Johny Miller's Thoughts on the Young Guns
BulldogsGolf
Future PGA Professional
So no one saw Jonathon Byrd, Nick Watney, or Gary Woodland win, or Rickie Fowler win rookie of the year? Guess Johnny Miller Didn't.....
Hole~Out~1983
Active member
Jonathon Byrd? I not sure he belongs in this conversation. Plus IMO one win isn't really a telling tale.
It's funny because Dustin Johnson has won more tournments at 26 years of age than Johnny Miller won at 26 years of age.
Johnny Miller remembers himself being better than he was.
Johnny Miller remembers himself being better than he was.
While I am not much of a fan of Miller's I happen to agree with him here and have said as much in other threads relating to the amount of income the current crop of tour players can generate basically by showing up. Making the cut on a regular basis can really put you in the clover. There is a difference between preferring to win and knowing how to win. Miller also talks of their Sunday performances when compared to his contemporaries. Faldo says as much as well although you get the feeling that Faldo is talking about how tough a competitor he was on Sunday while Miller simply includes himself in a field of very tough Sunday competitors. I am not sure there is anybody in this crop of young players that knows how to go out there and win a tourney. You had better strap it up big time if you intended winning in a field that included, Palmer, Nicklaus, Wieskopf, Watson, Gieberger, Player, Irwin, Floyd, Travino and Miller himself, etc etc. I think even Ballesteros was a pretty tough Sunday player. That is a really impressive list of hard nosed tour players and that is not the whole list of Miller contemporaries. The point Miller is trying to make is that for the most part you had to go out and win tourney's in that field. There were fewer cases where a goodly percentage of the guys that had a chance to win pulled an El Foldo on Sunday leaving one guy standing.
Greg Norman certainly had his share of blow ups but he was the exception, not the rule. I think Norman was for the most part in the next era of players right after Millers as well.
I do think Ricky Fowler shows promise in this regard as he appears to have something of the eye of the tiger about him.
The other thing that I see that you may or may not consider relevant is that there are fewer all out risk takers in this crop of pros. Guys like Arnold Palmer rarely played for the center of the green. He was a pin seeker. As Miller says sure Arnie had his share of blow ups because of his aggressive play but when he was on he could shot some crazy Sunday numbers which endeared him to the crowd as well as getting him some wins. He was not alone in that regard either. Travino was a very aggressive player. He could go out on Sunday and just blow peoples doors off.
While you could say that the eventual winner of the Transitions event went out and played well enough to win it, how often can you depend on being 17 for 17 inside 20' on Sunday to win? I don't think even Loren Roberts ever got that hot with the putter especially on Sunday and I doubt we will see something like that again anytime soon. This is a whole 'nouther topic for discussion but have you ever seen so many blown two and three footers in your life for an event that was not a major? While the 17 for 17 was special I think the general level of quality putting was pretty poor.
Greg Norman certainly had his share of blow ups but he was the exception, not the rule. I think Norman was for the most part in the next era of players right after Millers as well.
I do think Ricky Fowler shows promise in this regard as he appears to have something of the eye of the tiger about him.
The other thing that I see that you may or may not consider relevant is that there are fewer all out risk takers in this crop of pros. Guys like Arnold Palmer rarely played for the center of the green. He was a pin seeker. As Miller says sure Arnie had his share of blow ups because of his aggressive play but when he was on he could shot some crazy Sunday numbers which endeared him to the crowd as well as getting him some wins. He was not alone in that regard either. Travino was a very aggressive player. He could go out on Sunday and just blow peoples doors off.
While you could say that the eventual winner of the Transitions event went out and played well enough to win it, how often can you depend on being 17 for 17 inside 20' on Sunday to win? I don't think even Loren Roberts ever got that hot with the putter especially on Sunday and I doubt we will see something like that again anytime soon. This is a whole 'nouther topic for discussion but have you ever seen so many blown two and three footers in your life for an event that was not a major? While the 17 for 17 was special I think the general level of quality putting was pretty poor.
Johnny Miller is one of the most overrated golfers of all time. Only reason people listen to him is that he does commentary on NBC. I would much rather listen to Faldo, since he actually won tournaments. Johnny Miller thinks that there is too much emphasis on the majors because he only won 2. Padrig Harrington has more major wins than he does.
How old were Arnold Palmer and Travino when they were "blowing doors off"?
Dustin Johnson has won more tournaments than Arnold Palmer at the same age.
How old were Arnold Palmer and Travino when they were "blowing doors off"?
Dustin Johnson has won more tournaments than Arnold Palmer at the same age.
bumpnrun
New member
- Thread starter
- #32
I saw an interview with Gary Player where he talked about how soft the young American players are. He said something like "You need adversity to teach you how to win. These guys have been pampered since their junior careers. Now hit me in the stomach." 
Something like that.
So maybe it's not that they don't want to win, it's that they don't have the nerve, like Tiger did.
Something like that.So maybe it's not that they don't want to win, it's that they don't have the nerve, like Tiger did.
I saw an interview with Gary Player where he talked about how soft the young American players are. He said something like "You need adversity to teach you how to win. These guys have been pampered since their junior careers. Now hit me in the stomach."
So maybe it's not that they don't want to win, it's that they don't have the nerve, like Tiger did.
Gary Player won exactly 1 more tournament at the age of 26 than Dustin Johnson.
Has anybody thought that maybe, just maybe that the pga field in 2011 is strong than it was in the 50's 60's and 70's?
Tidy =/= competitive/desire to win. I know a bunch of guys who can barely tie their shoelaces, can't read the clock (exhaggerating here of course..) and so on, but they are fierce competitors and will bodyslam you on the 18th green if that's what have to do to win.
