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

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.

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

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:eek: :eek:


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.

don't you mean ian baker flinch:eek: :eek:

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

the avg golf fan that goes to these tournamnets would never be able to pick put scott or steve out on the street prior to them winning them open , just like they wouldn't be able to pick out lucas glover......now ray floyds , curtis strange , ernie els , and tiger ----couldn't walk on the street without getting bothered by even non-glofing fans

there are just MORE better players today , than ever before , that being said Jack Fleck did beat the best US Open player to ever play in the tournamnet in a 18 hole playoff which has to rank up there as the greatest upset in tournament history if not in all of sports history and prevented Mr Hogan from getting his record 5th title (others claim he has 5 from his win in the 1942 north/south open , dan jenkins wrote a piece about this once)

I agree with you. I don't think that there is any doubt that the fields are much stronger than they used to be. There are so many good players out there right now.

I'm sure that some people will crucify me for saying this, but I honestly don't think a guy like Lee Trevino would even be in the Top 100 if he were playing today. The players today are bigger, stronger, in much better shape, and they also have much better instruction. How could a guy like Lee Trevino compete with these guys on a 7400 yard golf course? I just don't see it.

my guess is lee trevino today would benefit from the technology of the golf clubs and golf balls - he would hit the ball farther than what he did in the past

i was much stronger at 25 than i am today at 36 ,yet i drive the ball at least 20 -25 yrds further , why is that , the golf ball is juicied and the drivers allow you to hit the ball further

if fred funk could win on tour in his late 40's , rest assured lee "buck" trevino would win today if he was in his 20's or 30's - he would probably hit it about 275 -280 off the tee , and he would still beat them with the wedge and putter , he proabaly only he it about 250 back in the 70's off the tee with them old wood clubs

You could be right. Maybe Trevino could have won today if he had all the new equipment. It's hard to know for sure in any sport how some of the past stars would do against the stars of today. My opinion is that the golfers on tour today are much better than the golfers of past years. That doesn't mean that some of the legends of the past could not do well today. I'm just saying that they would be facing much tougher competition today.

nice to see Rickey Barnes back on the leaderboard right after the us open

keep it up kid , make yourself another big check

Richie, I gotta disagree with you here. Trevino would make mince meat out of most of these guys today, especially if he had todays golf ball. See, guys like Lee, they know how to "play golf." A great majority of guys on tour today, especially the young ones, all they know how to do is hit it as far as they can off the tee and then wedge it on. Lee Trevino could hit shots in his prime that most of these kids on tour now couldn't hit in their best wet dream.

Nowadays, most guys are still close to their prime even at 49 years old. You see guys like Kenny Perry playing as well as ever. Was Lee Trevino still doing well on the big tour when he was 49 years old? That was back in about 1990. If my memory is right, I don't think he was very competitive on the big tour at that point. I think the reason is because the players were getting so much better. And today the fields are much deeper than they were back in 1990.

I disagree with your assessment that the kids today can't hit alot of different types of shots. Some of the shots I see these guys hit are incredible.These guys aren't afraid to open the blade and take a full swing on a 10 yard shot if they need to make the ball stop fast. Trevino may have been an incredible shot maker by 1960s and 1970s standards, but I have to question whether he would be considered an incredible shot maker by today's standards.

.....you clould not be any more correct. plus, GPK as you know the same held true with jack,miller,palmer ect....

Richie, you absolutely have to take the modern golf ball and the modern equipment into account. Kenny Perry has been the first to admit that the reason he is playing so well at such a late age is because of the golf ball and equipment. If these kids today played with the golf ball and equipment that Trevino, Jack, etc had to play with...they would get their asses handed to them.

You may be right. The equipment could be the main reason that these guys continue to play so well even at 50 years old. I would have thought the main reason was that the guys today keep themselves in such good shape. But then I look at a guy like Kenny Perry who does not work out and it makes me realize that the equipment may be a big part of it.

But I still think there are way more good players today than in the past. I think there are a number of reasons that the players are better today. First of all, golf is so popular these days and there is such big money in golf that it draws way more of the good young athletes. In the old days, there was no money in golf. Guys like Sam Snead had to work as club pros to supplement their income.

Nowadays there is huge money in golf so it attracts way more young athletes. These is way more competition today. When I was in high-school in the early 1980s, nobody played golf. I was about a 12 handicap in high-school and I was one of the better guys on the team. Today it would probably be hard to make the team if you were a 12 handicap.

Anybody on DT played Bethpage Black?.....or famous courses?

You would win tournaments in Inner City districts.
Many dont have teams.
Still a country club sport in HS.
Here anyway.