Discussion:
who dominated golf before Tiger?
(too old to reply)
Matt 'Big Dog' Aamold
2003-08-16 05:57:15 UTC
Permalink
Faldo and Norman both stand out
Was there a dominant golfer on the PGA Tour before Tiger Woods, and
after Nicklaus and Watson?
RB.
Not so quick
2003-08-16 06:16:30 UTC
Permalink
Nick Faldo.
Was there a dominant golfer on the PGA Tour before Tiger Woods, and
after Nicklaus and Watson?
RB.
Big Z
2003-08-16 14:53:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Not so quick
Nick Faldo.
Was there a dominant golfer on the PGA Tour before Tiger Woods, and
after Nicklaus and Watson?
RB.
Irwin, Langer, Strange, Woosie, and Olazabal ... that's definitely one
of the knocks on the Tiger era: not counting Vijay, Ernie and
possibly Weir, Tiger's era is mostly remembered for the Phil, Monty,
and Davis show; the talented player, secure in that talent, their
money, and their place in the world; but with no apparent burning
desire to be the absolute best in the game ...

in Faldo's era you definitely felt the animosity and desire to be the
best on the part of his opposition; Strange, Langer, Norman, Price,
Olazabal, and Woosie, *all* wanted to knock Nick's block off and were
able to do so on occasion. in Tiger's era the only guy who seems to
want a piece of him is Vijay; even Ernie will go into the press
conference and give it the "Tiger's the best" routine ...

Irwin was more a part of the Watson era but a Hale "type of player"
would never have conceded anything to Tiger. If you graft Hale's mind
onto Phil's talent, Tiger might still have a lot of majors in the bag
but you'd have a lot less of the Tiger Woods *hype* machine. Tiger
needs a suitable foil in the same way that Faldo had Norman and
Connors had McEnroe in tennis ...
"\"R&B\"" <SLAM_SPAM_THANK_YA_MA'AM>
2003-08-16 15:38:17 UTC
Permalink
I agree with much you've said here, but I would qualify it somewhat in this
manner. I don't think Phil Mickelson lacks the hunger to win that you
allege. I just think that the comparison you made between him and Hale
Irwin was slightly off-base in this way: It's not Irwin's DRIVE that you'd
need to instill in Phil. Its his COURSE MANAGMENT skills. That's what's
hurt Phil as much as anything else. And yesterday (Friday) was a prime
example. From essentially the same spot on the 5th hole, Lefty tried to hit
it over the water and didn't make it, leading to his first double-bogey of
the day. When Tiger hit his ball there, he didn't hesitate to lay up.

What's so ironic about this (to me, anyway) is that Mickelson is a wizard
with his wedge. I'd think with his ability to stick it close with a wedge,
he'd be more apt to lay up, knowing that by doing so, he'd be playing to one
of his game's strengths.

But alas, he seems to have a blind spot there.

Randy
====================================================
Voiceovers for commercials, industrial narrations, training videos,
corporate "on-hold" messaging, radio and TV station imaging, etc.
Audio and video production. www.brownmedia.net
====================================================
Preserve your life story for your children, grandchildren and future
generations of your family with a Video Biography. See what it's
all about at www.YourVideoBio.com.
====================================================
Post by Big Z
Post by Not so quick
Nick Faldo.
Was there a dominant golfer on the PGA Tour before Tiger Woods, and
after Nicklaus and Watson?
RB.
Irwin, Langer, Strange, Woosie, and Olazabal ... that's definitely one
of the knocks on the Tiger era: not counting Vijay, Ernie and
possibly Weir, Tiger's era is mostly remembered for the Phil, Monty,
and Davis show; the talented player, secure in that talent, their
money, and their place in the world; but with no apparent burning
desire to be the absolute best in the game ...
in Faldo's era you definitely felt the animosity and desire to be the
best on the part of his opposition; Strange, Langer, Norman, Price,
Olazabal, and Woosie, *all* wanted to knock Nick's block off and were
able to do so on occasion. in Tiger's era the only guy who seems to
want a piece of him is Vijay; even Ernie will go into the press
conference and give it the "Tiger's the best" routine ...
Irwin was more a part of the Watson era but a Hale "type of player"
would never have conceded anything to Tiger. If you graft Hale's mind
onto Phil's talent, Tiger might still have a lot of majors in the bag
but you'd have a lot less of the Tiger Woods *hype* machine. Tiger
needs a suitable foil in the same way that Faldo had Norman and
Connors had McEnroe in tennis ...
Big Z
2003-08-16 22:09:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by "\"R&B\"" <SLAM_SPAM_THANK_YA_MA'AM>
I agree with much you've said here, but I would qualify it somewhat in this
manner. I don't think Phil Mickelson lacks the hunger to win that you
allege. I just think that the comparison you made between him and Hale
Irwin was slightly off-base in this way: It's not Irwin's DRIVE that you'd
need to instill in Phil. Its his COURSE MANAGMENT skills. That's what's
hurt Phil as much as anything else. And yesterday (Friday) was a prime
example. From essentially the same spot on the 5th hole, Lefty tried to hit
it over the water and didn't make it, leading to his first double-bogey of
the day. When Tiger hit his ball there, he didn't hesitate to lay up.
I don't think you can separate the "drive" from the "course
management." Phil and John Daly are driven to entertain and be
popular with the fans while Tiger is driven to win. if Tiger is
popular with the fans it's to the extent that people always admire a
winner and like to be associated with one; Tiger fans remind me of New
Yorkers or Louisianans who like the Dallas Cowboys or Oakland Raiders
because the alternative is the Jets or the Saints. "course
management" doesn't always make for entertaining, exciting golf: who
wants to see Hale or Scott Hoch cover every possibility within the
rules to win? could you imagine Phil or John waiting for the next day
to hole the winning putt the way Scott Hoch did earlier this season
when it was getting dark with the playoff in progress? I can picture
Tiger doing that type of thing though, if he had made the calculation
that the odds were better the next day he'd do it and be happy with
the win, Phil and John simply don't think that way, they let the fans
influence their drive to win by letting the fans affect their course
management choices.

