Norman- Mentally Weak?
Mark Koenig
: Even though Greg Norman is one of the best golfers in today's sport, has
: anyone else noticed that when it comes to the important shots, he seems to be
: a little shaky.
Here it goes....they guy wins and someone decides he's "shaky"...
Sheesh!
: Norman has all of the skills to win lots
: of tournaments but he usually makes too many costly mistakes on the back nine
: on Sundays that cost him a chance at victory.
If you have been watching closely, or at least close enough to comment about
Norman and his abilities, you will see that most of the time Norman will shoot
himself out of it on Saturday and then come back with an amazing low round
on Sunday, but the round on Saturday was just too high.
Leave Norman alone, he won, lot's of players had trouble with the course,
Norman cashed a $300K check. You didn't.
Good Putting!
Mark
--
Mark Koenig
Application Specialist, Technical Marketing
Convex Computer Corporation
Richardson, Texas
Gerardo P. Fragante
>while Norman has won only like 4. Norman has all of the skills to win lots
>of tournaments but he usually makes too many costly mistakes on the back nine
>on Sundays that cost him a chance at victory.
Yes, I strongly agree with you about Norman having all the skills to win lots
of Majors. The problem, even which Norman admits, is that he wants to be
aggressive on everything. To him, there is no holding back or playing safe.
However, this kind of thinking is unsuitable for Majors because as many have
said, those who win the Majors are the ones who are patient and commit the
least amount of mistakes.
I wonder why Norman, already recognized as one of the best players, still
wants to play all these aggressive shots. What is he trying to prove? He has
already proven he can play spectacular golf, so there is nothing else to
prove. It seems to me that on the outside, he wants to be always daring and
swashbuckling, but inside he is choking. Under such circumstances, the poor
fellow is only inflicting more pressure upon himself.
Perhaps he needs to read Rotella's and Cullen's "Golf is not a game of
perfect". And I wonder if Norman is man enough to admit that his thinking
could use some new perspectives.
GV
Jaewan Kim
: Torgesen (torg...@psy.fsu.edu) wrote:
: : Even though Greg Norman is one of the best golfers in today's sport, has
: : anyone else noticed that when it comes to the important shots, he seems to be
: : a little shaky.
: Here it goes....they guy wins and someone decides he's "shaky"...
: Sheesh!
: : Norman has all of the skills to win lots
: : of tournaments but he usually makes too many costly mistakes on the back nine
: : on Sundays that cost him a chance at victory.
: If you have been watching closely, or at least close enough to comment about
: Norman and his abilities, you will see that most of the time Norman will shoot
: himself out of it on Saturday and then come back with an amazing low round
: on Sunday, but the round on Saturday was just too high.
: Leave Norman alone, he won, lot's of players had trouble with the course,
: Norman cashed a $300K check. You didn't.
I don't think the original poster was dissing Norman or anything at all. On
the contrary, I think he is Norman's fan. He just wishes Norman could improve
on what he think is his weakness and dominated the tour not just winning a few
tournaments.
: Good Putting!
Adam Buckley
: I wonder why Norman, already recognized as one of the best players, still
: already proven he can play spectacular golf, so there is nothing else to
: prove. It seems to me that on the outside, he wants to be always daring and
: swashbuckling, but inside he is choking. Under such circumstances, the poor
: fellow is only inflicting more pressure upon himself.
: Perhaps he needs to read Rotella's and Cullen's "Golf is not a game of
: perfect". And I wonder if Norman is man enough to admit that his thinking
: could use some new perspectives.
Surely golf doesn't need another 'par golfing robot' on the tour ? I prefer
to see agressive play, even if it doesn't always win. It might also be
that Norman ENJOYS playing like he does. He hardly needs the money from
his wins.
In short, I'd rather watch him losing than many others winning.
Adam
Mike Marler
:> I have mixed emotions when it comes to Norman. But all in all I think he
:> is the best player on tour. He is always close to the top when it comes
I believe that he is still number 2 on the Sony rankings and yes, his
scoring average is excellent, and yes, he sometimes rips off 64-65's
in majors to get back in the hunt, and yes, I still have his Sunday
round on tape from the day he won The Open in what may be one of the
best rounds of golf that I have seen on TV recently. BUT, I just love
the fact that the world has quite a few excellent pros available for majors.
:> he will surely overtake him. As for him being a choker, I don't think any
:> golfer in history has had to face the series of miracle finishes that have
:> shaken Norman. He could have lost his composure but hasn't. In the Memorial
No, instead, he quit playing tourneys for a while due to "other problems"
and to recover and plan his Plan (TM). See also, Nick Price.
:> he was solid. When I look at the winners of majors, there is a long list
:> of winners that aren't in Norman's league. Winning a major today is a turkey
:> shoot. You have to be lucky, and Norman has had little or no luck at all -
:> starting with Sluman's miracle wedge shot. Outside of Faldo, Couples, and
:> Price the winners of majors I recall lately are players like Mize, Lyle,
:> Woosnam,Grady,Tway,Sluman,Daly,Baker-Finch,Langer,Olazabal, good players
:> but still I don't think as good as Norman.
Where is Ernie Els' name at in that list - he has a pretty big gun last
time that I saw him "shooting". :-) Bet he can hit a turkey...
--
Mike Marler Information Technology, Georgia Tech
mike....@oit.gatech.edu Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0715
Dane Arthur Ellis
is the best player on tour. He is always close to the top when it comes
average on tour since 1947.(68,81) His money winnings are second to Kite's;
golfer in history has had to face the series of miracle finishes that have
shaken Norman. He could have lost his composure but hasn't. In the Memorial
of winners that aren't in Norman's league. Winning a major today is a turkey
shoot. You have to be lucky, and Norman has had little or no luck at all -
starting with Sluman's miracle wedge shot. Outside of Faldo, Couples, and
Price the winners of majors I recall lately are players like Mize, Lyle,
Woosnam,Grady,Tway,Sluman,Daly,Baker-Finch,Langer,Olazabal, good players
but still I don't think as good as Norman.
D.E.
Donald S. Jackson
I think you have to factor in that Greg Norman has been beaten by
fantastic shots by other players in two Masters and a PGA. The
probability of this happening is very large. Try to name another golfer
who has lost three majors in this way.
--
===============================
Win a free trip to the Ryder Cup!
