Bums of the Month

[Leaguegolf]

Tiger may win 100 tour events, heck, he can win 1000 for all I care. History judges the greats by their performances in majors and history will judge Tiger accordingly. It's the rest of these bums that I've had it with.

For years now we've all heard the talk about numerous players having the game to step up and challenge Tiger. That has never happened and I don't think it will until Tiger allows it to happen. Whatever happened to the "Big 5" everyone was touting recently? How about the young guns that will finally catch up to Tiger?

Horse Pucky! All of it. The Big 5 turned into the "Big Red One" in majors, the young guns can't hold Tiger's knee brace, and all the others worry more about making cuts in those majors than challenging Tiger for the wins.

Bob May, Mark Calcavecchia, and Rocco Mediate? All good guys but just more in the Bum of the Month club Tiger dismisses in majors. Yes, others have won majors with Tiger in the field and we know them all because they've won so many other times since. Phil finally gets the majorless monkey off his back and he's gone so spastic in recent majors that who can take him as a serious challenger anymore? Tiger wasn't even in the hunt in last year's Open Championship and both Sergio and Padraig ed their pants trying to give it away. Imagine the mess they'd have to clean up if Tiger was anywhere near contention.

More power to Tiger for stepping up and knocking these bums back down to wherever they think they can win because it sure isn't in majors. Tiger has proven to be just who he is but Jack at least had his foils. Palmer, Player, Watson, Trevino, Miller, a young Seve.........all great players with major championship success. Tiger may face more good players today but Jack definitely faced more great ones. I look at Tiger and I see what he sees.........a vast wasteland of competitors looking to steal his major championships. A few lesser knowns have managed to sneak away with a major or two and they no doubt will slink away with a few more but there's no one out there that can, or will, consistently battle Tiger for the history he is chasing. It's been over 11 years now............the challengers aren't coming.

[Ty_Webb]

That's a good point League. Tiger is just that much better than the rest. It's truly testament to his greatness that he manages to surpass the field by more than Jack ever did. And more frequently too.

And thank you to Padraig and Sergio for reminding us that these things are pretty darn difficult to win. We get spoilt watching Tiger bring them home, with what looks like ease (less so this week I'll grant you).

[Leaguegolf]

Originally Posted by Ty_Webb

That's a good point League. Tiger is just that much better than the rest. It's truly testament to his greatness that he manages to surpass the field by more than Jack ever did. And more frequently too.

Let's not go overboard here just yet. Yes, Tiger's margin of victory in a few majors has surpassed Jack's but Jack still has more major victories and Tiger will never come close to Jack's number of second place finishes in majors. Yeah, I know, in golf no one remembers who finishes second but Jack was in close contention far, far more often than Tiger. If Tiger isn't leading on Sunday he doesn't win. The same cannot be said of Jack.

[Dormie]

I don't know if I can put Rocco in the Bum of the Month. He put together the most valiant effort against Tiger that we've seen in a long time. We shouldn't expect Rocco to be in these kinds of situations.

My Bums of the Month are these players with all the so-called talent that simply just show up for the majors, collect their check for T37th or whatever, and carry on...

Adam Scott
Luke Donald
Aaron Baddeley
Els
Kim
Leonard
Furky
Sabbatini

And on and on...

[Leaguegolf]

Originally Posted by Dormie

I don't know if I can put Rocco in the Bum of the Month. He put together the most valiant effort against Tiger that we've seen in a long time. We shouldn't expect Rocco to be in these kinds of situations.

Which is exactly why Rocco fits the criteria. I've always liked Rocco, but true to form, he blew his one shot at being King of the Bum of the Month Club.

[Ty_Webb]

Originally Posted by Leaguegolf

Let's not go overboard here just yet. Yes, Tiger's margin of victory in a few majors has surpassed Jack's but Jack still has more major victories and Tiger will never come close to Jack's number of second place finishes in majors. Yeah, I know, in golf no one remembers who finishes second but Jack was in close contention far, far more often than Tiger. If Tiger isn't leading on Sunday he doesn't win. The same cannot be said of Jack.

So, how many wins would make up for those second place finishes? Jack had 18 wins and 19 seconds (which you could argue meant he couldn't get it done more often than he could). So where does it tip over in favour of Tiger?

19 wins, 5 seconds (5 is Tiger's current number of second place finishes I think)
20 wins, 5 seconds
22 wins, 5 seconds
25 wins, 5 seconds
31 wins, 5 seconds

Or more than that even? Besides, all this means is that when Jack had an off week he finished second and when he had an on week, he finished first. What does that say about his competition?

At Tiger's age, Jack had 11 wins and 10 seconds. Tiger has 14 wins and 5 seconds. Which record do you think is better?

[GolfSavage]

Originally Posted by Leaguegolf

Which is exactly why Rocco fits the criteria. I've always liked Rocco, but true to form, he blew his one shot at being King of the Bum of the Month Club.