the other curiousity is that if you give Phil John Daly's two majors
or give John Phil's success in the regular tour events you've got a
bona fide Tiger class player. John and Phil have the same affliction,
they'd rather entertain with exciting play rather than win with a
boring attrition style of play, even though they're capable of it
given their putting and short games which complement their length,
Phil in the majors, John in the weekly birdie fests.

Tiger is capable of swashbuckling but if given the choice he'll take
the win every time. the example I'd use is another old school player
who hasn't been mentioned in this thread, Hal Sutton. when Hal was
facing down Tiger at Saw Grass Tiger knew that Hal knew that Tiger
just wasn't going to do it this week no matter how lucky Tiger
sometimes can be. Vijay is the same way, when he has Tiger on the
ropes, you just know that he enjoys playing around with him and you
also know he ain't gonna blow it ...

with Ernie, Phil, and Davis you just know that they're waiting for
Tiger to hole the wedge on 18 to beat them ... so they either beat
themselves before it gets to 18 or else they let Tiger hang around
until he actually does hole the wedge ...
SMarkH
2003-08-17 19:38:44 UTC
Permalink
I don't think Phil Mickelson is in the slightest bit interested in
entertaining he wants to win a major so much. The only problem is, he
doesn't have "the game" to win a major. "The game" is not confined
simply to being able to hit all the shots it is being able to hit the
shots when they matter. He just hasn't got it between the ears.
Howard Brazee
2003-08-18 14:44:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMarkH
I don't think Phil Mickelson is in the slightest bit interested in
entertaining he wants to win a major so much. The only problem is, he
doesn't have "the game" to win a major. "The game" is not confined
simply to being able to hit all the shots it is being able to hit the
shots when they matter. He just hasn't got it between the ears.
He certainly could use Tiger's brain - but he does have the 2nd best score ever
in the PGA championship. That indicates he has what it takes to win one.
dsc
2003-08-18 20:09:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Brazee
Post by SMarkH
I don't think Phil Mickelson is in the slightest bit interested in
entertaining he wants to win a major so much. The only problem is, he
doesn't have "the game" to win a major. "The game" is not confined
simply to being able to hit all the shots it is being able to hit the
shots when they matter. He just hasn't got it between the ears.
He certainly could use Tiger's brain - but he does have the 2nd best score ever
in the PGA championship. That indicates he has what it takes to win one.
That's not what it takes. If it were, he's have a fist full of majors.
What it takes is the lowest number after 4 days...
dsc
2003-08-18 20:08:06 UTC
Permalink
Tiger's not beating anybody this week. Tomorrow will be another major
championship Sunday where the leaders won't be looking over their shoulders
fearful that Tiger may be lurking. No way he can catch 'em.
Not sure about the logic behind your equating "hunger" with "course
management." I think the two can be easily separated.
There are plenty of guys who are hungry, but just have a stubborn streak
that doesn't enable them to make the patient decision. And therein may lie
the key. To have good course management skills, one must be incredibly
patient, especially in major championship golf.
Given the repeated frustration Phil Mickelson has experienced in majors,
it's not hard to understand why he may have grown increasingly impatient.
His clock is ticking, and his best years may soon be behind him. He's had
any number of great chances to win majors, and it's hard to imagine that an
equal or greater number of equally good opportunities lie ahead.
Frankly, I saw similar play out of Tiger this week, perhaps borne of
frustration from his desire to pull out one major this year. I think
they've both been pressing.
That would make more sense if Phil were saying things like... "I try
to play smarter and use better coure management, but I'm just too
impatient". That's not his line. His line is "I'll do it my way or not
at all." Looks like it will be not at all. He is purposely skuttling
his own ship. Just doesn't make sense.
Larry St. Regis
2003-08-18 22:27:46 UTC
Permalink
It seems like he enjoys playing the way he
does more than he thinks he would if he
changed his approach with the possibility
of winning. Or maybe he just thinks that he
will eventually reap the rewards of sticking to
his game plan until he is really convinced
otherwise. I've heard that about therapy,
that you can't ever get well if you're changing
your own personality every day. It's like a
moving target, especially if you don't believe
in the changes.
I don't think Phil's changed his personality at all, really. He's always
been a full-steam-ahead player, with all guns blazing. On some courses, he
can get away with it ... on others, he can't.

Unfortunately, it's the Majors where his very aggressive style doesn't fit
quite right. In other tournaments, he's able to rip a driver into the rough
and still have a chance to get up and down. In the majors, if you're not in
the fairway, you're not in the tournament.

Believe me, I like Phil. I think the reason he has such a fan base is that
he takes the same chances on the course that *we* would take were we in the
same position! "No guts, no glory" seems to be his motto, and I say, "go for
it!"