1- 900-420-8477
.99/min/ 2 min avg.
dj0.ganet.net
===============================
BHu...@sunbelt.net
>
>I think you have to factor in that Greg Norman has been beaten by
>fantastic shots by other players in two Masters and a PGA. The
>probability of this happening is very large. Try to name another golfer
>who has lost three majors in this way.
Hmmm, don't know. I remember that Jack was beaten by a Tom Watson
chip-in once at Pebble Beach. Surely that sort of thing has happened a
few other times in Jack's long career...
ROGER ELMORE
he OUGHT to win any more than anyone else. If he gets the shakes on the
back nine on Sunday, he's no different from anybody else playing for
that kind of money. Just remember, it was once a very big deal when
Arnold Palmer made more than 100 K in one year. Question is, is the tour
now comprised of dollar chasers, as compared lovers of the game who
happen to be good enough to make money at it? Arnie says he finishes his
daily business around 11 every morning so that he can get out on the
course sooner. Surely a lover of the game if there ever was one.
ROGER ELMORE
He practiced the luckier he got. Norman no doubt was incredibly
victimized on more than a few occasions by "lucky" shots that the shot
maker probably willed into the hole. Don't ever underestimate the level
the pros play at. As Yogi said, it ain't over 'till its over. Maybe
that's what has Norman spooked as he comes down the stretch on he last
day.
Dane Arthur Ellis
is the best player on tour. He is always close to the top when it comes
to the seasons best scoring average. He holds the record for the lowest
average on tour since 1947.(68,81) His money winnings are second to Kite's;
he will surely overtake him. As for him being a choker, I don't think any
golfer in history has had to face the series of miracle finishes that have
shaken Norman. He could have lost his composure but hasn't. In the Memorial
he was solid. When I look at the winners of majors, there is a long list
of winners that aren't in Norman's league. Winning a major today is a turkey
shoot. You have to be lucky, and Norman has had little or no luck at all -
Dane Arthur Ellis
Hmmm, don't know. I remember that Jack was beaten by a Tom Watson
chip-in once at Pebble Beach. Surely that sort of thing has happened a
few other times in Jack's long career...
Jeez, you can't compare Nicklaus beaten by a chip to being knocked of by the
equivilant of a hole in one.
Regarding the comment about Els. Yes he's good, but it is too early to judge
him yet.
As for world rankings, I'll still take Norman head to head in medal against
all comers.
D.E.
Donald S. Jackson
Huzza, Huzza.. I could not agree more...I got to follow Greg on Sunday
and the guy's game is one in which I am not familiar.
Dan King
>by the equivilant of a hole in one.
Which shot are you talking about? Mize and Tway both chipped
in, Mize from 150+ feet and Tway from a greenside bunker.
Perhaps your confusing it with Gamez's victory at the '90
Nestle. However, that wasn't a major.
So why can't we compare Watson's chip in to Mize and Tway's?
Watson's chip-in was a miracle shot, no doubt about it.
Nicklaus was before my time in golf, but the guy leads in second
place finishes by a healthy margin. I would guess a few of
those were lost on "miracle" shots. Anybody have examples
other than Watson.
And before we start moaning about Norman's sorry luck, if I
remember correctly he went into the final round of the 1986
PGA Championship with a healthy lead. His final round at
Inverness was something like 77, allowing Tway to be in
position for the miracle. He made poor shots late at the
'86 and '87 Masters to allow Nicklaus and Mize to catch him.
My feeling about those was that once he had the lead, he tried
to play conservatively, which really isn't his game. He
learned a lesson in '86 and '87 and now he continues to play
his game on Sunday. That is why he sometimes loses
tournaments on Sunday, such as the '93 Tour Championship and
almost lost last weeks Memorial. He also has potential to
shoot un-believable great rounds on Sunday, such as the '93
British Open.
He has also become one of the best putters inside 10 feet.
That has helped him tremendously.
Dan King
djk...@netcom.com
dk...@nas.nasa.gov
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I have always enjoyed Greg's attitude towards the game and his
desire to win and be the best.
--Jack Nicklaus, 1988 (On Greg Norman)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dane Arthur Ellis
... Mize from 150+ feet and Tway from a greenside bunker.
Perhaps your confusing it with Gamez's victory at the '90
Nestle. However, that wasn't a major.
And before we start moaning about Norman's sorry luck, if I
remember correctly he went into the final round of the 1986
PGA Championship with a healthy lead. His final round at
Inverness was something like 77, allowing Tway to be in
position for the miracle. He made poor shots late at the
'86 and '87 Masters to allow Nicklaus and Mize to catch him.
Dan,
Thanks for bringing up Gamez. That's one that most of us don't
remember. Tway sinking his sand shot on the last hole in 1986
and Mize holing from 150+ feet really outweigh a drained chip.And
it seems to me the pitch made by Mize was longer. In any event 150+
feet is 50+ yards. Your chances at that distance must be in the same
order as a par three hole in one.
As to Norman always losing on Sunday, he has the rest of the field for
company. :-)
D.E.
Dan King
>Tway sinking his sand shot on the last hole in 1986
>and Mize holing from 150+ feet really outweigh a drained chip.
I don't agree. Watson's chip was one of the all time great
chips ever made under that kind of pressure. Length doesn't
have all that much to do with difficulty of chip. Watson was
in extremely deep rough, with his ball nestled far down, chipping
to a green which slopes down hill with very little green to work
with. Tway's shot out of a bunker was great, but it wasn't as
difficult. Mize's shot was more the miracle than Tway's and
I could see comparing it to Watson's. However, I'd still vote
for Watson's shot as a bigger shot.
>And
>it seems to me the pitch made by Mize was longer. In any event 150+
>feet is 50+ yards. Your chances at that distance must be in the same
>order as a par three hole in one.
Not quite. He had a ton of green between himself and the hole.
All he was trying to do was get it close. Getting it close was
a difficult shot, but not miraculous. The miracle was it going
in. I'd rather try to get Mize's shot close than Watson's.
>As to Norman always losing on Sunday, he has the rest of the field for
>company. :-)
I wasn't dissin' Norman. I have a lot of respect for his play.
All I'm saying is that we all say what tough luck he had for that
period. However, it did take some very mediocre play on his part
to allow the miracle shots to matter. His fate was in his hand.
And I do believe he learned lessons from those losses. He no
longer seems to try and sit on a lead on Sunday. He tries to
continue to pile on birdies.
And I don't think any of these shots were as miraculous as Zeppo
Marx's.
