Nicklaus: The younger Tour players are 'soft'

[xnavyct]

Now this is interesting what Nicklaus is saying here....basically, that the money on Tour has gotten so big, that even if they don't win a tournament, a Tour Pro is going to make some very good money. It has made them 'soft', in contrast to when he was playing.

ESPN - At Open, Nicklaus wonders if money has softened young golfers - Golf


Thoughts?

I think the players now want to win just as much as Tour players did in previous decades, but Jack is correct in that they probably don't know the pressure of having to finish well in order to have enough money to make a decent living...

[Wazmankg]

Hunger is the greatest motivator. I have to agree with him at the risk of presuming to get in the young guys heads and I'm sure it's not true of all of them. #150 on the ML last year made a half-million in prize money alone. Less expenses that's still a very comfortable living and we haven't even started talking about their non-prize money income.

[droogy33]

Jack's just getting old.

In 1963, Arnold Palmer earned $128,000 from only his tournament winnings. Back in those days, $128,000 was big, big money.

I remember hearing my father divulge his yearly earnings at one time. It was around 1970, and my father had a decent position. He was the air-freight manager of then Hughes Air West Airlines, which was Bonanza Airlines, and would merge with Northwest Orient.

My dad made around $22,000 a year in those days, and I remember him expressing shock at how much top athletes made. By the early 70s, Jack was earning more than ten times what my pops was.

Playing to make a living, indeed.

[Bolt Fore]

Arnie was the first to make a million in a year. I'm not sure what year that was, but nowadays you get a million for winning one tourney so i'm not sure Jack is too far wrong. I was suprised to see the Open this year paying $ 1.5 million. Did I see that right?
Amend what I said above. Arnie was the first player to make a million in his career. Curtis Strange was the first to make a million in a year 1988.

[straightshooter]

The only way that I can see to 'fix' this, is to pay the high performers more, and the lesser players less. I don't see a problem though with the current situation. What is wrong with the 500 best golfers in the world making a decent living for themselves? The 'hunger' still exists, but it has shifted to the outer edges of the main tours. It has brought us 'deeper fields'. With all the money that is to be had in professional golf, that's just the way it is.

[Bigvivec]

There is no fix...not as long as there is streaming video, the Golf Channel and major network coverage (read: advertising space) and millions of fans to support the increases in purse amounts...have a problem with it then you should play the same clubs for 10 years, drive the same car for 12, stay away from checking updates on the PGA websites, and start playing used golf balls...one feeds the other and as visible as the game and the top stars are in it nowadays, the market determines their reimbursment...as for being "soft", Jack has had quite a few quotes after going over the hill that border on sour grapes...he's going to lose the mantle of the greatest ever in his own lifetime and there is nothing he can do about it; he wouldn't be the competitor that he is if it didn't rankle him a little...and I believe that he is absolutley correct in that while the top echelon made a good buck (not anywhere near the inflation adjusted incomes of today's stars) the lower tiers roomed together, caravaned to tournaments sometimes held on less than perfect public courses, and generally had to grind out a living...if you are a PGA player who keeps his card, you might feel like you are grinding, but your car and house are new, you have your caddies number on speed dial, and you fly from site to site...it is a different world and money has taken a little bit of the competitive fire out of it...

[Wazmankg]

Originally Posted by droogy33

Jack's just getting old.

In 1963, Arnold Palmer earned $128,000 from only his tournament winnings. Back in those days, $128,000 was big, big money.

I remember hearing my father divulge his yearly earnings at one time. It was around 1970, and my father had a decent position. He was the air-freight manager of then Hughes Air West Airlines, which was Bonanza Airlines, and would merge with Northwest Orient.

My dad made around $22,000 a year in those days, and I remember him expressing shock at how much top athletes made. By the early 70s, Jack was earning more than ten times what my pops was.

Playing to make a living, indeed.

droogy, Arnie won 7 tournaments in '63. Your dad probably would've cracked the top 30 on the ML in 63 at $22k.

Originally Posted by Bolt Fore

Arnie was the first to make a million in a year.