You're wrong on Rocco, League. He was never considered among the elite, then to struggle with the back problems, and still be able to play and stay on tour, he's a survivor and a competitor. He played the tournament of his life this past weekend, winning a sudden death playoff in the qualifier just to able to be in the event, and did what no one thought he could do - push Tiger to his limit. NO ONE was even giving him a chance at being in contention on Sunday after he'd had the lead then lost it in the early rounds. But he came back and took it to Tiger in a 19 hole overtime. That's not a bum, my friend, and Rocco has nothing to be ashamed of after the performance he put in.

The bums are the guys who claim they want to be #1, say they can take on Tiger, that he's beatable, he gets all the breaks, etc. and yet time and again they fold or fail to show up when given the chance to show us just how mortal Tiger is.

[Leaguegolf]

Originally Posted by GolfSavage

You're wrong on Rocco, League. He was never considered among the elite, then to struggle with the back problems, and still be able to play and stay on tour, he's a survivor and a competitor. He played the tournament of his life this past weekend, winning a sudden death playoff in the qualifier just to able to be in the event, and did what no one thought he could do - push Tiger to his limit. NO ONE was even giving him a chance at being in contention on Sunday after he'd had the lead then lost it in the early rounds. But he came back and took it to Tiger in a 19 hole overtime. That's not a bum, my friend, and Rocco has nothing to be ashamed of after the performance he put in.

The bums are the guys who claim they want to be #1, say they can take on Tiger, that he's beatable, he gets all the breaks, etc. and yet time and again they fold or fail to show up when given the chance to show us just how mortal Tiger is.

Everything you say about Rocco is true and simply furthers my point. A guy ranked well outside the top 100 in the world ranking (a likeable bum, but a bum nevertheless) gets his one shot at glory and in true bum fashion, falls short. Rocco is a golf bum in the truest sense of the term. He is what he is and he knows it. That's why we love him. The others are what they are and refuse to admit it.

[Wazmankg]

Bum is a little strong, but when your main competition for a major on Sunday is named Rocco, Woody, Chris DiMarco (twice).. and let's not forget the over-the-hill gang of Freddie, Monty & Jose at The Open a couple of years back. League makes a solid point. Tiger is the BOAT, no argument from me there, but there's no comparison between elite players of Jack's era and those Tiger has had to face.

[mr3856a]

Originally Posted by Leaguegolf

Yeah, I know, in golf no one remembers who finishes second but Jack was in close contention far, far more often than Tiger. If Tiger isn't leading on Sunday he doesn't win. The same cannot be said of Jack.

And if Tiger is leading on Sunday, he does win. The same cannot be said of Jack, either. And as to Jack being "in close contention far, far more often than Tiger," Tiger still has a way to go, pal. Between 1997 and 2001, Tiger was out of the top 10 a grand total of 2 times in 14 majors. In his last 14 majors, he had the one cut at Winged Foot and other than that, he's been in the top 10 in 12 of the other 13. His results over that time?

1, 2, 1, T4, T3, cut, 1, 1, T2, T2, T12, 1, 2, 1.

You can't be in any more close contention over 3 and a half years of majors than that.

[Ty_Webb]

From the Open in 1970, Jack went:

1, T6, T2, 2, T5, 1, 1, 1, 2, T13, T3, T4, 4, 1, T4, T10, 3, 2, 1, T7, T3, 1, T3, T11, T2, T4, 2, T10, 2, 3, 7, T6, 1

33 majors, 8 wins, 7 seconds, 5 thirds, 11 other top tens and 2 others (an 11th and a 13th)

Jack's records are very impressive. To be even included in the discussion with him is a tremendous accolade for a player. Tiger's records are looking similar (possibly slightly better). Sadly, Tiger won't be improving on his until next year.

[Pistol]

I think Jack had more runner ups because he had more players who CAN win (Palmer, Miller, Trevino, Player, Watson, Floyd, Seve) but he had fewer players than Tiger that COULD win. In the 60's and 70's after you got past the top 10 it was slim pickens as far as major winners go. Now, anybody in the top 150 has a legitimate chance of winning.

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by Pistol

I think Jack had more runner ups because he had more players who CAN win (Palmer, Miller, Trevino, Player, Watson, Floyd, Seve) but he had fewer players than Tiger that COULD win. In the 60's and 70's after you got past the top 10 it was slim pickens as far as major winners go. Now, anybody in the top 150 has a legitimate chance of winning.

That's a good way of putting it Pistol. Back then you still had your Dave Marrs & Orville Moodys who'd win the occassional major, but you also had more truly great players who showed up nearly every time and there was no back down in any of them.

[Diane]

Originally Posted by Pistol

In the 60's and 70's after you got past the top 10 it was slim pickens as far as major winners go. Now, anybody in the top 150 has a legitimate chance of winning.