Dan King
djk...@netcom.com
dk...@nas.nasa.gov
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The hardest shot in golf is a mashie at 90 yards from the green,
where the ball has to be played against an oak tree, bounces back
into a sandtrap, hits a stone, bounces on the green and then rolls
into the cup. That shot is so difficult I have made it only once.
--Zeppo Marx
--------------------------------------------------------------------
AZDav
chip-in once at Pebble Beach. Surely that sort of thing has happened a
few other times in Jack's long career...
This brings up the question of whether Norman isn't really a better player
than Nicklaus. Oh, yeah, he doesn't have the record, but what if we
transported Norman back in time 20 yrs? IMO, there was a LOT less
competition then. If we level the playing field how would the compare?
I'd say about even for putting (maybe slight advantage to Nicklaus),
Norman ahead on the rest of the short game, Norman ahead on short and
midirons, Nicklaus ahead on long irons, and Norman ahead on driving (as
long, and more accurate), Nicklaus ahead on course management, Norman
ahead on ability to shoot very low scores.
Overall advantage: Norman. I think he would have beat Jack alot if he
could be time transported back a few decades...
IMO, it's very hard for anyone to dominate now for more than sporadic
bursts.
AZDav
Mark Koenig
: If we level the playing field how would the compare?
: ...if he could be time transported back a few decades...
"If if's and but's were candies and nuts, we'd all have a happier Christmas"
Jack is the greatest player of all time, bare none. Norman is a great
player, but he is not in the same league as Jack. And keep in mind that
Jack competed against some pretty tough competition, Palmer, Trevino, Watson,
Kite, etc.
Dan King
>Overall advantage: Norman. I think he would have beat Jack alot if he
>could be time transported back a few decades...
My opinion; thats silly. It's possible Norman may be better
at some parts of the game than Jack. No way he has ever even
come close to Jack's all around game and mental ability. In
Jack's prime there were plenty of great ball strikers, better
than Norman. Greg Norman can only wish he could hit the ball
as well as Johnny Miller and Tom Weiskopf in their prime. Yet
they were totally dominated by Nicklaus.
>IMO, there was a LOT less
>competition then. If we level the playing field how would the compare?
He became pro in the heyday of Palmer, Casper and Player and dominated
them. He survived challenges from Weiskopf, Miller, Watson, Trevino,
Floyd, etc.. Name one golfer today who could get hot like Miller.
Name a golfer who could make the shots Palmer made. Name a player
who could get up and down like Watson or swing like Weiskopf or
make birdies like Trevino. Nobody today could putt like Casper in
his prime.
Also Nicklaus rarely wasted his time with Kemper Opens, etc.. He
geared toward Majors, were the competition was toughest. Norman
has done well in regular tournaments, but hasn't done as well
in majors when the competition is toughest.
>I'd say about even for putting (maybe slight advantage to Nicklaus),
Huge advantage to Nicklaus. Norman has greatly improved his
putting from inside 10 feet. He is probably the best today.
But with pressure on, Nicklaus could make a putt from anywhere
on the green.
>Norman ahead on the rest of the short game,
Nicklaus rarely had to use his short game. He hit so many
GIR, his short game was rare. This is the only area were
Normie might have a lead.
>Norman ahead on short and
>midirons,
Not even close. You must be comparing the Nicklaus of today
rather than Nicklaus in his prime. Nicklaus did not miss
greens.
>Norman ahead on driving (as
>long, and more accurate),
Again, you must be comparing the Nicklaus today rather than the
one on the late 60s early 70s.
>Nicklaus ahead on course management
Huge advantage. They weren't even close.
Nicklaus was the greatest player to ever play golf. Norman is a
very good player, but will hardly be remembered in the same
breath as Hagen, Jones, Nelson, Hogan, Snead, Palmer and Nicklaus.
I think even Norman would agree.
Dan King
djk...@netcom.com
dk...@nas.nasa.gov
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Any time Jack makes up his mind to play his game, it doesn't make
any difference what any of us do.
--Lee Trevino, 1976 (on Jack Nicklaus)
You know he's going to beat you, he knows he's gonna beat you and
he knows you know he's gonna beat you.
--Leonard Thompson (on Jack Nicklaus)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
jwro...@randomc.com
> This brings up the question of whether Norman isn't really a better player
> than Nicklaus.
Insane.
> I'd say about even for putting (maybe slight advantage to Nicklaus),
Nicklaus was the greatest PRESSURE PUTTER of all time. It's often been
said they no one EVER saw him miss a putt to lose a tournament. Have
you ever seen him do this?
> Norman ahead on the rest of the short game,
Questionable.
> Norman ahead on short and midirons
Again, very doubtful.
> Nicklaus ahead on long irons
By light years. Nicklaus's greatest strength was the ability to hit a one
iron as high as most pros could hit a five iron.
>, and Norman ahead on driving
Maybe... but technology muddies the water here...
> Nicklaus ahead on course management, Norman
> ahead on ability to shoot very low scores.
Agreed on both points. Also, add these to the mix:
Nicklaus ahead on the ability to play decent golf on Saturday afternoons.
Nicklaus ahead on the ability to not push every iron shot into the
crowd on the right when tied for the lead of a tournament on the 18th
hole on Sunday afternoon. (Younger fans may not remember, but
Greg Norman's swing changes have primarily been an effort to rid
himself of this flaw that haunted him for years...)
and finally,
***** Nicklaus ahead in every intangible that could ever be listed *****
Ask Tom Weiskopf about Nicklaus's intangibles... his career was left
practically in shambles by Nicklaus charges when Weiskopf was
obviously playing better. By the end of his regular tour career, Weiskopf
was twitching whenever someone would mention Nicklaus. When
Nicklaus hit the LONG putt on the 16th hole at Augusta in the '75 Masters,
Weiskopf admits that he threw in the towel (mentally, if not physically)
right then. He says that the first thought that went through his mind was,
"I knew that S.O.B. was gonna do it to us again."
You are obviously assuming that Nicklaus hasn't suffered the
"misfortune" that Norman has suffered... remember, Nicklaus has not
only won more majors than any other golfer in history, he's also finished
second more times. Think of the greatest players for the past thirty-odd
years. Well, there was Nicklaus and Palmer, then Nicklaus and Player,
then Nicklaus and Watson... who's the constant?
Jeff Rogers
jwro...@randomc.com
"Eighteen holes of match play will teach you more about your foe than
nineteen years of dealing with him across a desk." -- Grantland Rice
jwro...@randomc.com
> Think of the greatest players for the past thirty-odd
> years. Well, there was Nicklaus and Palmer, then Nicklaus and Player,
> then Nicklaus and Watson... who's the constant?