Larry

Mr. Toast
2003-08-18 05:49:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big Z
Post by Not so quick
Nick Faldo.
Was there a dominant golfer on the PGA Tour before Tiger Woods, and
after Nicklaus and Watson?
RB.
Irwin, Langer, Strange, Woosie, and Olazabal ... that's definitely one
of the knocks on the Tiger era: not counting Vijay, Ernie and
possibly Weir, Tiger's era is mostly remembered for the Phil, Monty,
and Davis show; the talented player, secure in that talent, their
money, and their place in the world; but with no apparent burning
desire to be the absolute best in the game ...
I took up golf in the early 90s. I remember getting irate with Dan
Jenkins on behalf of 'my generation' of pros. Jenkins always critized
the pros for being for being made soft by an all-exempt tour. He said
they lacked the competive drive of pros in his day. I thought he was
just an old fogey suffering from a bad case of generation gap. Well,
that's what I thought before Tiger came along. Then I learned that
Jenkins was right and I was wrong.

Faldo, Ballesteros and Langer are all great players, but they aren't
even in Watson or Arnie's class, let alone Jack or Tigers.
dsc
2003-08-18 19:58:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Big Z
Tiger
needs a suitable foil in the same way that Faldo had Norman and
Connors had McEnroe in tennis ...
He has one now... himself.
Chris Bellomy
2003-08-16 06:24:54 UTC
Permalink
Robert Bruce <***@sunnet.org> wrote:
: Was there a dominant golfer on the PGA Tour before Tiger Woods, and
: after Nicklaus and Watson?

Not in their class, there wasn't.

Faldo was probably the best of that era. Behind him were
Ballesteros, Price, and Norman. Otherwise it was mostly
a succession of moments for various golfers, the best of
whom, at their peaks, were probably Stewart and Strange.

cb
Bogey
2003-08-16 10:52:28 UTC
Permalink
Johnny Miller, Johnny Miller......
Was there a dominant golfer on the PGA Tour before Tiger Woods, and
after Nicklaus and Watson?
RB.
Big Z
2003-08-16 14:28:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bogey
Johnny Miller, Johnny Miller......
Was there a dominant golfer on the PGA Tour before Tiger Woods, and
after Nicklaus and Watson?
RB.
yes Miller; he definitely was one of the dominant players during the
leisure suit era of golf. he was also someone who while he was in his
salad days respected the week-to-week events (rather than just hunting
majors like Nicklaus, Norman, Faldo, and Woods seemed to do). in a
Nancy Lopez kind of way, he used to win just about every week while
firing at the pins in a David Duval sort or way. in fact Miller and
Duval seem to be similar streaky sorts of players; although David kind
of flamed out while Miller simply did a slow burn.

Miller also won a US Open by shooting a massively, obscenely low score
on the final day, stuff like that doesn't happen by accident, it was
almost the equivalent of Duval's 59 on the final day but on a much
harder track. my impression is he *still* hits a mean ball, he just
has this *thing* about putting: yippie, yappie, yahooie. to me
putting seems to be an unfortunate plague on golf; look at how pure
strikers like Miller and Hogan are routinely humiliated with the same
score as Faxon even though their route to the green had so much more
style and pure shotmaking involved ...

you also have to admire the way Miller turned it on and off at the
drop of the hat to prove an occasional point: as a senior he dropped
in for a *regular* tour Pebble Beach Pro-Am and *won* the thing
against the best players in the world. as a commentator he takes a
lot of gratuitous hits from the fans; he gets OUT there and love him
or hate him he has you talking about him. in that respect he's a
little like Howard Cosell but unlike Howard, Johnnie played the game
so you have to give him even that much more respect IMO. Johnnie is
old school and evidently not a big fan of *senior* golf either: he's
definitely not soft on the Lietzke and Fleisher type of senior tour
golfer; i.e. the part time "casual" big tour player, full time, "money
machine" senior tour golfer, especially when he compares those types
of players to all-time, full time greats like Watson and Irwin ...
Alan Campbell
2003-08-16 19:14:55 UTC
Permalink
r.southeast.rr.com>...
Post by Bogey
Johnny Miller, Johnny Miller......
Was there a dominant golfer on the PGA Tour before Tiger Woods, and
after Nicklaus and Watson?
RB.
yes Miller; he definitely was one of the dominant players during the
leisure suit era of golf. he was also someone who while he was in his
salad days respected the week-to-week events (rather than just hunting
majors like Nicklaus, Norman, Faldo, and Woods seemed to do). in a
Nancy Lopez kind of way, he used to win just about every week while
firing at the pins in a David Duval sort or way. in fact Miller and
Duval seem to be similar streaky sorts of players; although David kind
of flamed out while Miller simply did a slow burn.
Miller also won a US Open by shooting a massively, obscenely low score
on the final day, stuff like that doesn't happen by accident, it was
almost the equivalent of Duval's 59 on the final day but on a much
harder track. my impression is he *still* hits a mean ball, he just
has this *thing* about putting: yippie, yappie, yahooie. to me
putting seems to be an unfortunate plague on golf; look at how pure
strikers like Miller and Hogan are routinely humiliated with the same
score as Faxon even though their route to the green had so much more
style and pure shotmaking involved ...
you also have to admire the way Miller turned it on and off at the
drop of the hat to prove an occasional point: as a senior he dropped
in for a *regular* tour Pebble Beach Pro-Am and *won* the thing
against the best players in the world. as a commentator he takes a
lot of gratuitous hits from the fans; he gets OUT there and love him
or hate him he has you talking about him. in that respect he's a
little like Howard Cosell but unlike Howard, Johnnie played the game
so you have to give him even that much more respect IMO. Johnnie is
old school and evidently not a big fan of *senior* golf either: he's
definitely not soft on the Lietzke and Fleisher type of senior tour
golfer; i.e. the part time "casual" big tour player, full time, "money
machine" senior tour golfer, especially when he compares those types
of players to all-time, full time greats like Watson and Irwin ...
Miller wasn't a senior when he won at Pebble Beach in 1994, he would be
46 or 47.
--
Alan Campbell
http://members.lycos.co.uk/greensman
jeffc
2003-08-16 12:55:17 UTC
Permalink
Was there a dominant golfer on the PGA Tour before Tiger Woods, and
after Nicklaus and Watson?
No, not really.
Chris S
2003-08-16 14:47:55 UTC
Permalink
Nick Price was very good for a couple of years.

