Thoughts on The Masters

Cafe Society
41

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
I do not care about his religion. I care that he thinks his golf game is so important Jesus will see to it that he wins.
[/QUOTE]

I couldn’t agree with you more. Thinking that jesus is there to make sure atheletes and actors do their best is just a kick in the face to real tragedies going on in the world.
And if he really feels this way maybe he will use all his winnings to help those who are abused, starving, hurting. But instead I’ll probably see him in a nice mcmansion and new cars.
He got on my “putz” list with that comment.

42

[QUOTE=Hampshire]
I couldn’t agree with you more. Thinking that jesus is there to make sure atheletes and actors do their best is just a kick in the face to real tragedies going on in the world.

[/QUOTE]

See, as much as I dislike this guy’s shout out to Jesus, I don’t think he necessarily meant some imaginary being carried his shots on the wings of angels, or conjured up gusts of wind to adversely affect his competitors. I can well imagine that he is merely thanking his imaginary friend for the fact that he finds himself leading such a wonderful life, experiencing such good fortune.

In fact, I can imagine that experiencing success at such a level might make the idea of supernatural forces more appealing. I could imagine it being hard to think your tremendous success just a matter of good fortune and hard work. Why are YOU so much more deserving than some guy grinding it out on the mini-tours, not to mention some poor schmuck who just had the misfortune to be borne in the Sudan?

Doesn’t mean I want to hear about it, tho.

43

Amazing to me how both threads discussing the Masters have (apparently inevitably :frowning: ) ended up discussing the fact that the winner wears his religion on his sleeve, with several people vocally against having to hear that. Can’t understand why such antipathy; no one complains when the winners talk about all sorts of other equally irrelevant influences, or make all sorts of generally inane comments (to say nothing of the really inane questions from the reporters doing the interviews). Yeah, he mentioned Jesus. So what? If you don’t want to hear mention of Jesus in your life, go live somewhere where Christians aren’t a predominant part of the population. Otherwise, how about a little tolerance? :slight_smile:

As for the rest of the thread, I will point out two things:

  1. Jack Nicklaus thoroughly dominated the 60’s and 70’s, in much the same way Tiger did. Palmer won very little after '64, Trevino had occaisional success, Miller had two great years and not much else, and Watson came at the end of Jack’s reign. The current “dominance” of Tiger isn’t that much different, and, indeed, it lacks one aspect of the Nicklaus era: Tiger never comes from behind on the last day to take it away from you (like Jack in '75 at Augusta, for example).

  2. Professional golfers have been living comfortably on their non-winning results ever since the late-70’s. This was the knock against Tom Kite, that he was happy to take the money for 2d place and didn’t care that much about wins (fair or not). It was this assumed approach to golf that was used to explain why he only ever won one major (and that one a bit of a freakish result, helped tremendously by an extremely lucky hole out on #7). Similarly, everyone used to trash Greg Norman for the same idea, that he wasn’t driven to win, simply to play well and see what happens. So this isn’t something new at all.

I suggest that anyone who ascribes to this theory watch old film of Byron Nelson and Sam Snead. Neither was a particularly “driven” person, in the sense of intensely emotional on the course. Yet no one suggests that either was not motivated by winning. Perhaps the David Duval’s of the world are driven to win, but have learned not to throw clubs over it? Perhaps instead of trashing Retief for his unflappable demeanor (the interview after he was done should have shown everyone how upset with himself he really was), or for the fact that he played #13 to avoid disaster (notice that Feherty tried to trash Johnson for the same sort of choice at the same hole, but had to back off when Johnson trundled in his birdie, which, by the way, was the winning putt, truth be told), we should simply accept that part of why Goosen is so good is because he puts his emotions on hold on the course, and lets his drive to win be the reason he practices and plays to the point that he is as good as he is?

44

My bitch is the coverage was a lot shorter. Then of course we need an hour of Masters play from 1960. When they were picketed ,the masters gave a lot more coverage.

45

[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
Similarly, everyone used to trash Greg Norman for the same idea, that he wasn’t driven to win, simply to play well and see what happens.
[/QUOTE]
I thought his attitude was marvelous, and was exemplified by his famous quote: “Happiness is a long walk with a putter.”

