U.S. Open

[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

[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.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

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)

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by gales0678

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.

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by gales0678

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.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GPK

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.

[alysheba4]

Originally Posted by GPK

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.

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

[gales0678]

Originally Posted by GPK

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

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