After re-reading this, I should mention that no one has stepped
forward, in my mind, to claim the title of greatest in the world in
the tradition of the last player to do so... Tom Watson. Faldo had
a chance, and he's come the closest. Nick Price has done very
well lately. Another year or two at this pace, and I'd be ready to
say he has.
I guess that's another question-- why aren't there any dominant
players anymore. Golf is an age-old game-- I'm not going to be
convinced that there are too many good players for one to dominate.
Any dominant golfer from Ben Hogan to Tom Watson would still
dominate the game if he were playing that way today... although today's
top 125 would wipe the field with the top 125 from earlier times...
My theory is that the new technology tends to even out the field, kind
of like bad weather is the great equalizer in football...
Ari Huhtamies
jwro...@randomc.com <jwro...@randomc.com> wrote:
>
>
> I guess that's another question-- why aren't there any dominant
> players anymore. Golf is an age-old game-- I'm not going to be
> convinced that there are too many good players for one to dominate.
> Any dominant golfer from Ben Hogan to Tom Watson would still
> dominate the game if he were playing that way today... although today's
> top 125 would wipe the field with the top 125 from earlier times...
>
great, then why don't they help the true masters to achieve even greater
things?
Haven't heard of a 18-under round so far.
Ari H
AZDav
>It's possible Norman may be better
at some parts of the game than Jack. No way he has ever even
come close to Jack's all around game and mental ability. In
Jack's prime there were plenty of great ball strikers, better
than Norman. Greg Norman can only wish he could hit the ball
as well as Johnny Miller and Tom Weiskopf in their prime. Yet
they were totally dominated by Nicklaus.
Well, I've seen Miller and Weiskopf in their prime. Miller was indeed hot
with his irons, but he didn't keep it up that long. Weiskopf had a better
all around game as even Nicklaus admits, only he didn't have the
determination and course management.
I put Norman's game over Weiskopf's by a slight margin. Which therefore
puts it slightly ahead of Nicklaus's game, except for course management,
and frankly I think Norman is given a bum rap there. Look at his scoring
average - lower than Nicklaus's when Jack was in his prime.
IMO, Norman would have won a tremendous amount of tournaments including
many majors if he were transported back in time two or three decades. But,
hey, so would Faldo and Price. There just wasn't the depth of field then.
Yes, you're correct, there was Miller, Watson, and Weiskopf (Palmer was
already past his prime) - but today, you've got 100 guys who can shoot the
lights out, instead of a handful. That's about 10x's the competion at the
winning level.
As far as Norman admitting to himself he's not the best, I suspect he
would be the first to say, Nicklaus' s record is incomparable. Deep down,
I suspect he feels he got the best game of anyone who ever played.
It's certainly debatable...I personally think Hogan was the best in his
prime, but the real deal is that Nicklaus came along at the best time to
win a lot of tournaments. When Hogan was playing you had to take a boat to
go to the British Open, and players drove from coast to coast following
tournaments instead of jetting around. Today it's much easier to fly and
there are a zillion tournaments. But, someone like Norman, Faldo, Price,
etc. has a lot harder time winning consistently because of the tremendous
depth & caliber of players - again, there's a hundred guys out there that
can post the scores. It's the critical factor.
AZDav
AZDav
in another post.
I don't think it is insane to consider Norman has a better game than
Nicklaus did.
Weiskopf had a better game overall, as Nicklaus even admits.
Reread that line, if you don't mind.
But Tom was a basket case, as we all know.
As far as the competion, you had a few guys like Miller, Watson, and
Weiskopf, but today you have a hundred guys like that in any tournament.
That's about an order of magnitude more competition. Think about that,
because it's the reason no one can dominate golf today. The scoring
averages are simply too close, and it allows the guy with a hot putter to
win.
I'm not necessarily promoting Norman as the best ever. I think Price and
Faldo would have won a hell of a lot more majors if they had played 20 or
30 years ago, too. Put Norman in there, and a few guys like Els, Strange,
etc, and suddenly Jack gets a handful of majors taken off his record. Put
in another 30 or 40 top players like Janzen, Crenshaw, Kite, etc, and you
get a few more majors taken away. Do you see my point? Is there anyway
these guys wouldn't have won?
AZDav
jwro...@randomc.com
> I'm not necessarily promoting Norman as the best ever.
Ok, AZDav (if, in fact, that is your real name).
Try this one: Greg Norman *LEARNED* his swing, admittedly, by
reading "Golf My Way" and watching Jack Nicklaus. Put him back
in time and he might have never made it out of Australia.
And, why couldn't Norman, in the best year he has ever had, beat
a washed-up old Nicklaus in '86 at Augusta. My guess it twofold:
Nicklaus just knows how to win better than anybody in the history
of golf, and Norman's swing flaw (push the ball under stress)
finally showed up.
I think Norman is greatly overrated... as I've said before, has anybody
ever become more famous by winning as few majors as Norman?
Hell, even Andy Bean can win a few majors... is Norman, in the grand
view, any better than Hale Irwin? If you want to compare Nicklaus with
someone, the only logical comparison is Bobby Jones. If he had
kept competing, we may not think 20 majors is such a big deal--
Jones won 13 majors in 8 years...
Don't use scoring average as your yardstick-- better course conditions
and better technology have dropped the scoring averages. Also,
Nicklaus centered his game around majors and didn't play in a lot
of smaller tourneys that would have lowered his scoring average.
Chris Bellomy
: I don't think it is insane to consider Norman has a better game than
: Nicklaus did.
Super Nintendo?
: As far as the competion [sic], you had a few guys like Miller, Watson, and
: Weiskopf, but today you have a hundred guys like that in any tournament.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!1#%$#@
Who are those "hundred guys"? Do you really think they stack up against
golfers like Miller, Watson, Weiskopf, Palmer, Player, Trevino, Floyd,
Casper, Irwin, Wadkins (in his prime), etc.?
: That's about an order of magnitude more competition. Think about that,
: because it's the reason no one can dominate golf today. The scoring
: averages are simply too close, and it allows the guy with a hot putter to
: win.
Nick Price certainly had at least a moment of domination. Faldo has
remained consistently at the top.
I'm curious: do you consider Byron Nelson's 1945 streak no big deal?
: I'm not necessarily promoting Norman as the best ever.
Good thing!
