Great Johnny Miller Interview

[Rick Shefchik]

Miller has no trouble telling the world how great he was. He also has no trouble telling the world how awful he's become.

In his book "I Call the Shots," he devotes a chapter to choking, and puts himself at the head of the list. He freely admits his putting nerves drove him off the tour, and he even lists seven or eight different ways he tried to combat (sometimes successfully, but only for a while) the yips.

The guy is honest. He defends his honesty by saying he doesn't dislike anybody, so he's not worried if his opinions are taken as mean-spirited, because that's now how they are intended.

Then he lets the chips fall where they may. If he thinks he did something great, he tells you. If he thinks a famous pro did something badly, he tells you. And vice versa, in both cases.

That style will never play well with all the people, but I'm sure glad NBC convinced him to take a broadcast job. I'd rather listen to Miller's version of what's going on during a tournament than any since Henry Longhurst.

[Phil_the_Author]

Kevin, you wrote, "The current edition of Golf Magazine has a ranking of the top 10 rounds of the last 30ish years.  Olazabal's round is one of them."

Actually it is of the last 45 years, and what makes this list ludicrous is not just what it contains, but what it omits. How can anyone state that Michelle Wie's 68 is the 6th greatest round of the last 45 years and ignore Nicklaus final round of the '86 Masters?

How could one consider Maruyama's 58 during a QULIFYING round for the Open to be greater than that stirring Sunday duel between Watson & Nicklaus at the British Open?

How could any 69 shot in the second round of any tournament by Tom Watson or anyone else be of greater signifacance than Ken Venturi's triumph in the '64 Open?

Subjective views are one thing; IMHO this is just a case of writing an article to generate noise and sales.

As to the original question, it is going to be interesting to listen to that interview after reading all of these comments and seeing if I can remain objective!

[Kevin_Reilly]

Hey, I didn't write the list!  Send a letter to the editor!  

[David Wigler]

As to the original question, it is going to be interesting to listen to that interview after reading all of these comments and seeing if I can remain objective!

Philip,

We have been debating Miller's comments on the Jim Rome show.  I have not heard the interview mentioned in the first post.  If you want to hear it, you could go to

http://www.jimrome.com/home.html

I think they will want a fee to hear it.

[Dan Herrmann]

IMHO, Miller's 63 gives him the right to be arrogant  

[ChipOat]

Rick Shefchik has it right.

I spent a fair amount of time with John (as he prefers to be called) Miller for about 12+ years that included his prime.  He has always been the first to admit that he just doesn't filter very much of what he thinks before he says the words.  I believe that John is sincere when he says that he really doesn't dislike anybody - he's just speaking his mind.

I have 3 other observations based on my experience.  First, before there was Fred Couples, John Miller was absolutely not happy about the intrusions on his normal life that are part-and-parcel with being the #1 golfer.  And this was 1975 - BEFORE golf exploded.  Think about what Tiger has to cope with!  Like the Peggy Lee song, "Is That All There Is?", John saw the top of mountain and decided he didn't like the price that comes along with the view.  What's wrong with that?

Second, John has always cared way more about his family than anything else.  Not that Jack Nicklaus didn't, but JN decided the BS was worth it - JM decided it was not.

Third, with all due respect to Fred Couples and David Duval, John has done an awfully good job of re-inventing himself when the fire went out.  Fred's got his fire back and Duval may yet rise again, but Miller's gone from (arguably) best golfer to (arguably) best golf analyst.  How good is that?

He calls it as he sees it on TV - just as he's always done before he got paid to do so.  Why wouldn't he do the same thing about himself?  We should expect him to be someone OTHER than John Miller when talking about Johnny Miller??

[George Pazin]

chipoat -

Those are all interesting points, and I thank you for sharing your personal observations of JM with us.

The only thing I'd say in response to your comment about John Miller speaking forthrightly about Johnny Miller is that, like it or not, I think most believe it's up to history and other people to evaluate a person, not that person. Would you put much credence in how I thought of myself as a GCA poster, or would you place more weight on what other posters say or what you yourself might have observed? I think this is the crux of David Wigler's point regarding Johnny's arrogance, as he sees it (sorry if I'm misreading you, David).

I've always been somewhat skeptical of people who simply claim to be speaking their mind, or say that they're simply being honest when they say something that others feel is inappropriate. One man's honesty is another's arrogance and still another's rude behavior. As an announcer, JM is certainly paid to be forthright, and I applaud him for this (though I often feel he tends to overstate his opinions and the intelligence behind them). I'd rather listen to him than many others. I generally prefer a more tactful approach when someone's not being paid to be colorful, but I suppose that reflects the manner in which I was raised more than anything else.

