Kenny Venturi

[Dan King]

I agree with Brad Klein, even if it upsets Mr. SGD (Actually more inclined to agree with Mr. Klein knowing it will piss off SGD.)

Kenny was a mediocre pro who turned into a mediocre announcer.  There is a tendency to equate longevity with quality.

Henry Longhurst was never threatened.

He did occasionally come up with a good quote:

You can't see all the way back to the thirteenth tee from behind the twelfth green [at Augusta National]. That's because they have a Delta Airlines counter back there. After you take your triple-bogey on the twelfth, you just go back there and say, "I'd like a one-way ticket back home on Friday because I just missed the cut."
 --Ken Venturi

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Was the 1964 U.S. Open the last Open that required 36 holes the last day ?

Didn't Venturi almost win the Masters, despite the change in pairing for the last round.  I believe he was to be paired with Byron Nelson, and his pairing was changed to Sam Snead.
Many, including Byron Nelson felt that Venturi would have won that Masters had the pairing not be switched.

Didn't Venturi also suffer from Reynauds Phenomena, a disease that ended his ability to compete on the tour ?

Didn't Venturi have a highly distinguished record as an amateur.  Didn't he and Harvie Ward, as amateurs, have a match for the ages against Ben Hogan and Byron Nelson ?

Venturi was a GREAT player !, unless mediocre may have a new definition according to Dan King.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Venturi still holds the course record at Harding Park with a 59 posted back in the 50's.  Given the fact that the course will be redone, this record is probably permanent.

[Dan King]

TEPaul writes:
Dan King, in my opinion, you're full of shit!

You ain't the first to come to that conclusion, and god-willin' you won't be the last.

Ken Venturi has more knowledge of and passion for the game of golf than a guy like you could ever dream of having!

Damn, I was so hoping to milk a 35-year career at CBS.

What did he win again? Oh yeah, that's what a mediocre pro wins, right Dan king?

How would you classify the careers of Scott Simpson, Orville Moody, Andy North, Lee Janzen, etc..? I'm sure they'll be thrilled to learn about their new-found greatness.
In another post, Patrick Mucci defines what makes a great professional career:

• almost win the Masters, despite the change in pairing for the last round.  
• suffer from Reynauds Phenomena, a disease that ended his ability to compete on the tour ?
• have a highly distinguished record as an amateur.  
• have a match for the ages against Ben Hogan and Byron Nelson ?

Patrick Mucci writes:
Venturi was a GREAT player !, unless mediocre may have a new definition according to Dan King.

Yeah, apparently I do define it different. I don't count almost wins, diseases, and things done when not a professional when judging professional's careers. Apparently you do.

Venturi's career was much like George Archer's. A little more than a dozen wins, with one of them a major. Both of them had careers cut short by injury. I'd be tempted to compare them present-day to Mark Calcavecchia's career. I don't hear a lot of people going on about the greatness of Archer or Calc.

"Mediocre players are just out there messing up the sand traps."
 --Lloyd Mangrum

[TEPaul]

Dan King:

On second thought my post about your opinion of Ken Venturi may have been a bit harsh in its wording so I removed it but I can't remove what you quoted of mine so that will have to stand as is!

To me Venturi was a great player--an interesting career given his circumstances! You seem to categorize players only in what they won! That's certainly one way to go but a fairly shallow one, in my opinion. Things like "near misses" don't seem to be of any real relevance to you! Every circumstance of someone like Venturi's career is relevant to me.

Orville Moody compared to Venturi? You appear inclined to place them in the same category because both won one Open. I don't place them in the same category although still recognizing that winning a US Open ain't exactly chopped liver!

But your opinion of Venturi slightly aside, the thing that seems to get under my skin about you a good deal is your general negativism about so many things to do with golf.

Although you seem to enjoy the game and to be interested in it your attitude toward the rules of the game is bizarre to me. You're interested in knowing all about the rules but strongly advocate that it should be played somewhat along the lines of how it was played in 1750!

You apply for a job with the USGA and have rarely had anything other than negative things to say about them that I can see!

When I remark that Venturi has more knowledge of and passion for the game than you could ever dream of having, you respond; "Damn I was so hoping to milk a 35 year career at CBS."