Chris S.
Was there a dominant golfer on the PGA Tour before Tiger Woods, and
after Nicklaus and Watson?
RB.
"\"R&B\"" <SLAM_SPAM_THANK_YA_MA'AM>
2003-08-16 15:18:28 UTC
Permalink
You left out one player who was a bona fide "dominant" player: Johnny
Miller. Only problem with Miller's domination was that it was short-lived.
His star burned brightly, but burned out quicker than that of Watson,
Nicklaus and others thought to be "dominant" players. But he did
legitimately dominate in much the same way Tiger has, if for only for a few
years.

But since the early 1980s, it's hard to pick out a single player who
dominated for more than a year or two. Nick Price is the closest thing
you'll find. See for yourself...

Players with 3 or more victories in a single season, starting in 1970:

1970 - 4 - Billy Casper

1971 - 5 - Lee Trevino
4 - Jack Nicklaus
3 - Arnold Palmer

1972 - 7 - Jack Nicklaus
3 - Lee Trevino

1973 - 7 - Jack Nicklaus
4 - Tom Weiskop, Bruce Crampton

1974 - 8 - Johnny Miller
3 - Hubert Green, Dave Stockton

1975 - 5 - Jack Nicklaus
4 - Johnny Miller
3 - Gene Littler

1976 - 3 - Hubert Green, Ben Crenshaw

1977 - 4 - Tom Watson
3 - Jack Nicklaus, Hale Irwin

1978 - 5 - Tom Watson
3 - Gary Player, Andy Bean, Jack Nicklaus

1979 - 5 - Tom Watson
3 - Lou Graham

1980 - 6 - Tom Watson
3 - Lee Trevino

1981 - 3 - Bruce Lietzke, Tom Watson, Ray Floyd, Bill Rogers

1982 - 4 - Calvin Peete, Craig Stadler
3 - Tom Watson, Ray Floyd, Lanny Wadkins, Bob Gilder

1983 - NONE

1984 - 3 - Tom Watson, Denis Watson

1985 - 3 - Curtis Strange, Lanny Wadkins

1986 - 4 - Bob Tway
3 - Fuzzy Zoeller

1987 - 3 - Curtis Strange, Paul Azinger

1988 - 4 - Curtis Strange
3 - Sandy Lyle

1989 - 3 - Tom Kite

1990 - 4 - Wayne Levi

1991 - NONE

1992 - 3 - Fred Couples, Davis Love III, John Cook

1993 - 4 - Nick Price
3 - Paul Azinger

1994 - 5 - Nick Price
3 - Mark McCumber

1995 - 3 - Lee Janzen, Greg Norman

1996 - 4 - Phil Mickelson
3 - Mark Brooks
NOTE: Tom Lehman captured Player of the Year honors in '96,
despite winning only twice. But he made those two wins count -- the British
Open and TOUR Championship.

1997 - 4 - Tiger Woods
3 - David Duval

1998 - 4 - David Duval

1999 - 8 - Tiger Woods
4 - David Duval

2000 - 9 - Tiger Woods
4 - Phil Mickelson

2001 - 5 - Tiger Woods
3 - David Toms

2002 - 5 - Tiger Woods

2003 - 4 - Tiger Woods, Davis Love III
3 - Kenny Perry, Mike Weir

It is worth noting that while Nick Faldo never won 3 or more times in a
single season on the PGA TOUR (which is where these stats come from), he did
more or less "lap the field" in major championship victories during a period
from the late 1980s thru 1996, when he captured six (three Masters, three
British Opens). And Colin Montgomerie, who has never won on the U.S. PGA
TOUR and has never been victorious at a major championship, did win the
European Tour's Order of Merit (leading money winner) for a record SEVEN
straight seasons.