I'm still waiting for those who accused David Wigler of bashing JM to explain why JM's allowed to freely speak his mind, while David's isn't.

[David_Tepper]

Gentlemen-

It is VERY interesting how these threads develop at times! Starting with a reference to an interview Johnny Miller gave on KNBR Radio in San Francisco, this thread has touched on Greg Norman's ability as a driver of the ball to the rankings of the greatest rounds of all time to the fact that John Daly has won as many majors as Miller.

I am a little curious - how many of you (aside from RJ Daly)that have posted on this thread actually listened to the interview Miller gave on KNBR? I honestly don't care either way, but I thought the discussion on this thread would be about what Miller actually SAID in the interview (about Tiger's swing problems, choking, pro golfers' egos, etc.) rather than a discussion about Johnny Miller's career, personality & accomplishments as a golfer.

Personally, I found his observations and opinions expressed in the KNBR interview to be thoughtful, engaging and refreshing. Clearly, he is a bright guy and he is genuinely interested in the role he now has in the world of golf. My sense is he puts as much hard work and pride into what he now does in golf as he did when he was a player.

One may or may not agree with his opinions or appreciate the manner in which he sometimes expresses them. On the other hand, I do not think anyone can deny that he has earned the authority with which he speaks.

DT    

 

[Brad Klein]

This thread is evidence of why Miller is such a good TV announcer. People notice what he says and respond. It's far less important that people like him than that people notice him, and since there are roughly enough people who welcome his insights as find them to be abrasive and intrusive, he's able to sustain his presence and NBC benefits from the audience. He's undeniably competent and adept, so unlike Dennis Miller on Monday Might Football, he at least has something of value to say about the game he covers and isn't there just to make noise.

I find him annoying and overly impressed with himself, especially when he generalizes about a phase of his 20+ year playing career. But I saw him out there first hand in the mid-1970s and what he did to other players. For a 3-4 years stretch he struck his irons at a level of accuracy and consistency that surpassed anyone in the history of golf. Does that make him the greatest player of all? Well, not exactly. But for 3-4 years, he played at a level that no one has ever surpassed. His arc was spectacular, and then he fizzed out. But man, he turned some heads back then.

By the way, Norman's undoing was never his driver; it was his iron play under pressure. He generally blew tournaments hitting approaches from the middle of the fairway.

[TEPaul]

When Johnny Miller was hot, on that streak of his that lasted until he started chopping wood (literally) to get stronger, he probably should be considered the greatest iron player ever. Martinez would give him the EXACT yardage and it was eerie how well and how often Miller could dial it right in.

I'm not that familiar with exactly how he did it shot for shot, but I agree the 63 at Oakmont to win the US Open has to be one of the great electrifying rounds in the history of championship golf.

[TEPaul]

George Pazin said;

"The only thing I'd say in response to your comment about John Miller speaking forthrightly about Johnny Miller is that, like it or not, I think most believe it's up to history and other people to evaluate a person, not that person."

GeorgeP;

Apparently Winston Churchill didn't agree with you. He was once asked how he thought history would treat him and he said he thought history would treat him exceptionally well particular since he planned to write it himself!    

[Brad Klein]

TEP, for about a 2-year stretch, caddie Andy Martinez was giving Miller distances to the half yard. There were times out in the desert when he was hitting his irons so purely that Miller would seemingly hit the wrong club just for kicks or to drive his fellow golfers nuts. There's be a 190-yard par-3 witha crosswind, and the others would be thinking 6-iron and he'd get up and hit about a half-speed 4-iron, and then the other guy would go out and hit a 5-iron about 40 yards over the green.

[A_Clay_Man]

Proffessor, Don't you think that "half-yard" stuff was for show too? Perhaps more intimidation-like speak?

While I will never have your depth of experience, the picture I took away from PGA tour caddies, was that their yardages were rarely that accurate.

Now that gps is around, I could see where accuracy in yardage could be alot better. But if the AT&T is any example, these guys are not that good (caddies) on getting precise yardages.

[Michael Moore]

This is good information for the younger generation.

There was one incident where Nick Price missed a couple of five footers and Miller said "Jeez, I know how Nick feels. When you're  knocking it to five feet all day, you feel like you should make all of them."

I see now that he has the right to say that.