That's a very curious response on your part indeed and not one I fully understand except to say that maybe you should wait until you have a 35 second career with CBS before saying something like that!

But again, as for Venturi, I recognize the effect of his malapropisms and such on some, but personally it always appealed to me--sort of like Yogi or Casey Stengel who knew a little bit about their sports although never being any Henry Longhursts in the announcing booths!

So what if they weren't Henry Longhursts in the announcing booth? They all had a real appeal to me almost because of their odd way of using the language but supported by their knowledge of and particularly their passion for their sports.

I would take one Venturi with his knowledge and passion for his sport over a thousand of those "professional" announcers we often see and hear who might sound good but have no real feel for what they're talking about!

As annoying as some of Venturi's cliches may have been to some, they had a ring of truism to me! One that very well may have been annoying to you--"You had to have been there"--is probably the most apropos to you, in my opinion!

[Brad Klein]

Venturi's final day of 36 holes was the last time the USGA ended the Open that way. His medical regimen at the time - salt tablets like crazy - would now be recognized, I'm told, as tantamount to a death sentence.

[TEPaul]

Do you mean to say when I was in Parris Island in the middle of the summer and the temperature was over 100 everyday and they made us take all those little pink salt tablets that they were trying to kill us? Is that why I sometimes massacre my sentences like Ken did all those 35 years?

[Ken_Cotner]

Heat and humidity plus salt = problems (it dehydrates the body, right Bill?).  What do marathon runners take before and during races -- water.

Gotta agree with Dan King on Venturi's playing career.  Good, not great.  Think about this -- if he hadn't been on TV for 35 years, how would you rate his career?  Methinks his visibility subconsciously affects how we perceive him.  I think the Archer and Calc comparisons are on target.  Not Moody -- he only won one tournament.

Cheers,
KC

[Bruceski]

When all is said and done, guys like Justin Leonard will have a more distinguished career than Ken Venturi (Leonard has already surpassed Venturi, IMO). But we still will be hard-pressed to call them one of the greats.

[TEPaul]

Well, I'll certainly concede that when it comes to considering if somebody was great it might come down to how you categorize "great".

For all I know a guy like Dan King might conclude that there can only ever be something like five "great" players! When I might conclude there can be one helluva lot more than that!

It can get sort of like some of the misperceptions associated with ranking and rating which make me not like rating and rankings! Sort of like Seminole used to be about 6th on the list but now it might be 15th or something so now everybody, including the club starts to assume there must be something wrong with the course and they start to change it because that!!

Extremely bad policy because in reality Seminole very well may be better now (although it's 15th) than it was when it was 6th.

Same with Dan King's idea of "great" if he's only going to consider that there can only be a limited amount of great players.

After a while some players will come along, like Woods and then Bobby Jones will no longer be considered a "great" player only a good one!

Same with Venturi--if he comes to my club I can truthfully introduce him as "Ken Venturi, a player who back in the 1960s was "great" enough to win the Open and almost win the Masters as an amateur but today it can only be considered that he was a pretty good play!!"

I say nonsensical!

[Ken_Cotner]

TEPaul,

"Great"   point -- it does come down to definitions.  Easy to make a case for Venturi being good or great.  I suspect a lot of folks would rank (I know rankings are troublesome, but hey...) him above players whose credentials are every bit as good or better.  And I think that comes down to visibility.

Ken

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan King,

I'm torn............. Byron Nelson said he was a great player, and Dan King said he was a mediocre player.  
Who is better qualified to make that call ?  hmmmm

Would you say Bill Walton had a great pro career ?
Yet, at a young age he was inducted into the basketball hall of fame, his pro career cut short by injury.

Venturi should be viewed in the same light, or better since he had no team mates to shift or carry the load.

Venturi, as an amateur was beating the pros, and was regarded as a great player.  
Perhaps you're too young to remember the contemporary accolades he received.

As an aside, any golfer who plays on the PGA TOUR for five years or more has to be a GREAT golfer, unless you don't think that being one of the 150 best players in the world qualifies as great.

In a given year, If a PGA TOUR golfer was ranked in the top 20, would that qualify him as a great golfer, or just another mediocre player ?