Randy
====================================================
Voiceovers for commercials, industrial narrations, training videos,
corporate "on-hold" messaging, radio and TV station imaging, etc.
Audio and video production. www.brownmedia.net
====================================================
Preserve your life story for your children, grandchildren and future
generations of your family with a Video Biography. See what it's
all about at www.YourVideoBio.com.
====================================================
Was there a dominant golfer on the PGA Tour before Tiger Woods, and
after Nicklaus and Watson?
RB.
Dave
2003-08-16 17:35:21 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 11:18:28 -0400, "\"R&B\""
Post by "\"R&B\"" <SLAM_SPAM_THANK_YA_MA'AM>
And Colin Montgomerie, who has never won on the U.S. PGA
TOUR and has never been victorious at a major championship, did win the
European Tour's Order of Merit (leading money winner) for a record SEVEN
straight seasons.
Didn't Tiger actually beat him a few of those years by just
playing the majors and a couple other tournaments that count
toward the Order of Merit, but less than the minimum (10?)
required for official Order of Merit eligibility?
"\"R&B\"" <SLAM_SPAM_THANK_YA_MA'AM>
2003-08-16 17:47:06 UTC
Permalink
I don't recall if he did or not in a single season. If he did, it was after
Montgomerie had surrendered the Order of Merit title. It didn't happen
during that stretch of 7 years when Monty was the OOM winner.
--
Randy
====================================================
Voiceovers for commercials, industrial narrations, training videos,
corporate "on-hold" messaging, radio and TV station imaging, etc.
Audio and video production. www.brownmedia.net
====================================================
Preserve your life story for your children, grandchildren and future
generations of your family with a Video Biography. See what it's
all about at www.YourVideoBio.com.
====================================================


"Dave" <***@no.spam> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 11:18:28 -0400, "\"R&B\""
Post by "\"R&B\"" <SLAM_SPAM_THANK_YA_MA'AM>
And Colin Montgomerie, who has never won on the U.S. PGA
TOUR and has never been victorious at a major championship, did win the
European Tour's Order of Merit (leading money winner) for a record SEVEN
straight seasons.
Didn't Tiger actually beat him a few of those years by just
playing the majors and a couple other tournaments that count
toward the Order of Merit, but less than the minimum (10?)
required for official Order of Merit eligibility?
Dave
2003-08-16 19:16:50 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 13:47:06 -0400, "\"R&B\""
Post by "\"R&B\"" <SLAM_SPAM_THANK_YA_MA'AM>
I don't recall if he did or not in a single season. If he did, it was after
Montgomerie had surrendered the Order of Merit title. It didn't happen
during that stretch of 7 years when Monty was the OOM winner.
I think you must be mistaken, at least about 1999. Tiger
won the PGA, did well in the other majors, won the Deutsche
Bank, and won two million bucks at the two WGC events alone.
Monty's total earnings for that year were E1.8 million.
"\"R&B\"" <SLAM_SPAM_THANK_YA_MA'AM>
2003-08-16 20:32:29 UTC
Permalink
Could be.

But you can't count earnings from a single event as "official" on more than
one tour. That, I think, is what differentiates it.

Randy


"Dave" <***@no.spam> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 13:47:06 -0400, "\"R&B\""
Post by "\"R&B\"" <SLAM_SPAM_THANK_YA_MA'AM>
I don't recall if he did or not in a single season. If he did, it was after
Montgomerie had surrendered the Order of Merit title. It didn't happen
during that stretch of 7 years when Monty was the OOM winner.
I think you must be mistaken, at least about 1999. Tiger
won the PGA, did well in the other majors, won the Deutsche
Bank, and won two million bucks at the two WGC events alone.
Monty's total earnings for that year were E1.8 million.
Big Z
2003-08-16 22:40:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 11:18:28 -0400, "\"R&B\""
Post by Dave
Didn't Tiger actually beat him a few of those years by just
playing the majors and a couple other tournaments that count
toward the Order of Merit, but less than the minimum (10?)
required for official Order of Merit eligibility?
he probably did but it's a bogus statistic. the Euros are forced to
add the US Majors to their order of merit statistics so that they
don't run the risk of leaving Sergio, Bernhard, Jesper, Jose Maria,
et. al. off their Ryder Cup team (not to mention Van de Velde and
Faldo). if left to their devices Mark James and Sam Torrance would
have no problem stuffing the team with Andrew Coltarts but the powers
that be know that it's the former Euro tour stars who were able to
compete in the US that are needed to preserve the economic vitality of
the RC *and* of the European tour ...

by including the majors in the order of merit money they're also able
to dangle the occasional carrot; Sergio or Ernie or Retief might be
tempted to play an extra Euro tour event or two if an order of merit
is at stake and they've had a good majors campaign.
Big Z
2003-08-16 21:27:53 UTC
Permalink
Was there a dominant golfer on the PGA Tour before Tiger Woods, and
after Nicklaus and Watson?
RB.
another golfer of note here is Ballesteros ... so "R & B's" PGA tour
only perspective is skewed by Euros who either played worldwide
schedules or were limited by rules in effect at the time to playing
only a few events. Seve was definitely a brighter star than a lot of
those mentioned here with 3 or more PGA tour wins in a particular year
...

for example Seve's total of majors dwarfs Price's even though his star
has burned out earlier than Price's.
"\"R&B\"" <SLAM_SPAM_THANK_YA_MA'AM>
2003-08-16 23:47:48 UTC
Permalink
If I'm not mistaken, Seve has 4 majors. Two Masters. Two British Opens.

Price has three. Two PGAs and a British.

If four "dwarfs" three, then you're right. But I wouldn't characterize the
comparison in quite that way.