: I think Price and
: Faldo would have won a hell of a lot more majors if they had played 20 or
: 30 years ago, too. Put Norman in there, and a few guys like Els, Strange,
: etc, and suddenly Jack gets a handful of majors taken off his record.
Total bullshit. Put Norman, Price, Faldo, Els, etc. in there with Nicklaus
PLAYING WITH THE EQUIPMENT OF THAT DAY and maybe one of them makes the cut
(probably Faldo).
: Put
: in another 30 or 40 top players like Janzen, Crenshaw, Kite, etc, and you
: get a few more majors taken away. Do you see my point? Is there anyway
: these guys wouldn't have won?
Well, to begin with, Nicklaus *did* compete against Crenshaw and Kite.
What you apparently don't understand is that Nicklaus played a different
golf course than his competitors. In the 60's, he was John Daly with
brains, 30-50 yards longer off the tee than the competition, with the
ability to land a 1-iron approach as softly as someone else's 7-iron.
With today's equipment there's no telling what scores a 25-year-old
Nicklaus would shoot.
A 35-year-old Nicklaus would beat a 35-year-old Norman 5 and 4. A 35-
year-old HOGAN would beat a 35-year-old Norman 7 and 6. Face it: like
Weiskopf, Norman is a headcase, likely to be remembered as a tragic
figure.
--
Chris Bellomy
Quality Control Technician
The Spoetzl Brewery
Chris Bellomy
: If you want to compare Nicklaus with
: someone, the only logical comparison is Bobby Jones. If he had
: kept competing, we may not think 20 majors is such a big deal--
: Jones won 13 majors in 8 years...
I think cases can be made for Nelson and Hogan, too. Nelson basically
retired after 1946, when he still was shooting lights out. Hogan's
career after the car accident in 1949 was limited to 2 or 3 majors
a year (he played in the British Open only once, winning it, and the
match play format of the PGA meant playing more rounds in a week than
his damaged legs could handle), plus Colonial and maybe one other.
Don't misconstrue me, though: I still believe Nicklaus, over the
course of his entire career, was greatest golfer ever. But Nelson
and Hogan in their prime were certainly equal to Nicklaus at the
highest points in his career.
: Don't use scoring average as your yardstick-- better course conditions
: and better technology have dropped the scoring averages. Also,
: Nicklaus centered his game around majors and didn't play in a lot
: of smaller tourneys that would have lowered his scoring average.
Total agreement here.
jwro...@randomc.com
> Then why hasn't one emerged? If You believe that the new clubs can make anyone
> great, then why don't they help the true masters to achieve even greater
> things?
Ari, perhaps because newer clubs tend to forgive mishits, they make it
easier for someone *who is not playing well* to keep up with the pack.
A great golfer playing at the top of his game probably isn't going to
notice any difference between perimeter weighted clubs and forged,
"muscleback" design, except better feel with the musclebacks...
Face it, when you're shooting 61, you're not hitting a counting a lot on
your mishits being better.
Oh, and I don't think "new clubs can make anyone great." I think new
technology ***and better course conditions*** (you skipped that part
in my original message) have lowered the scoring average on the
PGA Tour. But that doesn't make Nick Price a better golfer than Ben
Hogan...
jwro...@randomc.com
> jwro...@randomc.com writes:
>
> : If you want to compare Nicklaus with
> : someone, the only logical comparison is Bobby Jones. If he had
> : kept competing, we may not think 20 majors is such a big deal--
> : Jones won 13 majors in 8 years...
>
> I think cases can be made for Nelson and Hogan, too. Nelson basically
> retired after 1946, when he still was shooting lights out. Hogan's
> career after the car accident in 1949 was limited to 2 or 3 majors
Touche. Nobody will ever have another year like Nelson had in 1945.
I usually don't say never, but that's a record that stands at the top of
my list for records least likely to be broken... and, you know, he really
didn't have to beat anybody, right? Just Snead and Hogan... And
Hogan had powers of concentration matched only by Nicklaus (and
maybe never matched)... with the strength and health of Nicklaus...who
knows? Is it just a golfing legend that Hogan would hit five irons onto
a towel??
I think it IS insane to think that golfers, after hundreds of years of
competitive play, have suddenly bettered themselves so much that
yesterday's legends (some of them, ahhhmm, even won majors less
than ten years ago) couldn't compete with the best golfers of today.
Dave Tutelman
Chris Bellomy <cbel...@dale.hsc.unt.edu> wrote:
>
>A 35-year-old Nicklaus would beat a 35-year-old Norman 5 and 4. A 35-
>year-old HOGAN would beat a 35-year-old Norman 7 and 6. Face it: like
>Weiskopf, Norman is a headcase, likely to be remembered as a tragic
>figure.
After last Sunday, I was wondering how anyone could accuse Norman of
being "mentally weak" or "a headcase".
After last Sunday, I was wondering how this thread could possibly go
on and not just die.
After this Sunday....
Oh well. I guess he IS a head case.
Sorry.
Dave
AZDav
>Ok, AZDav (if, in fact, that is your real name).
It's my AOL name (I'm David in Arizona). What's the problem?
>Try this one: Greg Norman *LEARNED* his swing, admittedly, by
reading "Golf My Way" and watching Jack Nicklaus. Put him back
in time and he might have never made it out of Australia.
Yes, and Nicklaus learned his swing from Jack Grout. And Hogan got his
grip from Vardon. And Norman has gotten better since he's departed from
Nicklaus' vertical, flying elbow swing. What's your point, again?
>And, why couldn't Norman, in the best year he has ever had, beat
a washed-up old Nicklaus in '86 at Augusta. My guess it twofold:
Nicklaus just knows how to win better than anybody in the history
of golf, and Norman's swing flaw (push the ball under stress)
finally showed up.
That's a really dumb view. About as relevant as me saying why didn't Jack
beat Norman in the next tournament or do better than Norman in the next
few majors? Or why did Nicklaus let Hogan beat him in the Open?
I think Norman is greatly overrated... as I've said before, has anybody
ever become more famous by winning as few majors as Norman?
Well, I think the importance of the majors is vastly overrated. You have a
broad and select field at most major tournaments as you do at the Masters,
is the latter really that much more an indication of a golfer's abilitity?
I'm not saying they shouldn't be give some extra weight, I just think it's
overdone.
>Hell, even Andy Bean can win a few majors...
Precisely re: my point above.
>Is Norman, in the grand view, any better than Hale Irwin?
I think so, and I'm willing to bet 90% of the pros on tour would agree.