[A_Clay_Man]

MM- How about a few years back when Tiger had a shot, out of the hairy grass, over a bunker's lip. JM called it a "Muffburger" and because he has such a good boy image, nobody said squat.

If it were anyone else, they'd never be heard of again.

[Brad Klein]

Sorry, Adam but guys back then who were good players knew the difference in a yard or two - or as Vostinak points out above, they "felt" they needed to feel like it mattered. By the way, the caddies were very uneven and having a good one made a big difference. Today there's a lot less skill in being a caddie. We'd practice our paces on baseball fields to make sure we walked from home to first in 30 steps - something I still measure my steps by to stay accurate, even if I don't hit a golf ball that well.

I was Bernhard Langer's first U.S. caddie, in 1981-82 for a few events. I first got him at the '81 World Series, and when I told him I had converted all of my yardages to meters by multiplying by .90, he corrected me by saying that it was was .91 and I had to recalculate. Another time in practice I told him a shot was 160. he hit it two yards past the hole, measured it himself with his wheel, and told me it had been "only 158." They knew.

[A_Clay_Man]

Wow, That is amazing.

How come there's never been an accuracy controversy?

[David_Tepper]

Now this thread has turned to Bernhard Langer!

When Peter Coleman resigned as Langer's caddy after 20+ years, he was quoted as saying "He was too demanding. We had arguments over one meter in 200."  

These guys know their yardages.

[ForkaB]

These guys know their yardages.

Yes....but how many times have you seen Bernhard, or Johnny or whoever consistently hit the ball within even 2 yards of landing point "A" on the green?

If Bernhard could hit 'em like he wanted to, he'd not have ever lost a tournament, even with the yips!

[THuckaby2]

David:

I just got through listening the the entire interview - both parts - thanks for posting the link.  I listen to Ralph & Tom nearly every day, but missed this when it was on.

The interview "worked" - I now want to go get Miller's book!

Beyond that, I have no problem with anything Miller said.

TH

[Tony_Chapman]

I love Johnny Miller, but he annoys me at times ("Rog, this is kind of a slice putt he has down there, huh?) but his honesty is what makes him great.

I won't ever forget the stuff in the 1996 Open and how everybody was watching Love and Lehman, but Jones just kept in there and he kept saying it hole after hole. No one else would touch it because everybody wanted the other guys to win. He was saying watch out for Jones by like the 7th hole and kept after it until the end.

I remember how he would go into distinct detail about Jones' "reverse overlap" grip for all shots because of that bike accident. It was great. My favorite is when he would describe the drive for the 18th there at OH. "You have to hit a hook shot to a slice fairway to have any chance of keeping in the fairway."

He is a great man with words.

[ChipOat]

George Pazin:

Blunt people are usually more impolitic than is good for them in life.  IMO, your suspicions about such people are generally well placed.  Some of those people achieve enough that they're tolerated.

I wholeheartedly agree that Miller is equally forthright about his own failures as he is about 1) the shortcomings of others and 2) his successes.

I believe you need not cast a jaundiced eye towards John Miller in this regard.

[George Pazin]

Having spent about 20 minutes alone, face to face with Mr Miller last year I found him to be very confident, almost fanatical about what he believes.

Sounds like some of us.

I'm with Rich (just this once!) - I don't think any of those guys are that accurate. It's just a confidence thing.

David Tepper -

Sorry if my comments about Norman sidetracked the thread - sometimes it just fun to talk and argue over silly things.

chipoat -

No jaundiced eye, just a cautious leer.

[John_Conley]

When my buddy qualified for the Open at Hazeltine,

Who's your buddy, Ed Humenik?

[Adam_F_Collins]

David,

Thanks for the link.

I found John's comments about Tiger working with O'Meara and Hank Haney to be very interesting.

I might take some flak for this, but I've been saying for a while that I believe Tiger's close friendship with O'Meara to be great for his handling fame, but bad for his game. I've found that he often seems to lose his edge when partnered with O'Meara in Tournaments - maybe relaxing too much; being too much at ease with his friend...

Tiger looks up to O'Meara, and now seems to be getting input from him on his game. I think that's not the greatest idea. O'Meara has played some good golf, but he's never been on the same planet as Tiger. He plays a different kind of game and I think him being Tiger's 'second set of eyes' is only making things worse.

Johnny Miller points out some interesting ideas about this collaboration. As we all know, the golf swing is an ever-evolving work-in-progress. Tiger's going in some risky directions with O'Meara's input.