46

[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]

  1. Jack Nicklaus thoroughly dominated the 60’s and 70’s, in much the same way Tiger did. Palmer won very little after '64, Trevino had occaisional success, Miller had two great years and not much else, and Watson came at the end of Jack’s reign. The current “dominance” of Tiger isn’t that much different, and, indeed, it lacks one aspect of the Nicklaus era: Tiger never comes from behind on the last day to take it away from you (like Jack in '75 at Augusta, for example).

[/QUOTE]

As dominant as Jack was for the better part of 2 decades, it seems to me that Tiger has accomplished more - in terms of wins and majors - in a shorter period.

I fully agree that none of the players I listed really challenged Jack throughout his prime, but it seemed that at least during short periods there was at least one other golfer - and often a couple - who could match Tiger shot for shot coming down the stretch.

Nicklaus’ Masters’ dominance was from '63 through '75, with his win in ‘86 an outlier. Player won 3 jackets during Nicklaus’ prime from '61 through '78.

Look at it another way. Of the 6 golfers with the most majors wins, there are 3 golfers whose careers have considerable overlap. Nicklaus with 18 majors from '62 to '86, Player with 9 from '59 to '78, and Watson with 8 from '75 to '83.

Tiger is sitting on 12 majors between '97 and '07. No other player has won more than 3 majors during Tiger’s reign.

What modern golfers provide as much competition for Tiger as Player, Miller, Trevino, and Watson provided Nicklaus - even if for only a brief period as Miller? Duval? Everyone thought he’d be the shit, but it didn’t turn out. Vijay? Probably the closest, but I don’t remember any down-to-the wire dramas. Els? Davis? Sergio?

Might have been interesting if Payne were still with us.

I’ll readily acknowledge that I found the late 80s early 90s pretty boring, when there was no dominant player. I mean, when you are looking to Nick Faldo for excitement…

47

I’d say the only apt comparison is Watson v. Nicklaus. After all, Tiger has won his majors over a 10 year time span, and over any given 10-year span against Nicklaus, the haul of Player or anyone else was relatively much smaller. And Watson’s result is abnormally skewed by a) his predominance in the British Open and b) the fact that most of his reign came after Nicklaus had started his slide.

Also, and this is not an argument against your thesis, but must be considered, there were relatively fewer people out on tour at all who had a chance to win any given Sunday. This interferes with the dominance by a few at the top.

Still, it would be more exciting from a rivalry standpoint if Mickelson or someone would rise up and start being a strong second fiddle to Tiger. That, indeed, is missing, try as they might to talk about the Top 5 or anything of the sort.

48

I really don’t see anybody in the field who can match Tiger. I think there will have to emerge someone new. Tiger is pretty much the Michael Jordan of golf, and nothing will stop him but his own aging process or another prodigy.

49

[QUOTE=Liberal]
What a great tournament. A classic, almost magical venue. The best golfers in the world. Congratulations to Zack Johnson, a charming young man who earned his green jacket the hard way! The Masters. My, oh, my…

Bless his heart, though. His name sounds like it was made up by a bad writer outlining a bad novel. :smiley:
[/QUOTE]

Jack Johnson: John Jackson’s proposed 3 cent titanium tax goes too far!

John Jackson: Jack Johnson’s proposed 3 cent titanium tax doesn’t go far enough!

50

DSY - I freely admit that my recollections might be clouded as a BIG Gary Player fan in my youth. And Weiskopf was the player who repeatedly broke my little heart.

51

[QUOTE=Dinsdale]

Might have been interesting if Payne were still with us.

[/QUOTE]

Still here, recently beat Tiger as well… (on the Wii, anyway)

(no, I’m not that payne, but I am A Payne)

52

[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
DSY - I freely admit that my recollections might be clouded as a BIG Gary Player fan in my youth. And Weiskopf was the player who repeatedly broke my little heart.
[/QUOTE]

In fairness to Gary Player, comparisons are very, very difficult. Gary was a globe-trotter at a time when no one else did that. His record world-wide is much more impressive than most Americans realize; I’d be more impressed if Gary Player wasn’t such a self-promoter and didn’t have such a sizeable chip on his shoulder about the fact that Americans pay it no attention. :smack:

What Player would have accomplished if he had done like Jack and limited himself to 20 or so events, focusing on the majors and staying mostly in one country, no one will ever know. He certainly was among the top three or four players in the game in the 60’s, that much is true. :slight_smile:

Now Tommy, well, there was Mr. Second Place and he probably wishes he could have managed to slice Jack’s hamstrings at some point. :smiley:

True story: In 1982, during a practice round for the US Open at Pebble Beach, I was following Jack, who was playing with Weiskopf. They got to 18, and they both unleash massive drives. Tom tries to reach the green first, and yanks his three-wood into the ocean left. Jack lands a high, soft 1-iron on the center of the green, and sinks the eagle putt. I knew then and there Weiskopf was done for the tournament. T-39, according to Wiki. :wink:

53

[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]

  1. Jack Nicklaus thoroughly dominated the 60’s and 70’s, in much the same way Tiger did. Palmer won very little after '64, Trevino had occaisional success, Miller had two great years and not much else, and Watson came at the end of Jack’s reign.

[/QUOTE]

Not quite. During the period from 1966 to 1970, the dominate Tour player in terms of overall wins (though not majors) and money list positions wasn’t Nicklaus, but Billy Casper.

Palmer won 18 PGA Tour events in the nine years between 1965 to 1973, which isn’t exactly chicken feed.

54

While we’re having such a good time here…

Anybody else think that Gary Player’s desire to play more than 50 Masters is ummm… a missed opportunity to show some real class and respect for Arnold?

I mean, wouldn’t it be nice if he called it quits now and he and Arnold both shared the record? His decision to play on seems petty. Jack (almost 5 years younger than Gary) could have done the same thing but he saw no point in it.

55

[QUOTE=Governor Quinn]
Not quite. During the period from 1966 to 1970, the dominate Tour player in terms of overall wins (though not majors) and money list positions wasn’t Nicklaus, but Billy Casper.

Palmer won 18 PGA Tour events in the nine years between 1965 to 1973, which isn’t exactly chicken feed.
[/QUOTE]

Well, now, as to Casper. In the years 66 to 70, he won 19. Nicklaus won 16, including four majors. Casper was first on the money list twice, Nicklaus once. Casper had a good five years, better than Jack, but not what one would call “dominant.”

And yes, Palmer wasn’t exactly dormant over the years '65 to '72, but no majors in that spell. His best golf was over. too bad, because I think he and Nicklaus head to head for a longer period would have been awsome!

56

Thoughts? Yeah, I got some (hopefully not something that’ll drag this to the Pit).

Although I don’t necessarily like the idea of someone coming out of nowhere to win a major, which can hurt the credibility of the sport and often doesn’t benefit the winner’s career one bit (anyone remember Paul Lawrie?), I can’t help but be happy at Zach Johnson’s win. Simply because it proves that in sports, there are no free rides. Yes, the Rockets won back-to-back championships, one of them WITH an active, healthy Michael Jordan in the league. Yes, Buster Douglas knocked out Mike Tyson. Yes, Dan O’Brien failed to qualify for the '92 Olympics and sent an entire multimillion-dollar ad campaign crashing to a halt (oh, and when Dave Johnson stumbled early and nearly didn’t even make the podium, that wasn’t so good either). It’s a welcome reminder that no matter what, every so often something you’d never expect happens.

Am also grateful for every tournament Tiger doesn’t win, because whenever he does win, I don’t hear a single thing I haven’t heard 500 times before. Greatest golfer ever! Jordan! Most dominant athlete in the world! Jordan! Better than Federer! Never chokes in the final round! Super! Awesome! Clutch! I’m sick of this. Even worse, there’s never a word about his frankly unimpressive opposition. (Look, if Phil Chokelson is your competition, you have no competition.) If he were a more engaging personality or, well, took a stance on an issue every so often, maybe I could get behind him. As it is, count on me to be rooting for a lot more 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th place finishes for him. What the heck, it’s not like he doesn’t have a ton of those already.

Glad things eventually shook out the way they did. This is the Masters. It’s supposed to be tough. Don’t think Goosen should’ve played it that safe, but I’m not the one out there in front of the gallery with hundreds of thousands of dollars on the line.

Don’t particularly care for the “Jesus helped me win” bit, but as long as he didn’t preach for three minutes, I can let it slide. I mean, athletes have been giving credit to undeserving entitites for decades now. Silly, maybe a bit annoying, but nothing worth getting riled up about.

Oh, and re. getting paid to play golf, don’t forget that players have to pay for all of their expenses; the tour doesn’t comp anything. With airfare, accomodations, equipment maintenance, the cost of a caddy, etc., it’s quite a bit, and don’t forget that the ones that miss the cut get nothing. Sure, it’s the good life for some, but as far as I’m concerned, they can have it.