Arnie was the first to win $100,000 in a year (62 or 63) and a million in his career.

[JPsuff]

Originally Posted by xnavyct

Now this is interesting what Nicklaus is saying here....basically, that the money on Tour has gotten so big, that even if they don't win a tournament, a Tour Pro is going to make some very good money. It has made them 'soft', in contrast to when he was playing.

ESPN - At Open, Nicklaus wonders if money has softened young golfers - Golf


Thoughts?

I think the players now want to win just as much as Tour players did in previous decades, but Jack is correct in that they probably don't know the pressure of having to finish well in order to have enough money to make a decent living...

And this is some kind of revelation?

I've been saying that for at least the last fifteen years. I can't put my finger on the exact moment in history, but there was a point where Tour pro's stopped carrying their golf bags into the clubhouse and started carrying briefcases. It was around that time that "winning" changed from finishing in first place to simply finishing in the "top twenty". As the years rolled on and the purses got bigger and bigger, that changed to "top fifty" and these days even finishing last on the money list still offers that player a very comfortable lifestyle.

About a decade or so before Jack turned pro, many tournaments only paid money to those who finished in the top twenty or top fifty. The rest were given a handshake and that was about it. In those days, you either played well, or you starved.
Even when Jack earned his first professional paycheck ($33.33) the idea of sponsorship was still a few years away. But in 1965 when Julius Boros accepted a deal from Amana which paid him $50 per week to wear a hat with their logo embroidered on it, the floodgates opened. And if you want to really have something to ponder, try figuring out why Michelle Wie, who has never won an 18 hole stroke play event - EVER, manages to pull in over 20 million per year in off-course income. She and many other professional golfers may talk about wanting to win, but deep down inside they know that they could go winless for the rest of their careers and still have millions in the bank.


With the money to be made today, winning is basically more of a hassle than anything else. If a pro can live a millionaire's lifestyle by simply aiming for 20th place, why go to all the time and trouble to win? Winning means the spotlight and if the win was a major, it means a constant spotlight and a large demand on one's time, while "Mr. Top Twenty" simply waves as he walks by on his way to cash yet another hefty "losers" check. That's why Tiger is so remarkable. He was a multimillionaire before he ever teed it up for his first pro tournament in Milwaukee, yet he has gone on to make history and will likely be doing so into the foreseeable future. I honestly believe he'd do it for free because he's in it for the glory and the records. One of my favorite Tiger quotes is "Second place is just first loser".

That single sentiment is what separates him from the also-rans and it demonstrates why they ARE also-rans.


-JP

[Fileygolfer]

Jack is right.
The young guys that are just inside the top 100 of the respective OOM's can think "There is always next week, or the week after".
In Jacks early days it was "Make the 36 hole cut and then the 54 hole cut, or earn nothing and your off to PQ next week"

[JimSomebody]

Originally Posted by Wazmankg

... #150 on the ML last year made a half-million in prize money alone. ...

Along those lines: At the end of every season, I look at the money list to see how far down you have to go to find someone who didn't earn a million dollars. Last year, it was guy #100 (Briny Baird, at $985,453). It seems that soon a guy will be able to make a million and not retain his card.

But then a million bucks isn't what it used to be.

[xnavyct]

Maybe I'm not remembering this exactly correct, but early in his career, didn't Hogan (or maybe it was Byron Nelson) say he pretty much had to win or place in tournaments in order to have the gas, food and lodging money to even go play in the next tournament he wanted to go play in, if it was in another part of the country?

[Bigvivec]

Originally Posted by xnavyct

Maybe I'm not remembering this exactly correct, but early in his career, didn't Hogan (or maybe it was Byron Nelson) say he pretty much had to win or place in tournaments in order to have the gas, food and lodging money to even go play in the next tournament he wanted to go play in, if it was in another part of the country?

Palmer and tv changed alot of that in a fell swoop...

[droogy33]

Originally Posted by JPsuff

About a decade or so before Jack turned pro, many tournaments only paid money to those who finished in the top twenty or top fifty. The rest were given a handshake and that was about it. In those days, you either played well, or you starved.