Reynaud's attacks the hands and wrists, which I still believe play an important role in holding and swinging a golf club.

It's not a temporary injury, that with treatment is abated.  
It is progressive and no known cure existed in Venturi's time.

If BYRON NELSON thought he was a great player, that's good enough for me.

[TEPaul]

If Byron Nelson said Ken Venturi was a great player and Dan King said Venturi was a mediorcre player, who would I tend to believe?

Hmmmm, that's a really tough one! Perhaps Dan King knows something Byron doesn't know! Perhaps Dan has a quote that can explain it all--even to Byron Nelson!

Can I think about this for about a week and get back to you?

[Dan King]

TEPaul writes:
On second thought my post about your opinion of Ken Venturi may have been a bit harsh in its wording so I removed it

Damn, I thought you were joking with me, sort of a Roseanne Rosannadanna riff. Now to find out you were serious, I'm hurt.

Orville Moody compared to Venturi?

I don't believe I was comparing them. Just if you say Venturi's professional career was great on the strength of his U.S. Open victory, then Sarge should get the same consideration. I did compare Venturi's career to Archer and Calc.

You're interested in knowing all about the rules but strongly advocate that it should be played somewhat along the lines of how it was played in 1750!

You've missed the point. I've never said the game should be played the way I enjoy it. I've said it can be played that way. I don't believe the USGA and R&A own the game. They make it easier to have a tournament, or any large group where you can't rely on the integrity of the players.

There is a difference between should and can.

You apply for a job with the USGA and have rarely had anything other than negative things to say about them that I can see!

I believe I've defended the USGA numerous times on this forum. I think they do a great job. I don't think they are perfect, and I believe there are numerous ways they could be improved. I guess my thoughts on improvements come out stronger than my defenses. If I didn't care so much about the USGA I wouldn't be nearly as vocal about their shortcomings.

maybe you should wait until you have a 35 second career with CBS before saying something like that!

I guess I could say I had my 35 seconds of fame. I was, in a sense, one of the CBS minions when I worked for CBS.Sportsline.com for a while. Not one of the favorite times in my career.

As annoying as some of Venturi's cliches may have been to some, they had a ring of truism to me!

Maybe I'm just too young. Maybe Venturi's cliches at one time sounded fresh, but that was before my time. I rarely listen to the talking heads on TV. I can't think of any of them adding anything to the broadcast. They are there only to ensure there is no dead air. I don't consider non-stop babble as a great accomplishment.

For all I know a guy like Dan King might conclude that there can only ever be something like five "great" players! When I might conclude there can be one helluva lot more than that!

I don't know about five, but I'd say no more than a dozen or two great players. When judging careers, I think major victories are important. It's the opportunity to win against all the best players of your era. They aren't the only consideration. Harry Vardon had fewer major opportunities than Jack Nicklaus.

It can get sort of like some of the misperceptions associated with ranking and rating which make me not like rating and rankings!

I agree with you about rankings. But I do know the difference between a great course and a mediocre course. I'm not going to give Congressional a special pass on the road to greatness because it participated in the 1964 U.S. Open. It's either great or isn't, depending on the course, not some single tournament.

Same with Dan King's idea of "great" if he's only going to consider that there can only be a limited amount of great players.

I don't believe I ever said that.

For the 1920 US Open, the future superstar, Bobby Jones, playing his first Open, was paired with the great Harry Vardon, then the greatest player the game had ever seen. Early in the round, Jones thinned a simple short pitch right through the green.
Red with embarrassment he turned to Vardon and said: `Mr. Vardon, have you ever seen a worse shot than that!'
`No,' Vardon replied.
  --Michael Hobbs

[TEPaul]

Ah shucks Dan, I hope you're not hurt!

I might have been joking about being serious! Maybe I was serious about joking. I'm never too sure about these things anymore--sometimes I just tend to say things without really knowing what I mean--probably a little like Barney who I haven't even remotely figured out yet!

On second thought...Oh, never mind!

[TEPaul]

Dan:

Good post there! There's something very fundamental you should know about me! I'm apparently very good at missing the point.

Pat tells me I miss his point about 90% of the time and now it's happening more and more with you too. I guess it's just something I'm getting very good at! I can't play golf very well anymore so it's nice to know I have something I can be good at to replace it with.