57

[QUOTE=DKW]

Oh, and re. getting paid to play golf, don’t forget that players have to pay for all of their expenses; the tour doesn’t comp anything. With airfare, accomodations, equipment maintenance, the cost of a caddy, etc., it’s quite a bit, and don’t forget that the ones that miss the cut get nothing. Sure, it’s the good life for some, but as far as I’m concerned, they can have it.
[/QUOTE]

Nothing but a few rounds at Augusta National, a golf course I will probably never get to play on. Nothing to sneeze at, you know. (Although I don’t know that I’d have jumped at it this year - even yesterday we went out and played a bit and it was way too cold for me!)

58

[QUOTE=DKW]

Oh, and re. getting paid to play golf, don’t forget that players have to pay for all of their expenses; the tour doesn’t comp anything. With airfare, accomodations, equipment maintenance, the cost of a caddy, etc., it’s quite a bit, and don’t forget that the ones that miss the cut get nothing.
[/QUOTE]

How many players do you thing reported earnings in excess of $1 million in '06?

93

How much do you think number 150 on the earnings list made?

$495K

Assume 30 percent goes to taxes (ever wonder why so many golfers live in FLA? Hint, it aint just for the weather and golf courses!) Takes your million down to $ 700K.
Rough standard is 10% of gross for caddies, and 10% for agents. Knock another $200K off your net and you’ve got 93 players netting a cool half mill from on-course earnings alone. I don’t know about you, but I think I could buy a few supersaver fares on Southwest for $500K.

Realize these are all sole competitors, most likely incorporated. All of their travel, caddy costs, lessons, and other expenses are deductible business expenses. I’m not sure of housing allowances, but the top tier certainly get comped cars, meals, and top notch entertainment while at a tourney.

Also, this is on-course earnings alone. They aren’t dressed as walking billboards simply out of the good of their hearts. And there are the appearance fees for corporate events and such.

And I don’t understand what you mean by “equipment maintenance.” It’s not as tho Nike is going to send Tiger a bill for reshafting that iron he wrapped around that tree.

I agree, the life of a pro struggling to get and keep his card would he very tough for anyone other than a single, young kid just having fun times for a year or two. But if you are able to finish in the top 100, for a few years in a row, you not only have a mighty fine life IMO, but are pretty much set for life as well.

There are a number of books that discuss the specifics of what goes into life on tour. Exactly why high finishes are important in terms of exemptions into other big tourneys, relieving a player from needing to qualify for weekly tournaments, as well as opening up additional avenues for earning such as sponsors, appearance fees, etc. In some ways, the exemptions resulting from winning can be more important to these guys than the dollar amount of the purse.

59

I will interpose some thoughts on Tiger Woods:

  1. Do not blame Tiger for the media adulation. Don’t root against him because the media treat him like the best sports person ever. He cannot control that, and he doesn’t buy into it himself. The only “good” thing about Tiger not winning is that it shows that there are those who can compete against him and win. But, frankly, for the last four years, we’ve known that anyway (Chris DiMarco certainly knows it). And I tell people all the time in sports: do not root against people; root in favor of their competitors. Positive thrust versus negative thrust. Yes, the Tiger is Great campaign can be a bit annoying (ok, more than a bit: was I the only one who thought the start to Sunday’s program seemed to be an annointing of a winner before the day even happened?). But that’s good reason to turn the sound down on the TV, not to dislike Tiger himself.

  2. Tiger’s competition is just as good as there ever was. It is quite incorrect to assert that Tiger wins so much because he’s not playing against anyone worthwhile. Tiger blew Pebble Beach away with a golf display so impressive that it will never be duplicated anytime soon. That wasn’t his competitors being weenies. The same can be said about Tiger at Augusta National in 1997. And Tiger owns the record score in relation to par for all four majors (sharing the PGA one). That’s not his competition being chokers. Still, Tiger has deficiencies. Never winning a major championship from behind in the last round makes him a less-accomplished golfer than Nicklaus, in my opinion. But Tiger’s wins aren’t all, or even in the most part, due to a bunch of uncompetitive golfers on the tour. Even Jack in his prime was not so dominant in every aspect of the game; Tiger in Jack’s era might well have blown the best golfer to evey play the game away with regularity.