Anthony Kim is 25. He has won 3 tournaments.
Sergio Garcia won 6 tournments by the age of 26. He just hasn't won a major yet. Sergio seems more like a failure because he has been around forever.
Hole~Out~1983
Active member
Your right AK is 25 with three wins but in the minds of many his level of talent should have produced more than three wins on tour so far.
He missed most of last year because of injury. So I will give him a break on that.
My point is that Johnny Miller is ragging on the young talent currently on the PGA tour. But that young talent is/has been more successful than he was at that age. Like I have said before in this thread. Johnny Miller remembers himself being a lot better than he was.
Hole~Out~1983
Active member
Yeah but your missing the fact that Johnny Miller isnt trying to make comparisons between today's young talent and himself. He is simply pointing out the fact that alot of young talented player's on tour have not played up to their potential and have been rather inconsistant.
But the best golfers in hystory weren't all winning at the age of 25. My point is that Johnny Miller is looking back at his generation through a rosey lense.
Today's young players are inconsistent because they're not winning every week? I don't buy it at all. Part of the reason that either Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, or Jack Nicklaus were winning every week was because the tour had 3 or 4 players worthy of winning. The fields are stronger now and that has taken away wins from players.
I would have a hard time ranking Miller high in that group of golfers as well. Whether he is the all time most overrated pro golfer is questionable but I might take anybody else in that group that I named over Miller. He might think otherwise.
The point is the level of play within the field for that era so I think it is tough to look at wins by a certain age under the circumstances. You can only compete with the guys that are out there at the same time as you are. I think within this current group, we see more instances where one of them is just left standing at the end of what is not a terribly exceptional or impressive tourney as opposed to one of them winning within a group that generally performed well particularly on Sunday. Lets face it, somebody is going to record the low score and there will be a "winner' each week. It is not like the PGA Tour is going to declare a no contest because nobody really distinguished himself that week.
I really do think Fowler has a chance to distinguish himself. I might be wrong but I just see something in him that suggests he will become a true force to be reckoned with. Rory might turn out that way as well now that I think about it. But as a group can you really think of this bunch as hard nosed as likable as a good many of them are? Are they guys that impress you as able to come through a firestorm of exceptional play on Sunday? Actually this is one reason I am really looking forward to the Masters this year. I would love to see solid play from the field generally with one guy finally winning it as opposed to one guy in the end just not losing it. This should be a real interesting year for the Masters since I don't think any of us is expecting some sort of Tiger Masters rebirth at least not this year. If somebody could really distinguish themselves in this years Masters by "winning it" that might be one of the best things that could happen in what looks more and more like a post Tiger era. I do think Tiger will win again but with each day that passes, there seems less chance that he will ever dominate or even be a force again.
The point is the level of play within the field for that era so I think it is tough to look at wins by a certain age under the circumstances. You can only compete with the guys that are out there at the same time as you are. I think within this current group, we see more instances where one of them is just left standing at the end of what is not a terribly exceptional or impressive tourney as opposed to one of them winning within a group that generally performed well particularly on Sunday. Lets face it, somebody is going to record the low score and there will be a "winner' each week. It is not like the PGA Tour is going to declare a no contest because nobody really distinguished himself that week.
I really do think Fowler has a chance to distinguish himself. I might be wrong but I just see something in him that suggests he will become a true force to be reckoned with. Rory might turn out that way as well now that I think about it. But as a group can you really think of this bunch as hard nosed as likable as a good many of them are? Are they guys that impress you as able to come through a firestorm of exceptional play on Sunday? Actually this is one reason I am really looking forward to the Masters this year. I would love to see solid play from the field generally with one guy finally winning it as opposed to one guy in the end just not losing it. This should be a real interesting year for the Masters since I don't think any of us is expecting some sort of Tiger Masters rebirth at least not this year. If somebody could really distinguish themselves in this years Masters by "winning it" that might be one of the best things that could happen in what looks more and more like a post Tiger era. I do think Tiger will win again but with each day that passes, there seems less chance that he will ever dominate or even be a force again.
Golf 'N Gator
Formally HoosierGolfer
I never heard him compare any of them to himself? Looking at this reminds me that Johnny had a very good career; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Miller#Professional_wins_.2832.29
Golf 'N Gator
Formally HoosierGolfer
How many current tour players have the win totals JM has?
He did win a whole bunch in clumps, but he was not as young as the "young guns" he is ragging on.
Golf 'N Gator
Formally HoosierGolfer
But you can rag on Johnny and you don't have a single tour win? :confused2:
Hole~Out~1983
Active member
Because they're not winning every week? Your trying to justify AK not winning more because he missed almost all of last year. Ok so tell me what has he done this year...nothing, and he has looked pretty poor on the golf course. But I guess thats just from the depth of the field right? If the young players were consistantly playing up to their hype they would be on the front page of the leaderboard every week but thats not happening. As for your comparisons of the Nicklaus, Palmer era to this one, I dont buy it. You can't compare the two eras, do think Jack and Arnold or any of the others had launch monitors in their back yards giving them optimal spin and launch conditions or titanium drivers and five layer balls no. And if you think there were only 3-4 guys worthy of winning in that era I would call you crazy.
So JB and TC can't rag on John Daly or Mike Weir?
I am not going to agree with everything that Johnny Miller says about golf just because he was a pro golfer who won a bunch of tournaments. That would not be very smart. It would make me a sheep.
If everybody had those tools back in the day, there would have been more good golfers.