I loved Trevino's style. He was the ultimate con man on the course. He would lull you in to believing he was just out for a good time and a leisurly day of golf, and then would go in for the kill. He fooled Jack many times, and pretty much had his number in most of their head to head matchups. Mentally golfers were just tougher back then. It made up a lot for some of those quirky swings. I don't believe the pampered PGA players today are nearly that tough mentally. Maybe a few of the European/South African players who had a little tougher upbringing. But that's about it.
Taylor will argue that fact with you, but thats why those past golfers are HOF's, they were mentally tough. Sure, now they can hit 25-40 yards farther with better technology, and supposedly in some cases have better swings, but outside of Tiger and maybe sometimes Phil, these guys today couldn't compete with the mentally tough Watsons, Trevinos etc. And everyone knows, how much of golf is "mental "
As far as Trevino is concerned, I thought the guy was a asshole when my wife and I were following his group for a couple of holes in a senior event in Kanapauli one year. Very rude when people approached him for autographs on 18
i put $100 on him at 25/1at my book.....i admit, i'm probably throwing money away with that, but if he somehow won this week with those odds i'd be kicking myself cause if he wins, your not gonna see that number ever again. my guess is he finishes somewhere in top 11-20.
bo van pelt played well last year hear and is the best american this year so far. i like van pelt, jason day and (sergio since putting isnt critical here) for guys with some better odds
as far as current players i think will be in or are already in hall of fame in the tiger era, since red eye thinks the hall of fame will no longer exist....
greg norman, ernie els, phil, tiger, jim furyk, rory, dustin johnson, jason day, kj choi, retief goosen, david toms, steve stricker, vijay singh, lee westwood, graeme mcdowell, davis love iii.....hell i'm probably leaving some out and some of those 20 somethings still have some work to do, but those are my predictions........
golfers are better today and the fields are a million times deeper than they were years ago, its a really stupid arguement to think golfers have regressed with time
greg norman, ernie els, phil, tiger, jim furyk, rory, dustin johnson, jason day, kj choi, retief goosen, david toms, steve stricker, vijay singh, lee westwood, graeme mcdowell, davis love iii.....hell i'm probably leaving some out and some of those 20 somethings still have some work to do, but those are my predictions........
golfers are better today and the fields are a million times deeper than they were years ago, its a really stupid arguement to think golfers have regressed with time
I dont agree that golfers are better today. There are many more good golfers than there were years ago which is the reason the fields are deeper. The reason for this is very simple. There is 50 times the amount of money to be won now than there was years ago. Golfers now a days can hit the ball farther and straighter than years ago, but thats not because they are better, its because they have better equipment. Just look at the senior tour and see how much farther those guys are hitting it now than they were when they were younger. You could almost make the argument that they are better now than they were years ago, but in reality they just have better equipment...
ok, then take the equipment away and they still have the same, better swings in todays game.....todays players have alot more swing speed, they are stronger. alot of the players that are currently playing started out playing with wooden drivers as well. its ridiculous to think the players havent gotten better
I didn't say the HOF doesn't exist anymore, damn your touchy when it comes to Tiger's era. Actually forgot VJ, he gets into the HOF. But some of those other golfers you mentioned sure have some work to do. Some haven't even won a major yet or most likely won't. Your reaching with some of those names. Those players don't even compare to the 2nd level guys like Floyd, Couples, Crenshaw, and Miller, maybe not even Andy North or Curtis strange level either. Outside of, Tiger and Phil, do you honestly think the group of players you mentioned are on par with Palmer, Watson, Nicklaus, Trevino, Faldo, Norman,and Player ? MOST OF THE GAME IS MENTAl, and having the will to win. Having a so called better swing and hitting it farther helps but come on man....... Not saying golfers have regressed, but they aren't any better then Jack's generation. Bigger fields doesn't mean better fields either.
In almost every Sport, We see highs and lows. It doesn't mean that today's athletes are better or worse but there is no denying that We go through highs and lows in every sport. Boxing has been going through a low since the era of the Haglers, Leonard, Hearns, Duran and of course the Ali and Frazier era. Senseless to argue that there hasn't been a lag along the way. Tiger's earlier years of dominance did not feature many HOF golfers and for that matter the foreign invasion has been more of a recent developement also. I always resent the sentiment that all of today's athletes are far superior to yesterday's athletes. It isn't fair to the Wilts, Russells, Baylors, Oscar Robertsons, Johnny U, Bart Starrs, Pistol Petes, Mark Spitz, Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, etc etc. Better equipment, better training facilities and also better drugs and steroids to some degree have all improved the stats of today's athletes in all sports. However We must remember that if all those advantages were available to yesterday's superstars, perhap their accomplishments would far out pace today's athletes in some sports including golf.
If you think image doesn't mean EVERYTHING to the PGA tour then your living in the dark ages. The Moe Norman swing doesn't go over well on tv. That's why Norman was never excepted by the tour into their little club when he played. But you can ask any of the veteran PGA pros who played in his day, and they will all say he hit the most consistenly straight ball in golf.
Again Mr. moody, no one is saying golfers are getting worse, there is just no evidence that the quality of the fields are any better., definatly not at the top of the field. Like I said, Tiger is the larry Holmes of golf, dominated an era that didn't have HOF golfers. He was great, no doubt and #2 of all time
Jack did not dominate when Faldo and Watson were in their prime. He just happen to still be playing when they were playing. When Watson was winning, Jack couldn't touch him in the early 80's. Faldo won all his Majors in late 80s and 90's and did not play in a Major in the U.S during the 70's. Jack won his Majors basically in the 60's and 70's with 2 in the 80's. They were winning Majors and Jack would slip in 1 every now and then. Those are Facts, we all wanted Jack to win just like we want Tiger to win. Those 2 guys won more tournaments during their time playing with Jack than he did playing with them. So don't include these guys saying Jack dominated them during their time when he didn't. There is a big age gap, but I know you are doing what you can to make your argument stronger but it is what it is...
my argument is that their are alot of great players before the Tiger era that are in ther HOF. Most of them were in Jack's era, certainly more then Tigers era. Watson and Nicklaus had some famous battles for major championships, I guess you didn't see the US Opens and the British opens when both Watson carded two 65's and Nicklaus had 65 and a 66. You can't say that now with the crop of players in the last 15 years. My Jack argument is he won 18 majors, Tiger has 14.
