he held him off, head to head, at the 1974 P.G.A."

Of interest
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HFI/is_7_51/ai_63015233

[George Pazin]

Thanks, that's nice, but what I'm looking for is actual scores and hole by hole performance.

For instance, how did they end up in a playoff at Merion? What were their respective scores in said playoff?

Thirty years from now, one could easily describe Phil as holding off Tiger in 2006 at the Masters - heck, I'd do it now. Yet you and Matt seem reluctant.

Similarly, you say Duval went backwards in 2000 at The Open - yet Ballesteros plunking one at 15 and Norman bogeying 18 when par puts him in a playoff at the 86 Masters does not constitute backing up.

Those are the details I seek.

 

[Phil McDade]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know how many times Jack came from behind? How far was he down?

And with Trevino staring down Jack repeatedly, as Matt implies, can someone relate the facts there? I know they went to a playoff at Merion, but I don't know how they ended up there, nor the respective scores in the playoff.

These are all honest questions, not an attempt to deflect....

George:

Jack won six majors coming from behind the lead entering the 4th round -- '62 US Open (2 strokes behind), '63 PGA (3), '66 BOpen (2), '67 US Open (1), '75 Masters (1), '86 Masters (4). His '62 win came in the famous playoff against Arnie.

Closing rounds (in order): 69 (-3); 68 (-3); 70 (I believe -1); 65 (Baltusrol, and the famous 1-iron); 68 (and the famous 40-footer on 16); and 65 (famous because it's the best closing round ever played in golf).

In the first three, Jack to my mind clearly played well, but also benefitted from somewhat indifferent play among those ahead of him. In the last three, he clearly went out and took the championship with stellar rounds.

Jack won three majors when tied for the lead entering the final round -- '66 Masters, which he won in a playoff; '78 BOpen; and '80 US Open, and his famous duel with Aoki. Closing rounds were 72 at Augusta (in a very tough scoring year; even-par 288 got you in a playoff); 73 (on a very tough final day of scoring at TOC; only one player in the top 25 shot lower than 72 that day); and 68 at Baltusrol, or two under par that day.

Trevino beat Nicklaus three times in what you might call head-to-head duels, although one of them really wasn't. At Merion in '71, amateur Jim Simons held the 3rd-round lead, with Nicklaus two strokes behind and Trevino four behind. Simons collapsed, and Trevino shot a 69 to Jack's 71 and they ended tied. Trevino went 68 to Jack's 71 to win the playoff (Jack left two shots in bunkers that day).

In '74, Trevino led after three rounds, but only one stroke ahead of Jack. They matched 69s that day, with Trevino edging him out at Tanglewood, NC (perhaps best known for the 1-under 279 -- good for a tie for 3rd -- shot by 62-year-old Sam Snead).

In '72 at Muirfield, Jack played the final round a few groups ahead of Trevino, who led after three rounds, and was six strokes ahead of Jack. Nicklaus shot a closing 66 that quite easily could've been a 63 or so with a few more made putts that he lipped out. Trevino closed with a 71 to win. Trevino butchered the 17th, and was off the green in four when he chipped in for a par. Tony Jacklin, playing in the final pairing with Lee, proceeded to bogey the 17th after three-putting from 15 feet. Still the best final round in Open Championship history, for my money.

[Jim Nugent]

I think pro golfers are better now than they were in Jack's day.  I also think there are more great players now than there were then.

One sign of that: in Jack's day (and earlier), amateurs can and did compete well in the majors.  Venturi nearly won the Masters in 1956.  Jack nearly won the Open in 1960.  An amateur was leading the 1967 Open at Baltusrol after three rounds. 

That never happens any more.  In fact, amateurs are lucky to make the cut these days.  I think this is another indication of how much weaker the competition was back then -- and how much stronger it is now. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()