I will, however, acknowledge that you're quite right in suggesting that my
omission of Ballesteros on the list was an oversight. (Hey, i can't think
of 'em all!) <g> Six times the winner of the European Tour Order of Merit
(including 3 years in a row from '76-'78), Seve has clocked 56 EuroTour
wins, with all but ten of them coming before 1990. He also had 29 other
worldwide wins, including 6 on the American PGA TOUR (two Masters, two
Westchester Classics, one USF&G Classic, one Greensboro Open). So there was
certainly a stretch there when he was a threat to win anytime he teed it up.

Randy
====================================================
Voiceovers for commercials, industrial narrations, training videos,
corporate "on-hold" messaging, radio and TV station imaging, etc.
Audio and video production. www.brownmedia.net
====================================================
Preserve your life story for your children, grandchildren and future
generations of your family with a Video Biography. See what it's
all about at www.YourVideoBio.com.
====================================================
Post by Big Z
Was there a dominant golfer on the PGA Tour before Tiger Woods, and
after Nicklaus and Watson?
RB.
another golfer of note here is Ballesteros ... so "R & B's" PGA tour
only perspective is skewed by Euros who either played worldwide
schedules or were limited by rules in effect at the time to playing
only a few events. Seve was definitely a brighter star than a lot of
those mentioned here with 3 or more PGA tour wins in a particular year
...
for example Seve's total of majors dwarfs Price's even though his star
has burned out earlier than Price's.
ConnMoore
2003-08-17 02:57:54 UTC
Permalink
Subject: Re: who dominated golf before Tiger?
If I'm not mistaken, Seve has 4 majors. Two Masters. Two British Opens.
You are mistaken.

Seve won the British Open three times. 79, 84 and 88. He has five majors to
his credit.

He was also at the very top of the golf world for a much longer time than
Price, even though his playing career ended up being much shorter. From 1980
to about 1988, he was as feared as anyone in the game. I dont think Price is
close to Ballasteros in terms of dominance or importance to the game. (And I
like Nick Price a lot...one of my favorite players ever. I never liked Seve.)
"\"R&B\"" <SLAM_SPAM_THANK_YA_MA'AM>
2003-08-17 04:04:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by ConnMoore
Post by "\"R&B\"" <SLAM_SPAM_THANK_YA_MA'AM>
If I'm not mistaken, Seve has 4 majors. Two Masters. Two British Opens.
You are mistaken.
Seve won the British Open three times. 79, 84 and 88. He has five majors to
his credit.
He was also at the very top of the golf world for a much longer time than
Price, even though his playing career ended up being much shorter. From 1980
to about 1988, he was as feared as anyone in the game. I dont think Price is
close to Ballasteros in terms of dominance or importance to the game.
(And I
Post by ConnMoore
like Nick Price a lot...one of my favorite players ever. I never liked Seve.)
Fair enough. Although I would still argue that 5 doesn't exactly "dwarf" 3.
They were both fine players at their peak.

As I said before, my ommision of Seve's name from the list I offered was, as
was previously stated, due in part to the fact that I pulled the stats from
the PGA TOUR, not the EuroTour. And, I suppose, as Steve Martin might have
said -- I FORGOT. Okay? There's no question he was a dominant player on
the EuroTour. Less so over here, but he certainly deserves to be brought up
in any discussion about great players of his era.

Randy
====================================================
Voiceovers for commercials, industrial narrations, training videos,
corporate "on-hold" messaging, radio and TV station imaging, etc.
Audio and video production. www.brownmedia.net
====================================================
Preserve your life story for your children, grandchildren and future
generations of your family with a Video Biography. See what it's
all about at www.YourVideoBio.com.
====================================================
Big Z
2003-08-17 15:10:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by ConnMoore
Post by ConnMoore
Post by "\"R&B\"" <SLAM_SPAM_THANK_YA_MA'AM>
If I'm not mistaken, Seve has 4 majors. Two Masters. Two British Opens.
You are mistaken.
Seve won the British Open three times. 79, 84 and 88. He has five majors
to
Post by ConnMoore
his credit.
He was also at the very top of the golf world for a much longer time than
Price, even though his playing career ended up being much shorter. From
1980
Post by ConnMoore
to about 1988, he was as feared as anyone in the game. I dont think Price
is
Post by ConnMoore
close to Ballasteros in terms of dominance or importance to the game.
(And I
Post by ConnMoore
like Nick Price a lot...one of my favorite players ever. I never liked
Seve.)
Fair enough. Although I would still argue that 5 doesn't exactly "dwarf" 3.
They were both fine players at their peak.
As I said before, my ommision of Seve's name from the list I offered was, as
was previously stated, due in part to the fact that I pulled the stats from
the PGA TOUR, not the EuroTour. And, I suppose, as Steve Martin might have
said -- I FORGOT. Okay? There's no question he was a dominant player on
the EuroTour. Less so over here, but he certainly deserves to be brought up
in any discussion about great players of his era.
Randy
====================================================
Voiceovers for commercials, industrial narrations, training videos,
corporate "on-hold" messaging, radio and TV station imaging, etc.
Audio and video production. www.brownmedia.net
====================================================
Preserve your life story for your children, grandchildren and future
generations of your family with a Video Biography. See what it's
all about at www.YourVideoBio.com.
====================================================
Seve gets a lot of kudos for putting European golf on the map. when
the Euros got 15 or so invitations to this years PGA and are able to
cherry pick among the PGA events they want to play nowadays, they're
forgetting that it was Seve who had to fight the protectionist powers
that be in order to get that respect. he could never get 3 PGA tour
wins during a season since when he was at his peak of his powers he
was limited to just a few other PGA tournaments besides the majors as
a "foreign" invited guest (who just happened to be 1 in the world at
the time ...)
Colin Wilson
2003-08-17 11:22:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by "\"R&B\"" <SLAM_SPAM_THANK_YA_MA'AM>
You left out one player who was a bona fide "dominant" player: Johnny
Miller. Only problem with Miller's domination was that it was short-lived.
His star burned brightly, but burned out quicker than that of Watson,
Nicklaus and others thought to be "dominant" players. But he did
legitimately dominate in much the same way Tiger has, if for only for a few
years.
But since the early 1980s, it's hard to pick out a single player who
dominated for more than a year or two. Nick Price is the closest thing
you'll find. See for yourself...
You answered with US PGA Tour victories. But I thought the question was
"who dominated golf?", not just who dominated US golf. Just in case I
haven't mentioned this before ;-), golf is *not* restricted to the USPGA
Tour (otherwise you wouldn't even have cause yourself to mention Colin
Montgomerie).

