Jack's Digest Comment - more good now - more great previously ...

[George Pazin]

Thanks, Phil. I read Jack's autobiography about 8 or 9 years ago, so most of the details are long since buried in a rarely accessed corner of my mind.

[JESII]

Did Jack ever beat Trevino in a head-to-head?

[PThomas]

[65 (famous because it's the best closing round ever played in golf).

better than Miller's 63 Phil?

[Phil McDade]

Did Jack ever beat Trevino in a head-to-head?

The closest would've been the 1970 Open Championship, led by Trevino at 208 after three rounds at TOC. Jack was two strokes back. Trevino played quite poorly, with a 77, to end up T3 and two strokes out of the playoff. Sanders and Nicklaus both shot final round 73s to tie in the end, one of the few majors that was arguably "given" to Jack, given Sanders' missed two-footer on 18.

The US Open at Baltusrol, next to Jack winning by four with his famous last-round 65, was also Trevino's coming-out party. He was pretty unknown at the time, and finished 5th, but nine shots behind Jack (he was four back of Jack at the beginning of the final round).

Jack also beat out Trevino at Pebble in '72. Jack was the 3rd-round leader at 216, with Trevino in close pursuit at 217 (I think they may have played that final round together). Jack shot 74 in tough conditions to win; Trevino a 78 to finish five back and T4th.

Trevino was 4th at Turnberry in 1977, but well behind the Watson-Nicklaus duel.

[Phil McDade]

[65 (famous because it's the best closing round ever played in golf).

better than Miller's 63 Phil?

Best in terms of excitement. And Jack arguably hit more pressure shots than Miller did at Oakmont. Miller, by his own admission, had a ball-striking round for the ages, and did it in his prime. Jack, at 46, overcame some adversity on the back nine (a spike mark altered his par putt on 12...), and did so under enormous pressure. Miller's round was a tad less pressure-packed.

[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

Beg to differ / re: Miller. Check out the names of the people Miller leaped over at Oakmont that final day -- a certifiable who's who. Jack had to beat AP but he was the only main person in the hunt once Marty Fleckman did the burn and crash routine. Candidly, Arnie never really put the pedal to the medal that day.

One other thing -- Miller's birdie fest continued deep into his back nine to keep him firmly in the hunt. Jack's birdie at the 72nd hole at Baltusrol was impressive (1 iron from 239 yards uphill and into a prevailing wind) but the event was already over with by that point.

If you want to see stellar golf for the duration of 36 holes -- I'd throw forward the '77 BO between Jack and Watson. Tom finished solidly with his play.

[JESII]

Matt,

Did Fleckman burn before his crash?

Sorry...

Also, I think Phil was referring to Nicklaus in '86.

[Craig Sweet]

What about Players 30 on the back nine to win in 78? That was a heck of a come from behind win!

[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. 

I don't know if I can agree with you on this one, Jim, and I'll try to explain.

Obviously, the purses that a decent (top 150 on the US tour) player can amass pretty much puts the idea of the 30 year old amateur to rest. The purses are so huge that if a collegiate player finishes on his all-conference team, he's thinking pro tour.

The days of having a "benefactor" are, for the most part, gone. Amateurs that had sugardaddys pay for their golf are over, thanks to the NCAA. And children of business tycoons seem to be reticent about allowing their parents completely finance their forays into amateur golf, at least for those over the age of 22 or 23. Why would they? If their parents have them on a nice little trust fund that gifts them $250,000/year, why not let that finance their quest to become a professional golfer on the US tour, where, if in 2007 you finished 150th on the money list, you earned $499,197. Throw in endorsements and personal appearance fees and voila, that trust fund stipend from Mumsy and Daddy becomes much less relevant than if they performed as an amateur.

Nicklaus was 20 when came in 2nd at the U.S. Open.  The next year, also as a 21-year-old amateur, he came in 4th.  Can't recall the name of the am who did so well in the 1967 U.S. Open, but 99% sure he was a college kid. 

Even though far more kids play golf now, with better coaching, training, physical fitness, the best of them are light years behind the top pro's.  They never are in the running.  Almost all of them miss the cut, often shooting in the 80's. 

Tiger won three U.S. Amateurs in a row.  Heads and shoulders above the other amateurs of his time.  More accomplished even than Jack at that stage.  Still, Jack nearly won a U.S. Open then, and Tiger barely made the cuts. 

[Garland Bayley]

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. 

I think you got this wrong. With all the money available on the tours, amateurs are not staying amateur as long as they used to. If Tiger had stayed at Stanford for four years, you would very likely had an amateur win a major.


EDIT: Also, note that if I remember correctly, Jack spend 4 years at OSU before turning pro. So his near misses at the opens occurred correspondingly after Tiger had already left school.

[Garland Bayley]

.

[Phil McDade]

Phil:

Beg to differ / re: Miller. Check out the names of the people Miller leaped over at Oakmont that final day -- a certifiable who's who. Jack had to beat AP but he was the only main person in the hunt once Marty Fleckman did the burn and crash routine. Candidly, Arnie never really put the pedal to the medal that day.

One other thing -- Miller's birdie fest continued deep into his back nine to keep him firmly in the hunt. Jack's birdie at the 72nd hole at Baltusrol was impressive (1 iron from 239 yards uphill and into a prevailing wind) but the event was already over with by that point.

If you want to see stellar golf for the duration of 36 holes -- I'd throw forward the '77 BO between Jack and Watson. Tom finished solidly with his play.

Matt:

Nicklaus in '86 at Augusta, not '67 at Baltusrol. I'd agree with your assessment about Jack at Baltusrol -- a terrific last round to win, but not quite at the level of Augusta '86.

I think it's a close call between Nicklaus '86 Augusta round and Miller's '73 round at Oakmont. Both lept over some of the finest players at the time (Boros and Palmer were among the four who shared the 3rd-round lead, and Weiskopf, Jack and Trevino were all in the hunt at one time). Arguably similar to Norman, Kite, Watson, Pavin, Price and Seve. To me, the difference is that Miller did it at 26 and in his prime; Jack did it at 46 toward the very end of his competitive career.

[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

Agreed. Tough call between the two events.

The thing to keep in mind is that too often the people running the events have to overplay their hand with course set-ups. Let the players play and they will certainly try to shoot lower scores than the ultra conservative play one saw this past week.

Jack in his prime played a conservative approach to majors but when he had to turn on the juice ('72 BO at Muirfield, '86 Masters, etc, etc) was fully capable in mounting charges to win although his effort at the '72 BO came up just short.

Amazing that Tiger has yet to win a major when trailing or that he has never lost one when either in the lead or tied for the lead going into a final round at a major.