U.S. Open

[GPK]

Marty, you are giving Miller too much credit. Yes he had about a 3 year stretch where he was awesome...but even he admitted this weekend on tv he was very inconsistent with his irons. He talked about taking it low every chance he got because his iron play was not very consistent.
I would take Watson's iron play over Millers.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by GPK

Marty, you are giving Miller too much credit. Yes he had about a 3 year stretch where he was awesome...but even he admitted this weekend on tv he was very inconsistent with his irons. He talked about taking it low every chance he got because his iron play was not very consistent.
I would take Watson's iron play over Millers.

that 3 yr stretch was the best anybody ever hit the irons ever , that to me put him in my group

all the picks i made are debeatable - i just don't think anyone ever had a better mindset for the whole game than jack and i don't think anyway was a better driver of the golf ball the greg norman - woods included

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by gales0678

that 3 yr stretch was the best anybody ever hit the irons ever , that to me put him in my group

all the picks i made are debeatable - i just don't think anyone ever had a better mindset for the whole game than jack and i don't think anyway was a better driver of the golf ball the greg norman - woods included

Woods driver would definately not be one of his strengths.. sure he can hit it a mile but until the past few weeks you could count on missing tons of fairways. His iron play, short game, putting and mental toughness are as good as anyones.. and his mind and jacks mind are very similar.... Woods grew up wanting to be Jack.

Jack would never miss an important putt on 18... now Woods is in that same catagory.

Last year should have never gone to a playoff... all Rocco had to do was make birdie on the par 5 18th.. where people could make birdie left and right.. to put the match away. He misses (not too many people have the balls to be able to sink a very important putt) and gives Woods the opportunity, which you knew he wasnt going to let pass by.

[slotdirt]

I was just thinking of the '02 PGA where Rich Beem made about 27 or so 30 footers to beat Tiger Woods. That was awesome.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

I was just thinking of the '02 PGA where Rich Beem made about 27 or so 30 footers to beat Tiger Woods. That was awesome.

it was , but , he was not playing with tiger that day mano a mano

to me the may/woods 18 holes + playoff was a epic battle that hasn't been topped , even last year's open

[GPK]

Originally Posted by gales0678

that 3 yr stretch was the best anybody ever hit the irons ever , that to me put him in my group

all the picks i made are debeatable - i just don't think anyone ever had a better mindset for the whole game than jack and i don't think anyway was a better driver of the golf ball the greg norman - woods included

When you talk about great drivers of the golf ball (in the modern era) there are really on 3 names that need to be mentioned.
#1 Greg Norman
#2 Jack Nicklaus
#3 Sergio Garcia

Whoever is #4 is such a distant 4 it really doesn't matter.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by GPK

When you talk about great drivers of the golf ball (in the modern era) there are really on 3 names that need to be mentioned.
#1 Greg Norman
#2 Jack Nicklaus
#3 Sergio Garcia

Whoever is #4 is such a distant 4 it really doesn't matter.

see kev we do agree on 1 thing


still waiting you opinion on putter and wedge player

[GPK]

Originally Posted by gales0678

see kev we do agree on 1 thing


still waiting you opinion on putter and wedge player

Putter I will have to say Ian Baker-Finch.

Wedges - Trevino, Phil Rodgers and Olazabal are the 3 that come to my mind.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by GPK

Putter I will have to say Ian Baker-Finch.

Wedges - Trevino, Phil Rodgers and Olazabal are the 3 that come to my mind.

don't you mean ian baker flinch

actually i would have to think seve would be pretty close to the top with the wedge and putter to , if he couldn't chip or putt he would never have won the madrid open

[GPK]

Originally Posted by gales0678

don't you mean ian baker flinch

actually i would have to think seve would be pretty close to the top with the wedge and putter to , if he couldn't chip or putt he would never have won the madrid open

Seve got by on guts and imagination. Probably one of the worst ballstrikers to ever make a living out there.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by GPK

Seve got by on guts and imagination. Probably one of the worst ballstrikers to ever make a living out there.

the up and down against watson in the '84 british open - simply amazing and then the bridie from the parking lot against nick price in the '88 open just remarkable

he could will the ball into the hole as good as anyone

[Rupert Pupkin]

It seems like things have really changed over the past 10 years or so. Back in the 1990s when you came to a major like the US Open, there were only about 10 guys or so that could win. Nowadays there are over 100 guys that could win. Maybe my memory is selective, but I don't remember a whole lot of guys winning US Opens in the 80s and 90s that only had one career PGA Tour win.