[David Kelly]

Just for the record in 1956 as an amateur Venturi lost the Master's by a stroke after shooting an 80 in the final round. This seems like a supreme choke job and maybe it was but Burke's winning score was the highest ever and 29 plyaers shot 80 or higher that day including Charles Kunkle who shot a 95 to finish at +52. Venturi did not blame Snead or the pairing that day and in fact he was the one who picked Snead to play with. Apparently it was a writer for the  SF Examiner who misquoted Venturi and caused a controversy.

Venturi also contended in 1958 when he lost by two strokes and 1960 when Palmer birdied 17 and 18 to beat him by a stroke.

[Dan King]

Patrick Mucci writes:
As an aside, any golfer who plays on the PGA TOUR for five years or more has to be a GREAT golfer, unless you don't think that being one of the 150 best players in the world qualifies as great.

Sure, everyone making it on tour is a great golfer. Did I ever say Venturi was a mediocre golfer? I said he was a mediocre pro. I think there have been a dozen or two great pros, and Venturi doesn't make the cut.

If BYRON NELSON thought he was a great player, that's good enough for me.

There are few people with a greater respect for Mr. Nelson than myself. But I'm not about to accept everything he says as gospel. I'm sure it's the easy way to go through life, accepting other's beliefs as your own, but it isn't my way. I'll judge for myself, based on criteria I decide for greatness.

Anybody who went to Greg Norman's induction into the golf hall of fame and listened to all the speeches would assume Greg was one of the greatest golfers that ever lived. Friends will exaggerate your accomplishments. Unfortunately for Greg, the speeches were not backed up by his career.

Friends are not usually the most impartial judges of a person's career.

"Walter Hagen was the greatest loser and the greatest winner and the greatest golfer."
 --Chick Evans, 1969

[Bruceski]

Hmmmm...I guess Venturi was the Mickelson of his era.  

[Dan Kelly]

Perhaps someone can explain to me why it matters whether Ken Venturi, as a player, is considered "great," "near great," or simply "very good."

Isn't it just one big semantic wrestling match, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing? (Shakespeare)

Clearly: Venturi was not in the league with Jones, Hogan, Snead, Nicklaus, Woods.

Clearly: Venturi was not in the league with Vardon, Sarazen, Hagen, Nelson, Palmer, Trevino, Watson.

Just as clearly: Venturi was not in the league with Orville Moody.

By any definition of greatness that doesn't limit itself to the super-super-greats and the super-greats (and I understand why we debate who belongs in those two categories), Venturi was a great player.

He clearly had moments of greatness.

And just as clearly, for whatever reasons, he didn't achieve all of the greatness he might have achieved.

Who cares?

This whole business of attempting to rank Kenny Venturi seems just as silly, to me, as attempting to rank the world's golf courses between, say, 25 and 200.

Clearly, those courses are not Shinnecock Hills.

Just as clearly, they are not Goat Hills.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan Kelly,

Do you think you provided a fair comparison ?

The players you list had full careers, not hampered, limited or terminated by an incurable illness.

Dave Kelly,

Venturi did not pick Sam Snead to play with, Cliff Roberts did.

Bruceski,

Venturi won the U.S. Open, and was never viewed in the context that Mickelson is being viewed relative to Majors.

Dan King,

Byron Nelson was one of the greatest players of all time, with a golf swing and knowledge of the game that was envied by all, he would appear to be eminently qualified to make that assessment.

Regarding Greg Norman, you must be kidding, the guy was
# 1 in the world for some time, winning two British Opens, and being absolutely snake bitten by Tway and Mize who prevented him from winning the Masters and PGA with one in a million shots.  Greg Norman....not a great player

Modifying, and clarifying your post to define GREAT as the top 12 or 24 players of all time, is a little different than calling him a mediocre pro, or stating that Norman wasn't great.

Your NEW definition is more quantifyable.

[TEPaul]

I agree Pat, categorizing a golfer like Norman as not a great player because of his career is just wrong. His career was truly one of the most bizarre imaginable! Sometimes he did it to himself but so often it seemed like continual bizarre fate. But despite not accomplishing the major wins everyone thinks he should have I would consider him one of the really great players of modern times.