But, since you brought it up, I'd say if you transported Hale Irwin back
into time, he would have soundly trounced some other "golden greats" such
as your beloved Bobby Jones.
>If you want to compare Nicklaus with
someone, the only logical comparison is Bobby Jones. If he had
kept competing, we may not think 20 majors is such a big deal--
Jones won 13 majors in 8 years...
Again, look at the lack of competion compared to the field in Kemper Open,
recently, for example. Any number of players today have superior games to
Jones. Jones was great - in his time. Period.
>Don't use scoring average as your yardstick-- better course conditions
and better technology have dropped the scoring averages. Also,
Nicklaus centered his game around majors and didn't play in a lot
of smaller tourneys that would have lowered his scoring average.
Nicklaus certainly did play in smaller tournaments. He was extremely
active. Yes, better course conditions and technology - but technology had
pretty much leveled out IMO by 1960's. I know I can take some 1960's MT
irons or Wilson Staffs and I don't see much difference. The big
improvement with the golf balls had occurred by the 1950's, also.
Look, my hole point is that as far as a powerhouse game, and mastery of
the game, Norman's got it. The only valid criticism seems to be this
"course management", stuff which is vastly overated IMO. Norman's taken a
bum rap, because look at the scores he posts. If he was playing against
just Nicklaus and guys like Casper, Player, an older Palmer, etc. I think
you're nuts not to believe he wouldn't have won 7 or 8 majors - and
probably would have taken a few away from Jack. Now what happens if you
transport say, the top 50 players back into the 1960's period to enrich
the playing field?--Don't you think they would have taken away another few
(minimally) of Nicklaus's majors? At the very least IMO. If you grant
that, now Nicklaus's record could be cut to 10 majors, even less IMO.
There's just too many hotshot players today for anyone to dominate, even a
Nicklaus, Norman, Hogan, or Nelson can't/couldn't do it today. They could
be the top money leader, or in the top world rankings, but as far as
winning as many majors as Nicklaus did during his era, it's not
repeatable, even if Nicklaus were in his prime today.
I think even Nicklaus has acknowledged that! So if you're insisting on
comparing his records, yes, Nicklaus' is the greatest of all time.
(hey, Rocky Marciano retired undefeated if you want another example of a
era related record that is outstanding). But, that's not the question I
originally posed. Transport Norman back in time, or Nicklaus forward and
time, and who knows what would happen - I just believe it wouldn't be a
clear cut issue. And as far as "insane", it seems to me that it's insane
to downplay the depth and level of play today in almost every tournament.
AZDav
Dane Arthur Ellis
will win at least a couple more majors, and if he's remembered, it will be
for his life time scoring average which even Nicklaus won't approach. As for
Byron Nelson his consecutive win streak will likely never be equalled, but
remember many of the young players of the time were in the armed forces.
Norman keeps looking stronger to me. All he needs to put him back on track
is a major. Outside of a healthy Couples, Norman still looks like the one
to beat.
D.E.
Dane Arthur Ellis
and better technology have dropped the scoring averages. Also,
Nicklaus centered his game around majors and didn't play in a lot
of smaller tourneys that would have lowered his scoring average.
Yes, but Norman plays only about 15 tour events, those regarded as the more
demanding tests.
D.E.
Glenn Horton
I'll agree Norman is a headcase. I think his record could
have compared with Nicklaus if he had the "mental fortitude" of
Nicklaus, Floyd or Hogan. Given that, I'd love to have the physical
ability be able to get in the position he has been in even if I
couldn't stay there :-)
Glenn Horton SAS Institute Inc.
sas...@unx.sas.com SAS Campus Dr.
919-677-8000 x6640 Cary, N.C. 27513
"Golf is easy. You just swing the club and say Oh No....No!"
- Billy explaining golf to Jeffy, The Family Circus
jwro...@randomc.com
> After this Sunday....
> Oh well. I guess he IS a head case.
He's not a head case because he pushed an iron shot on 17... heck,
he had his chances to win two in a row. But I'm just saying that he's
not a Nicklaus. And he's definately not better than Nicklaus ever
was... but a head case? Naahhh... if he were a head case, we'd have
never heard about him again after Mize chipped in.
Dan King
>I put Norman's game over Weiskopf's by a slight margin.
I wouldn't. Weiskopf's swing was as close to a perfect swing
as there will ever be. Norman has a few flaws in his swing that
causes him trouble when the pressure is on. He's done great work
to correct these flaws, but has eliminated them.
>Which therefore
>puts it slightly ahead of Nicklaus's game, except for course management,
>and frankly I think Norman is given a bum rap there.
Nicklaus' advantage was not just course management. Course
management is over-rated when it comes to Nicklaus' ability.
He had the attitude. He also seemed to know what it would
take to win a tournament. He didn't always get it done, but
he did have the knowledge. Yesterday, Norman was charging.
He made a poor shot selection on 17, thinking he needed a
birdie there. That led to a double bogie and his fall out
of contention. Nicklaus would not have gone for the birdie on
17. He would want the other players to see he finished with
the lowest score in the club house and watch them back-up to
him. He also would have known that 17 was not the birdie hole
with that pin. 18 was the place to get the birdie. But Norman
mistakingly believed he had to get to -13 and his quest to
get there dropped him to -9.
>Look at his scoring
>average - lower than Nicklaus's when Jack was in his prime.
Scoring average doesn't really tell much. Jack's year was
always geared strictly toward majors. Majors were always
set up much more difficult than regular tour stops.
Also conditions of greens, etc.. have improved considerably.
>IMO, Norman would have won a tremendous amount of tournaments including
>many majors if he were transported back in time two or three decades. But,
>hey, so would Faldo and Price. There just wasn't the depth of field then.
>Yes, you're correct, there was Miller, Watson, and Weiskopf (Palmer was
>already past his prime) - but today, you've got 100 guys who can shoot the
>lights out, instead of a handful. That's about 10x's the competion at the
>winning level.
I tend to agree that competition is tougher now. The fields are
much deeper than ever. A couple reasons I think this is true; The
money is a heck of a lot better. A player such as Jones would have
difficulty turning down the money made on the tour. There were many
players holding on to club jobs because they didn't want to get
into the tour grind for a small amount of money. There were others
still that remained amateur and worked regular non-golf related jobs.
The second influence is the world wide golf explosion. You now have
more players from all over the world.