I would have thought Greg Norman dominated golf before Tiger,
specifically from the mid-80s to the mid-90s (before his shoulder
ailment). Although he won only two majors in this time (count him very
unlucky in several others), he was almost continually on top of the
world rankings during this period. In fact his time at the top still
exceeds Tiger's in total weeks, although Tiger is rapidly closing.

Norman won 86 tournaments around the world in the two decade span
between 1976 and 1996 (as a comparison Faldo won 38). No other player of
the time comes close to that.

He also dominated golf in other ways ... his opinions, his
outspokenness, his business development, his "world tour" proposals, and
even his renowned differences with organisers such as Tim Finchem. ;-)
--
Cheers
Colin Wilson
------------------------------------------------------------------
RSG Roll Call: http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=wilsonc
Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Wilson
2003-08-18 02:27:31 UTC
Permalink
that comparison with Faldo is not really fair; Norman was the biggest
guppie shark in the smaller pond, the Aussie PGA just wasn't as
competitive as the Euro tour was in the era of Langer, Lyle, Woosnam,
Olazabal, and Seve. Eg. the Holden Aussie Open is held on a great
course and would have had the potential to be a great major but Norman
simply dominated it in the absence of all the other top stars of golf
(aside from the Aussies) ...
His Australian tournament wins certainly bias the figures ... 32 out of
the 86. However the other 54 were mainly on the USPGA and European Tour,
with a few others like the Japanese Tour thrown in.

Norman won the Aus Open five times during his peak from the mid-80s to
the mid-90s (he won his first in 1980). The other winners of that
time-span were Tom Watson (1984), Rodger Davis (1986), Mark Calcavecchia
(1988), Peter Senior (1989), John Morse (1990), Wayne Riley (1991),
Steve Elkington (1992), Brad Faxon (1993), Robert Allenby (1994) and Lee
Westwood (1997). Not *that* bad an opposition! The Aussies you put in
the "aside" list of that time weren't that bad either ... Marsh,
Baker-Finch, Elkington, Ogle, Grady, Parry and (later) Allenby.

BTW, Faldo has never won the Aus Open, even though he's played it a
number of times.
--
Cheers
Colin Wilson
------------------------------------------------------------------
RSG Roll Call: http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=wilsonc
Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Crispin Roche
2003-08-17 20:24:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by "\"R&B\"" <SLAM_SPAM_THANK_YA_MA'AM>
You left out one player who was a bona fide "dominant" player: Johnny
Miller. Only problem with Miller's domination was that it was
short-lived.
Post by "\"R&B\"" <SLAM_SPAM_THANK_YA_MA'AM>
His star burned brightly, but burned out quicker than that of Watson,
Nicklaus and others thought to be "dominant" players. But he did
legitimately dominate in much the same way Tiger has, if for only for a few
years.
But since the early 1980s, it's hard to pick out a single player who
dominated for more than a year or two. Nick Price is the closest thing
you'll find. See for yourself...
and with almost breath taking arrogance Randy says "if it ain't American
then Fuck it".

Nick Faldo with his 6 majors (a figure bettered by only 11 other players in
the history of golf) and his 30 other tournament wins from 1977 onwards puts
most of your list of "dominating" players to shame. Seve Ballesteros OTOH
only managed 5 majors (add Faldo and Trevino to the 11 who've done better
than Faldo) but then again he only managed to win 59 other events during
the period 1976 to 95.

Crispin Roche
"\"R&B\"" <SLAM_SPAM_THANK_YA_MA'AM>
2003-08-18 02:01:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crispin Roche
and with almost breath taking arrogance Randy says "if it ain't American
then Fuck it".
Now, why would you make such a nasty statement, Crispin? It was certainly
not my intention to imply any such thing.

Fact: Nick Faldo is a perfect example of a player who had limited success
on the US TOUR (although he unquestionably chose three biggies to win over
here). Most of his golf, and indeed, the vast majority of his career
victories were on the EuroTour, not in America. Yet I consider him the
closest thing there was to a dominant player of his era, and I've said so at
least once before in this thread.
Post by Crispin Roche
Nick Faldo with his 6 majors (a figure bettered by only 11 other players in
the history of golf) and his 30 other tournament wins from 1977 onwards puts
most of your list of "dominating" players to shame. Seve Ballesteros OTOH
only managed 5 majors (add Faldo and Trevino to the 11 who've done better
than Faldo) but then again he only managed to win 59 other events during
the period 1976 to 95.
I've already acknowledged that Faldo's 6 majors puts him in an elite class.
Any student of the game knows this, regardless of whether or not he won a
single other tournament on the American PGA TOUR (and for the record, he did
win several other times here).