Others of course will disagree with that strictly because his career wins might not be what they should have been.

I think it's interesting for Nelson to have said what he did about Venturi but I really do find it strange for people to say today that a golfer like Tiger Woods must have a long and successful career to be truly considered great or "the Greatest".

A guy like Dan King may say that he admires Nelson but chooses to think his own thoughts about Venturi despite what Nelson said and that's fine with me.

But I think if Dan or others can't take the word of what probably the Greatest ever says about Tiger Woods right now then that just has to be wrong to me! If Woods was gone tomorrow and they say his career was too short to be considered as the greatest despite what Nicklaus says now I don't think they're thinking very clearly.

From everything I've ever seen and apparently Jack Nicklaus too Woods is the best ever--short or medium or long and successful career--it doesn't matter any more. The guy is on a different level than anyone has ever been and if one who was too can say what he has that's sure good enough for me!

[Dan King]

Patrick Mucci writes:
Byron Nelson was one of the greatest players of all time, with a golf swing and knowledge of the game that was envied by all, he would appear to be eminently qualified to make that assessment.

He was also Venturi's friend. He wouldn't have been expected to be impartial.

But if you want to take Nelson's word on it, I'm happy for you. I'm going to recognize there was no way Nelson could be impartial, so accept his word with a grain of salt.

Regarding Greg Norman, you must be kidding, the guy was # 1 in the world for some time, winning two British Opens, and being absolutely snake bitten by Tway and Mize who prevented him from winning the Masters and PGA with one in a million shots.

And Faldo. Let's not forget the times Faldo jobbed Norman out of titles. Only problem is that with Faldo it is easier to remember Norman's collapses, than it was with Tway and Mize. In those cases, Norman led going into the final round. A decent Sunday round and Tway's shot would be an interesting story and Mize's wouldn't have happened.

Norman had all the ability to achieve greatness, but he was clueless how to play golf with the lead. He failed to come close to his potential. Maybe Venturi was the same way. Perhaps he would have achieved greatness if he hadn't been hampered by injuries. We will never know. All we know is after an outstanding amateur career he managed to only win 13 tour events and a U.S. Open at a time when the Tour was at a low point competitively.

Why cheapen the term great? It should have a special meaning, not applied to everyone who has accomplished anything.

If I was out playing golf with Venturi or Norman I'm sure I would consider them great players. I'd be comparing their ability to my own game.

But when comparing them to the top echelon of golf history both fall woefully short of greatness.

At college I'm considered a great writer. Compared to others who write for the school paper or are in my English classes, in my little pond, I am great. But I know that compared to great writers out there in the real world, I ain't s$%^!

Your NEW definition is more quantifyable.

Go to a dictionary and look up the word great. It isn't my definition.

How about Tommy Bolt and Julius Boros? Contemporaries of Venturi's, both with numbers at least as good as Venturi's. All three came close to winning numerous majors, but Bolt only won once and Boros twice. Would anyone describe their careers as great? Since almosts seem to count, how about Gardner Dickinson?

"I picked Greg [Norman] to have a big year in '94 and he did money wise. But how can a guy average 68.81 and win the same number of tournaments this year as Johnny Miller? That's impossible. You can't average 68-something and win just once. I thought he'd win five or six."
 --Johnny Miller

[Dan Kelly]

Patrick --

Yeah, I think it's a fair comparison. Surely our definitions of super-super-greatness, super-greatness, and greatness (of golfers as much as of golf courses, and possibly more so) have SOMETHING to do with durability -- whether or not that's fair.

I believe Venturi had enough time, unencumbered by infirmity, to demonstrate that he deserved a place in the upper upper echelons of golf history -- the way Sandy Koufax proved his ultra-greatness in a relatively short baseball career. Venturi did not do so.

Which is surely not meant to be critical of him. As I said: I don't in the least care where Ken Venturi is "ranked," once we agree that he doesn't belong in the pantheon.

Maybe we need a separate category for Guys Who MIGHT Have Been Gods: Venturi, Tony Lema ....

[SGD]

Mr. Kelly:

As long as we're clarifying definitions (e.g., what constitutes "great"), please be informed that there's a difference between attending "college" and a "junior college".  

SGD