I could be very wrong about this, but in the 60's and 70's, unless you were in the top 10 - you weren't earning. How many guys could afford to stay on the tour week after week unless they were doing well. Nowadays, a lot of players can afford to stay thereby increasing their chances of getting lucky and winning.

[Leaguegolf]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

That's a good way of putting it Pistol. Back then you still had your Dave Marrs & Orville Moodys who'd win the occassional major, but you also had more truly great players who showed up nearly every time and there was no back down in any of them.

This is why it was tougher for Jack to win majors than Tiger. I'd much rather play against 100 guys that might beat me than 6 that have.

[Leaguegolf]

Originally Posted by mr3856a

And if Tiger is leading on Sunday, he does win. The same cannot be said of Jack, either. And as to Jack being "in close contention far, far more often than Tiger," Tiger still has a way to go, pal. Between 1997 and 2001, Tiger was out of the top 10 a grand total of 2 times in 14 majors. In his last 14 majors, he had the one cut at Winged Foot and other than that, he's been in the top 10 in 12 of the other 13. His results over that time?

1, 2, 1, T4, T3, cut, 1, 1, T2, T2, T12, 1, 2, 1.

You can't be in any more close contention over 3 and a half years of majors than that.

You're so right about Tiger still having a ways to go.

This stretch of Jack's (thanks Ty_Webb ) compares very favorably and doesn't include a missed cut.

1, 1, 1, 2, T13, T3, T4, 4, 1, T4, T10, 3, 2, 1

Compare the winners of the majors Jack didn't win in that stretch with the winners of the majors Tiger didn't win in his stretch and get back to me......pal.

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by Leaguegolf

Tiger may win 100 tour events, heck, he can win 1000 for all I care. History judges the greats by their performances in majors and history will judge Tiger accordingly. It's the rest of these bums that I've had it with.

For years now we've all heard the talk about numerous players having the game to step up and challenge Tiger. That has never happened and I don't think it will until Tiger allows it to happen. Whatever happened to the "Big 5" everyone was touting recently? How about the young guns that will finally catch up to Tiger?

Horse Pucky! All of it. The Big 5 turned into the "Big Red One" in majors, the young guns can't hold Tiger's knee brace, and all the others worry more about making cuts in those majors than challenging Tiger for the wins.

Bob May, Mark Calcavecchia, and Rocco Mediate? All good guys but just more in the Bum of the Month club Tiger dismisses in majors. Yes, others have won majors with Tiger in the field and we know them all because they've won so many other times since. Phil finally gets the majorless monkey off his back and he's gone so spastic in recent majors that who can take him as a serious challenger anymore? Tiger wasn't even in the hunt in last year's Open Championship and both Sergio and Padraig ed their pants trying to give it away. Imagine the mess they'd have to clean up if Tiger was anywhere near contention.

More power to Tiger for stepping up and knocking these bums back down to wherever they think they can win because it sure isn't in majors. Tiger has proven to be just who he is but Jack at least had his foils. Palmer, Player, Watson, Trevino, Miller, a young Seve.........all great players with major championship success. Tiger may face more good players today but Jack definitely faced more great ones. I look at Tiger and I see what he sees.........a vast wasteland of competitors looking to steal his major championships. A few lesser knowns have managed to sneak away with a major or two and they no doubt will slink away with a few more but there's no one out there that can, or will, consistently battle Tiger for the history he is chasing. It's been over 11 years now............the challengers aren't coming.

Oh geez, go crying somewhere else. Your getting my keyboard wet.

[Ty_Webb]

Originally Posted by Leaguegolf

This is why it was tougher for Jack to win majors than Tiger. I'd much rather play against 100 guys that might beat me than 6 that have.

You know what? You're right! It was tougher for Jack to win majors than Tiger. As evidenced by Jack having 11 majors by this stage in his career to Tiger's 14. It was tougher for Jack to win because he wasn't as good.

[coralpro]

Originally Posted by Ty_Webb

You know what? You're right! It was tougher for Jack to win majors than Tiger. As evidenced by Jack having 11 majors by this stage in his career to Tiger's 14. It was tougher for Jack to win because he wasn't as good.

You tell him.

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by Diane

I could be very wrong about this, but in the 60's and 70's, unless you were in the top 10 - you weren't earning. How many guys could afford to stay on the tour week after week unless they were doing well. Nowadays, a lot of players can afford to stay thereby increasing their chances of getting lucky and winning.

There's something to that, though it's a bit of an overstatement. Arnie won $100k in 1963, that's roughly $700k in today's dollars. Watson went over $500k in 1975 which is > $2,000,000 in todays dollars. I can't find extensive stats prior to 1980, but in 1980 the 100th guy on the money list made roughly $100k in today's dollars. There were a lot of guys making a living on tour in the 60s & 70s. So while the increased purses have definitely widened the talent pool, I don't think it's done much to improve the quality at the top. With increased purses has come decreased incentive to really excell IMO. As long as you keep your card and have a couple of good weeks you can still live the life of Riley and I think for too many of these guys that's enough.