What Nicklaus & Co. Really Think Of Golfers Today

'cept Tiger, of course. And to be fair, I don't think Vijay or Ernie fall into what the Boys are talking about. IMO Vijay can't do any better than he has[which is pretty damn good; he's just a horrible putter], and Ernie is still shell-shocked from 2000, though he did show signs of life at Doral this year. Certainly, the Masters was a total disaster for both of them.


http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/story?id=1396374

Grumpy Old Men.


I mean, please. Gary Player said he doesn't understand how the guy who finished second could say he was pleased with how he played.


Well the guy who finished second played 72 holes at Bethpage Black and finished even par. He played great. That guy also said while he played well, he wasn't satisfied, that if he expects to win with Tiger in the field he has to play better.

There's a difference between being pleased with how you played and being dissastisfied with the results.


We all know Gary Player hated finishing second, that's why he tried to cheat to win. I remember very well Tom Watson seeing him try to improve his lie in the first Skins Game. Watson's carefully worded statement (he must have had a lawyer draft it) after the event convinced most observors that it was true.


Phil putts much better than Trevino ever did. I know 3 people who have met Trevino and all agree he's a major league jerk. When the American contingent would go over to Britain for the open, Trevino would refuse to stay in the hotel with them or go to dinner with them. He wanted to be alone. No need to be jocular with no American TV cameras around.


I saw an interview after one of Nicklaus's Masters wins where he beat out Palmer, and after a couple of questions, Palmer excused himself, saying he had seen Nicklaus play all day, he didn't see anything to be gained by watching it again on tape. I suppose he wants the 2nd place finisher to act like a jerk like he did. He'd leave a golf tournament by limousine, picking the babe he wanted from the group that was presented to him. I suppose smoking on the course qualified as "discipline."


Nicklaus was the guy who, when needed to really get the senior tour going, said he had been beating these guys all his life, why should he have to do it again on the senior tour. In other words, I have my money (because of these guys), why should I help these other guys get theirs?


You don't play the game any more for shit, don't make he rules.

I agree with the old timers. When Tiger held the lead in the Open after the first day, I think most people knew it was over. In my opinion, there isn't anyone out there who can keep it all together for seventy-two holes of golf to put any pressure at all on Woods. He knows their wheels can, and will, fall off at any time.


Woods only won by three strokes, but it was never that close.


Tom D

I also thought it was over, but it had nothing to do with the players being wimpy, or the wheels falling off. Tiger simply plays better. He has more talent. Jeff Maggert can do the same things Tiger does in terms of practice, diet, exercise (and for all I know, he does), it won't matter. He simply won't be able to play as well.


The course was so tough I didn't think anyone would be able to get to 3 under and Tiger plays well enough that I didn't think he'd fall back to the field. Sam Snead and Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer didn't win so many tournaments because the other guys couldn't keep it together or were wimpy or didn't work hard: they played better. They had more ability.


And who, after all, were the old-timers competing against? I doubt the fields were as strong then as they are now. Did Tom Watson win 39 times and Bobby Wadkins never win because of the pressure or wimpiness? Watson blew plenty of tournaments, many more than Wadkins did. The difference was talent. Watson was in the hunt much more often.


The old-timers are worried Tiger's going to make a shambles of their records and they're trying to discredit his achievements by saying the competion stinks.


Bullshit.

Ouch! You're a bit rough on the old war horses. I don't know if they were classiest people of their generation (apparently not), but they were trying to win everytime they played. Today, you have Tiger Woods followed by a bunch of also-rans, IMO.


I remember hearing a story about Nicklaus trashing his room after losing a particular tournament. I don't say that a good thing, but maybe some of today's players could use some of that passion.


Tom D

These recent golf threads have really made me reconsider Phil Mickelson. I used to dismiss him with comments like "he doesn't care if he wins as long as he finishes top five on the money list" or "he doesn't want to win as badly as Tiger". Now let's assume the possibility that these statements are true. Is it that bad? Is it not admirable of him as a man, if not a golfer, considering how important he considers his family (not to mention the autograph seeking gallery)? Golf is a solitary sport. This isn't football where a lapse of concentration can result in your teammate getting maimed. Plus, it's not like he has a guaranteed contract. If he doesn't make cuts, he doesn't get paid. Simple. So does he owe anything to anybody? I say "no". I can't honestly say that I'd be driven to win a major when second place pays 580K and I've got a gorgeous wife and two young kids at home.

It bothers Phil plenty. And it would bother anybody. Maybe Phil hasn't translated his disgust into action, i.e. getting in shape, fixing his mental game, etc... Perhaps he's not hungry enough, Tiger certainly wants it more, but don't think Phil doesn't care. He's failing in front of everybody and doesn't like it. I have been a consistent Phil basher on some things, and don't think it's a certainty he will ever win a major, but I do give him some credit for coming back enough to finish second. He's not tanking and finishing 20th so nobody will notice. He's putting himself in position to be embarrassed again. He cares.

Like they say in boxing, "It's hard to get up at four in the morning to do your roadwork when you're wearing silk pajamas."


I don't disagree with what you're saying. I definitely think Woods is hungrier than the rest of the top players. He has my admiration; He's not only taking on today's players, but he's going after all the past champions.


By the way, I was pulling for Mickelson the whole tournament. AAARG!


Tom D

You're being kind of rough on the old guys. I think they're saying that the best part of Tiger's game is mental, and there's nobody even close.


Tom D

Is it admirable for Phil as a man to have those views (about winning, family, etc.)? I guess, but that doesn't change my view of him as a golfer.


Does he owe anything to anyone? Again, no. No more than I have to care if he's Mother Theresa off the course.


As a sports fan, I feel his attitude sucks. That's all. David Robinson is an angel, too, but I still detest him as a basketball player cause he's a puss. Its possible to respect someone as a human being, and dislike them and their attitude as an athlete.

Maybe those particular five were trying to win every time, but there were plenty of pros playing for a paycheck, who knew they couldn't beat Nicklaus or Palmer or Watson when they were at the top of their game, and were satisfied with a good paycheck. To say that things were better or even different in the good old days, well, that should be taken, IMO, with quite a few grains of salt. Phil has won almost as many PGA tournaments already as Player did in his entire career.

I am being tough on them. But they gave a press conference, so I think they probably expected reaction from louder quarters than here.


I agree with you that they're saying Tiger wins because he's the most mentally tough and the other guys are wusses/wimps. I think they're 100% wrong. Tiger wins because he plays better. Remember the 7 iron Tiger hit at Pebble Beach last year? No one else in the game can hit that shot. He didn't win by 15 strokes because he's mentally tough. He simply can play the game, by virtue of superior talent and training, much better than any one else can at the present time.


And that was just as true of Nicklaus and the others when they were in their prime. Was Tom Watson mentally tougher when he was putting well as when he was putting poorly? I don't think so. He had, by his own admission, just as much desire, and worked just as hard, he just couldn't do it any more. I watched him shoot 61 in a made for TV three-tour exhibition last year while he was joking around the whole round. And I saw him miss the cut in all the majors a couple of years ago. What does mental toughness have to do with those results?