One thing which must be kept in mind is this: During the 30s, 40s and 50s, there was not a proper TOUR. At least not in the way we know it today.

Back in those days, there were about 15 guys (same as today) who were demonstrably superior golfers, and they made the lion's share of the loot which was thrown around.

The 50 to 60 other guys which made up those times' smaller fields were largely local and/or regional pros who didn't travel very much. They would take their 55th place finish, with little or no earnings, and just go back to their regular jobs.

No one was starving back then. If you were a Byron Nelson, you were good enough to retire at the age of 34. If you were Joe Average, you supported your wife and kids by working in the factory.

[mr3856a]

Am I the only one who read this and thought, "whatever, Jack - just go build another resort course and give it a rest"?

[JimSomebody]

This is probably irrelevant, but this thread reminded me of a Ben Hogan story:

Years ago, before he began his career as a television golf analyst, Gary McCord was introduced to his idol Ben Hogan while Hogan was having his customary lunch at the Colonial Country Club in Fort Worth, Texas .

"Tell me, Mr. McCord , what do you do?" Hogan asked.

McCord said he was a touring pro.

Hogan nodded. "How long have you been out there?"

"Seventeen years," replied McCord .

"Seventeen years," said Hogan, startled. "I must be getting out of touch. Tell me, Mr. McCord , how many tournaments have you won?"

"None," answered McCord .

"None?" said Hogan. "What *** have you been doing out there?"

Notebook - 03.22.99 - SI Vault

[Stiofan]

Jack's comments are not about the top players in his day, they are about the bottom players in his day compared to the bottom players today.

The money difference between bottom and top was more of an incentive to better yourself. Today, who cares, you're making near a million (with endorsements) regardless just by retaining your card.

[Wildbore]

Inflation has happened in every sport, and it is basically a universal truth in every modern economy. It doesn't necessarily create lazines. Jack is just finding excuses for degrading Tiger's career. Saying that Tiger's competititon is soft does that. He has been making these claims for quite some time now and some of them are true.

[petermo]

I don't think Jack's degrading Tiger at all - however I fully support his contention that the current crop is soft and would add to it, spoilt. The top 10 are very good but can anyone really compare say, Justin Rose or Adam Scott with Jack's rivals who were Trevino, Watson and Player (Arnie had really passed his prime by 1970). The rest are really competent but as I've argued earlier very middle of the road and there are 100's of them.

[droogy33]

Originally Posted by Stiofan

Jack's comments are not about the top players in his day, they are about the bottom players in his day compared to the bottom players today.

The money difference between bottom and top was more of an incentive to better yourself. Today, who cares, you're making near a million (with endorsements) regardless just by retaining your card.

Things are no different today. In Jack's day you had your journeymen who never won, and we have the same today.

Look at last year's TOUR money list. Steve Lowery finished 148th with $502,000. No incentive to better himself, right? Then why did he win this year's Pebble Beach National Pro-Am?

Or how about Ben Curtis? Last year he finished 126th with $772,000. He's only, as I type, grinding his guts out at Royal Birkdale, trying to win The Open Championship.

You want an incentive to get better? Today's TOUR players...the rank and file guys...the journeymen...know that there are more than 300 golfers, world wide, who are trying to get a PGA TOUR card.

[petermo]

Originally Posted by droogy33

Look at last year's TOUR money list. Steve Lowery finished 148th with $502,000. No incentive to better himself, right? Then why did he win this year's Pebble Beach National Pro-Am?

.

Probably because quite a few better players avoided the tournamet because of the 5 rounds and the (ham)ateur participants.

[JPsuff]

Originally Posted by droogy33

One thing which must be kept in mind is this: During the 30s, 40s and 50s, there was not a proper TOUR. At least not in the way we know it today.

Back in those days, there were about 15 guys (same as today) who were demonstrably superior golfers, and they made the lion's share of the loot which was thrown around.

The 50 to 60 other guys which made up those times' smaller fields were largely local and/or regional pros who didn't travel very much. They would take their 55th place finish, with little or no earnings, and just go back to their regular jobs.