I've already qualified my statements by saying that (a.) my list came from
US Tour stats, and (b.) that it was an oversight on my part to omit
Ballesteros from any list of "great" players of the modern era.

And by the way, just for the record, while you're nailing me to the cross
for omitting your beloved non-Americans from my list, it's worth noting that
you rarely have anything nice to say about American players. But you don't
hear me saying, "...and with almost breath taking arrogance Crispin says 'if
it ain't a non-American then Fuck it.'"

No, you don't. I have never said any such thing, nor would I. That was
uncalled for on your part.

We each have our own perspective, and I will certainly grant you that some
of the best players of the modern era played primarily on the European Tour.
Arguably. all but a couple of the greatest players of the
post-Watson/pre-Tiger era were non-Americans (though some have chosen to
live here). Greg Norman played for many years in Australia, and I omitted
him from the list, too. I would assume that anyone with half a brain would
have already thought of him as one of the elite players of his era, with his
I-forget-how-many-dozens-of-victories including two majors. I don't pretend
to be able to remember everyone, nor have I closely followed the European
Tour through the years -- heck, before the internet and until The Golf
Channel began carrying it a few years ago, there was no good way to follow
the Euro Tour over here. I'm not even sure it showed up in the sports
section of the newspapers until the past ten years or so. Still, my memory
is not so short to have forgotten that stretch during the '90s when everyone
in golf knew and was writing in periodicals about how the Americans were
consistently having their heads handed to them in majors by non-American
players, not to mention that stretch when the Euros dominated play in the
Ryder Cup.

No need to be nasty, Crispin. You were mistakenly reading into my article
an anti-Euro/anti-Aussie sentiment that just wasn't there. And in so doing,
you let slip an ugly anti-American sentiment that does not look good on you.

Randy
Crispin Roche
2003-08-18 10:17:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by "\"R&B\"" <SLAM_SPAM_THANK_YA_MA'AM>
Post by Crispin Roche
and with almost breath taking arrogance Randy says "if it ain't American
then Fuck it".
Perhaps "F*&k it" was a bit strong and I apologise for that but how you can
present a list comprising solely of players from the US Tour (and almost
entirely American golfers) and feel that you are adding to the debate on who
dominated golf before Tiger without looking at least patronising surprises
me.
Post by "\"R&B\"" <SLAM_SPAM_THANK_YA_MA'AM>
Fact: Nick Faldo is a perfect example of a player who had limited success
on the US TOUR (although he unquestionably chose three biggies to win over
here). Most of his golf, and indeed, the vast majority of his career
victories were on the EuroTour, not in America.
And the vast majority on your list had very limited success in Europe or
anywhere outside the USA. So what does that prove? Apart from the obvious,
or perhaps it isn't so obvious, that winning a professional tournament is
very hard and it only requires a few small unsettling things, like
travelling to other countries/continents and different cultures, to make
winning nigh on impossible. Compared to Faldo's 6 USA based wins, and
Seve's 7, the overseas success of the golfers on your list bar a few key
names is just non existent. And those names? Player,Palmer, Nicklaus,
Trevino and Watson in the early years, Woods in the later years and Norman
and Price in the middle.
Post by "\"R&B\"" <SLAM_SPAM_THANK_YA_MA'AM>
I've already qualified my statements by saying that (a.) my list came from
US Tour stats, and (b.) that it was an oversight on my part to omit
Ballesteros from any list of "great" players of the modern era.
And by the way, just for the record, while you're nailing me to the cross
for omitting your beloved non-Americans from my list, it's worth noting that
you rarely have anything nice to say about American players.
Actually I have very little to say about American golfers since I don't see
them play very often. I do, however, have things to say about a golfing
world view which doesn't extend east of the Atlantic coast, west of the
Pacific and south of the USA/Mexico boarder. And for a number in rsg north
of the USA/Canada boarder! And such an insular view isn't going to receive
any plaudits from me.

And I was going to write something along the lines of your next paragraph
Post by "\"R&B\"" <SLAM_SPAM_THANK_YA_MA'AM>
We each have our own perspective, and I will certainly grant you that some
of the best players of the modern era played primarily on the European Tour.
Arguably. all but a couple of the greatest players of the
post-Watson/pre-Tiger era were non-Americans (though some have chosen to
live here).
and there you have it "all but a couple of the greatest players of the
post-Watson/pre-Tiger era were non-Americans" so why was it so difficult for
you to say that in the first place instead of trotting out a list US PGA
Tour winners?

Crispin Roche
dsc
2003-08-18 19:57:14 UTC
Permalink
Was there a dominant golfer on the PGA Tour before Tiger Woods, and
after Nicklaus and Watson?
RB.
No... not really. There were several really good golfers (Seve,
Couples, Love, Norman, Price, Faldo, etc.) that popped up and took
turns winning. There was also Ray Floyd who as a near old-timer won
several times over a 2 or 3 year stretch. None were really dominant...
for more than a couple years anyway.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...