However, the greats would be great regardless of era. There is much
more to golf than a pure swing or various components of a game. The
greats won because they had the attitude to win. Put Jones, Hagen,
Hogan, Nelson, Nicklaus in any time and they will dominate. Put
Norman, Faldo, Price, etc.. in other times and their reputation
still would not match the greats. Perhaps they'd have better careers
than they have, but greatness is a whole different game.
>again, there's a hundred guys out there that
>can post the scores. It's the critical factor.
There is so much more to the game than posting a score.
Dan King
djk...@netcom.com
dk...@nas.nasa.gov
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I have always felt and said that a man who can be a champion in one
era could be a champion in any other era because he has what it
takes to reach the top.
--Ben Hogan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
john mac millan
>
> After this Sunday....
> Oh well. I guess he IS a head case.
Well Greg Norman wasn't alone. That finish at the Kemper had to be
one of the strangest final rounds I've seen. I wondered if anyone
wanted to win.
jmm
Robert Jessie
>
>It's certainly debatable...I personally think Hogan was the best in his
>prime, but the real deal is that Nicklaus came along at the best time to
>win a lot of tournaments. When Hogan was playing you had to take a boat to
>go to the British Open, and players drove from coast to coast following
>tournaments instead of jetting around. Today it's much easier to fly and
>there are a zillion tournaments. But, someone like Norman, Faldo, Price,
Good Point! Hogan and the others had to drive everywhere....
BJ
--
******************************************************************
* gol...@brahms.udel.edu Robert Jessie *
* National Assoc. of Left-Handed Golfers 1-800-884-NALG *
******************************************************************
F. Blaine Dickson
>Scoring average doesn't really tell much. Jack's year was
>always geared strictly toward majors.
This is a myth. You do not win 70 tournaments worldwide by only playing in
majors, nor do you win 7 tournaments per year by focusing on just the
majors.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
F. Blaine Dickson
Assistant Professional
Gallaghers Canyon Golf Resort
Kelowna BC Canada
"Take time to dream"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lundy
>
>I think Norman is greatly overrated... as I've said before, has anybody
>ever become more famous by winning as few majors as Norman?
Freddie Couples - 1 major.
>Hell, even Andy Bean can win a few majors... is Norman, in the grand
>view, any better than Hale Irwin? If you want to compare Nicklaus with
>someone, the only logical comparison is Bobby Jones. If he had
>kept competing, we may not think 20 majors is such a big deal--
>Jones won 13 majors in 8 years...
I don't know if Norman is overrated or not. I think he is a hell of a
player when he is focused. It's not possible to compare Norman in his
prime to Nicklaus in his prime or Nicklaus to Jones in his prime due
to the increased depth of the competition. I saw an interview with
Nicklaus last year and he was asked if he would have been as successful
if he were in his prime now. He said he didn't know. He said that
equipment advances, in particular the golf ball, have allowed the
average player to close the gap between himself and the "great golfer".
Also, the number on quality players has increased significantly. Maybe
this is partially due to equipment advances. But I believe it's due
mostly to the other tours(nike, hooters, etc) and also due to the
increase in quality golf programs in the universities.
I believe when Norman was younger he had the tools to be on the same
level as Nicklaus. I just don't believe he stayed as focused on his
goals as Nicklaus. Now, Nicklaus vs Jones that would be match of
a lifetime.
But in the end it's all opinions. However, it does provoke good
conversation.
Lundy
Tom Dillon
>> az...@aol.com (AZDav) writes:
>I think Norman is greatly overrated... as I've said before, has anybody
>ever become more famous by winning as few majors as Norman?
>Hell, even Andy Bean can win a few majors... is Norman, in the grand
>view, any better than Hale Irwin? If you want to compare Nicklaus with
>someone, the only logical comparison is Bobby Jones. If he had
>kept competing, we may not think 20 majors is such a big deal--
>Jones won 13 majors in 8 years...
>
I couldn't agree more, the main thing that counts as far as greatness of a professional golfer
is the number of majors.
The comparison should really be between Norman and somebody like Payne Stewart. I think Hale
Irwin is better in majors than Norman.
Norman is a good golfer with an incredible image.
Tom Dillon
DILLON ENGINEERING
2017 Continental Place
Suite 5
Mount Vernon, WA 98273-5649
e-mail: t...@dilleng.wa.com
Voice : (360) 424-3794
FAX : (360) 424-5894
Dan King
dk>djk...@netcom.com (Dan King) writes:
dk>Scoring average doesn't really tell much. Jack's year was
dk>always geared strictly toward majors.
fbd>This is a myth. You do not win 70 tournaments worldwide by only
fbd>playing in majors, nor do you win 7 tournaments per year by
fbd>focusing on just the majors.
I made a mistake saying always. Early in his career he played
in many more tournaments. But once his family started to grow and
his outside businesses took more time, his focus was victories
in the majors. Looks at his record. From the late 60s and through
the 70s, his victories came in tournaments just prior to majors
or favorite tournaments that he committed to every year, such as
Crosby and Disney.
Dan King
djk...@netcom.com
dk...@nas.nasa.gov
--------------------------------------------------------------------
He's the only golfer in history who has become a living legend in
his spare time.
--Chi Chi Rodriguez (On Jack Nicklaus and his many extracurricular
activities)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Limbaugh
All this Norman vs. Nicklaus vs. Jones, etc. discussion
got me thinking (for a change), and I've actually formed an
opinion on the subject of what makes a great golfer great.
Bottom line is this: The great golfer wants to win. The great
golfer relishes the competition. The great golfer desperately
seeks those moments when the heat is on and the pressure
is at its most intense. The great golfer knows that the not-so-great
ones will buckle when he throws another birdie at him. It is
these characteristics that separate the great from the not-so-great.
And when a great golfer is thrown together with another great
golfer, magic happens (see Turnberry '77).
No other golfer -- never, ever, ever -- epitomized the great
golfer described above to the degree that Jack William Nicklaus
has. Nobody ever wanted to win more than Jack. Nobody ever made
others weak in the knees like Jack.
So, let me address -- subjectively, and with no reference material
in front of me -- some of the issues that have been put on the table.
Would Jack be as great if he were in his prime today?
Although it's really impossible to tell what effect today's world would
have on the man, I think he would be a much better golfer if he
were 30 today than he was in 1970 (when he was 30). I mean, consider
that he nearly won The US Open as an ameteur, did win the open
as his first victory in his rookie season, etc. As an arrogant -- cocky, even
--
kid, this early success allowed his ego and confidence to grow unabated.