I don't know if this is good for the game or bad from the game. You could make arguments both ways.

Kev, what do you think? Why is it that there are so many guys that can win a US Open now as compared to 10 or 15 years ago? Is this good for the game?

[GPK]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

It seems like things have really changed over the past 10 years or so. Back in the 1990s when you came to a major like the US Open, there were only about 10 guys or so that could win. Nowadays there are over 100 guys that could win. Maybe my memory is selective, but I don't remember a whole lot of guys winning US Opens in the 80s and 90s that only had one career PGA Tour win.

I don't know if this is good for the game or bad from the game. You could make arguments both ways.

Kev, what do you think? Why is it that there are so many guys that can win a US Open now as compared to 10 or 15 years ago? Is this good for the game?

Hey Richie...hope you're doing well.

I think technology (especially the golf ball) has played a huge role in "leveling the playing field". I also think the development of the Nationwide tour has played a major role in the psychological aspect through confidence gained.

I also think the "second tier" players of today are better players than those "second tier" players from years past. I think they are more apt to catch lightning in a bottle (like Lucas Glover).

I'm not sure if this is good or not. Like you said, it could be argued either way.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

It seems like things have really changed over the past 10 years or so. Back in the 1990s when you came to a major like the US Open, there were only about 10 guys or so that could win. Nowadays there are over 100 guys that could win. Maybe my memory is selective, but I don't remember a whole lot of guys winning US Opens in the 80s and 90s that only had one career PGA Tour win.

I don't know if this is good for the game or bad from the game. You could make arguments both ways.

Kev, what do you think? Why is it that there are so many guys that can win a US Open now as compared to 10 or 15 years ago? Is this good for the game?

steve jones and scott simpson were not household names in the 80's and 90's but they got the trophy

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by gales0678

steve jones and scott simpson were not household names in the 80's and 90's but they got the trophy

I think Steve Jones had at least a few wins at the time. He may have even had 5 or 6.

Scott Simpson was a guy who always played well at the US Open.

Lucas Gover is a really good player but he only had one lifetime career win on the PGA Tour.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think Steve Jones had at least a few wins at the time. He may have even had 5 or 6.

Scott Simpson was a guy who always played well at the US Open.

Lucas Gover is a really good player but he only had one lifetime career win on the PGA Tour.

Simpson also had won about 6 times before he won the US Open in 87.

Best looking swings:

1. Miller Barber
2. Lee Trevino
3. Arnie

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Gander

I think Tiger is superb, but someone want to explain to me how you can possibly say that he didnt choke today and Phil did? Both missed putts all day long, and all of them were in key (clutch) situations. I'm sorry but in the last round of a major, someone want to tell me how missing a short putt on 11 isnt as much of a choke as it is on 16?

Cmmon, the best 2 golfers in the world both blew it today. End of story.
Ones got 14 and the other has 3, but one can easily argue both guys should have won this today.

That crap about A game, B game, C game is so overdone. Why only for Tiger? Does Phil not have an A, B and C game?

Hello!! This is why some of the lesser guys are now winning Majors with over-par final rounds.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by gales0678

listen tiger fans whether they like it or not still have to come to grips that he hasn't won a major when not leading after 3 rounds

that being said he is 14/14 when he has the lead after 3 rounds in a major and that is probably the greatest achievement in golf in and of itself .....they all have lost with leads after 3 rounds - jones, hogan ,snead , nelson, palmer , nicklaus, trevino , player - tiger has never lost 14/14 is simply remarkable

That's because the brother either can putt the greens, or he can't. He usually doesn't figure out greens that he struggles with on the 1st day.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GPK

Simpson also had won about 6 times before he won the US Open in 87.

Yes, exactly. That's what you would expect. If the top two guys don't win, you would expect someone to win that has won at least 4 or 5 times. That's what always made the US Open unique. It wasn't just any ordinary tournament that anyone could win. The conditions were so tough and the pressure was so great that there were only a handful of guys capable of winning. Now there are over 100 guys that can win.

It's great in the sense that it's nice to see an underdog win and we all like a Cinderella story. But by the same token, the thing that always made the US Open so prestigious was that it was so hard to win that there were only a handful of guys capable of winning.

So I don't know if it's a good or bad thing that there are so many guys capable of winning. I have mixed feelings about it.