If he came out today and had his arrogance fed to him for a year or two,
would he be able to recover and be great? I think so, but who knows.
It's just as likely that the much stronger competition today would make
him a MUCH better player, but would his head have remained in tact?
And that's where my position is shakiest, I admit. Jack was able to come
out and be VERY competitive immediately. In contention virtually every
week. Never had to take a beating. What if Norman had been able to
dominate early? For that matter, what about Mickelson, Gamez, Verplank,
Duval, etc. They've all had either early success, were very confident, and
had "expectation" heaped all over them. But it's nearly impossible to
sustain that superiority in today's field. Uh-oh, I'm arguing against my
position, so I'll stop.
Would Jack have won as many majors if he came out in 1980 instead
of 1960? No. Absolutely not. But greatness will be measured on a
different scale, and I think people will eventually recognize this. It
simply isn't possible to dominate to the same *degree*. But, I think
he would win 12-15 majors instead of 20, and would still be recognized
as truly great. (By comparison, no way will Faldo -- who fits the
above description better than anyone today -- win more than 8). The
goal for a "great" player like Jack was to just be in the hunt near the
end, just knowing, really knowing in his heart, that he gets better and
others get worse in those situations. Others may think that way too,
until it happens :-)
How about the fact that Jack won more majors than anybody, but also
finished second more than anybody. Does that mean he choked alot?
Well, like I said, I don't have reference material in front of me, but I'd
be willing to bet that of the 20-something second places he's had in
majors, he led during the last nine in fewer than 5 of them. My memories
of him is that he would lurk around for the first three rounds and then
as the pressure built, he'd start moving up. It's just that sometimes
it was too little too late. I can't think of even A SINGLE instance of
him throwing away a major in the last nine holes -- except maybe the
1960 Open. Can the same be said of Norman? Palmer? Snead?
Watson? Price?
To close, I see only the following players falling into this definition
of greatness: Nicklaus, Jones, Hogan. There have been others that
were great for a much shorter period of time. They don't count, IMO.
mark
Mark Limbaugh
AT&T Global Information Solutions
Software & Communications Solutions
mlim...@columbiasc.attgis.com
"Do SOMETHING, even if it's wrong."
- S. Ethridge
ROGER ELMORE
he needed a double eagle to tie for the lead on the last hole. He came
within two feet of making it, and I believe that Jack actually thought
he was going to do it. What distinguishes Jack from all the rest is that
HE NEVER THOUGHT IT WAS OVER UNTIL IT REALLY WAS OVER, which makes
Jack's edge over the field mental, not physical. If he were a boxer,
you'd have to knock him down, and then STAND on him to keep him down.
Robert J. Dietrich
>
>Overall advantage: Norman. I think he would have beat Jack alot if he
>could be time transported back a few decades...
>
>IMO, it's very hard for anyone to dominate now for more than sporadic
>bursts.
In head-to-head competition with nothing on the line, you're probably right.
Norman at his peak would probably beat Jack at his peak more often. But
put a major on the line and maybe Jack didn't win it, but I cannot recall
once seeing him lose it. Jack had a lot of 2nd places, but that wasn't
because he blew a chance at 1st. That's the intangible that made Nicklaus
great. And that same intangible would allow him to dominate in any time
you placed him.
Bob D.
AZDav
due to the depth of field, which is phenomenal. We're beating a dead horse
here, IMO.
As far as "wanting it" there'a probably a limit that humans approach in
that category - I'd place Hogan, Palmer, Player, Norman, Faldo, Watson
along with Nicklaus in an equal "desire" category.
Hogan and Nicklaus probably had the best strategy, but I doubt their
desire could be determined to be above Palmer's, Norman's, etc. Having
said that, I do believe Hogan had the most single minded attitude.
AZDav
AZDav
>Norman is a good golfer with an incredible image.
No doubt about the image, but re: how good he is, turn to the back of Golf
Digest, etc. and puruse scoring averages, money leaders, and Sony World
rankings.
"Good" doesn't make it in these categories.
AZDav
Mike Marler
>he was going to do it. What distinguishes Jack from all the rest is that
>HE NEVER THOUGHT IT WAS OVER UNTIL IT REALLY WAS OVER, which makes
Amen bother! I am at a loss to think of anyone that hates to lose as
much as Jack. Luckily for Jack, he enjoys designing golf courses,
because I fear he may have put a gun to his head by now. One of the
few "more recent pro golfers" that I can think of that is as
"self-critical" and "perfectionist" is Faldo. Any others come to
mind.
On the Bear vs Shark debate. When I see Greg Norman rip thru tourney
wins like I watched Jack do in the late 60's and 70's, then I will
be overly impressed. I guess I will cut Greg a little slack on not
being on a pace to match Jack wins in the majors, because I don't
see anyone else doing it soon either. :-) It sure is not like Greg
has not been in position to win majors.
Cheers, Mike
--
Mike Marler Information Technology, Georgia Tech
mike....@oit.gatech.edu Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0715
Martin Sneesby
> > >A 35-year-old Nicklaus would beat a 35-year-old Norman 5 and 4. A 35-
> > >year-old HOGAN would beat a 35-year-old Norman 7 and 6. Face it: like
> > >Weiskopf, Norman is a headcase, likely to be remembered as a tragic
> > >figure.
> >
> > After last Sunday, I was wondering how anyone could accuse Norman of
> > being "mentally weak" or "a headcase".
> >
> > After last Sunday, I was wondering how this thread could possibly go
> > on and not just die.
> >
> > Oh well. I guess he IS a head case.
> I'll agree Norman is a headcase. I think his record could
> have compared with Nicklaus if he had the "mental fortitude" of
> Nicklaus, Floyd or Hogan. Given that, I'd love to have the physical
> ability be able to get in the position he has been in even if I
> couldn't stay there :-)
>
I'm sure I'm not the first Aussie to jump on r.s.g. to defend the
Great White Shark but if Norman is a headcase, how has he been
consistently ranked in the world's top three golfers for the last
ten years, how has he won two majors (OK he could have won more),
how has he won numerours USPGA tour events, how has he headed the
Vardon averages more than anyone else in the last ten years...
Which ever way you look at it, Norman must be considered the best
golfer in the world for the last decade. Even though Faldo may have
won more majors, Price is currently #1 in the Sony rankings and
Ballesteros and Langer have been great at times, none of these guys
have been as consistently good as Norman over the whole ten years.
Hope he finally pulls a US major out of the bag this week!
Martin