Live Chat with Brandel Chamblee

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JonWil

New
Lifter, I checked out the live chat session with Chamblee. Much of the interaction was participants pinging him about his past negativity on Tiger. He pretty much responded, "Deal with it." :D Chamblee's position is that Jack had stronger competition (consistent winners) than Tiger has had to face, and that Jack should be considered the stronger player no matter what Tiger's career stats end up being.
 
D

DCgolf

New
If I was a player on tour today, I would be mightily offended by someone who says the athletes of 40 years ago are better than my generation. Golf, according to the Chamblee's of the world, defies the human evolutionary law. In every other sport athletes are better today; bigger, stronger, faster. Except golf. Golf peaked in the 60s and 70s and has gone all the way down to the level of Phil Mickelson, Ernie Els, vijay Singh et al. As soon as a guy dominates, the field is weak. In American golf, eras have typically had 3, 4 guys battling it out at the top; Jones, Hagen, Sarazen followed by Hogan, Nelson, Snead then the Palmer, Player, Nicklaus time, and so on. Just because, with the possible exception of Phil, this era is dominated by one guy, does not have to mean the field is weak. It just might mean the one guy is way better.
 
L

Lifter

New
DCgolf said:
If I was a player on tour today, I would be mightily offended by someone who says the athletes of 40 years ago are better than my generation. Golf, according to the Chamblee's of the world, defies the human evolutionary law. In every other sport athletes are better today; bigger, stronger, faster. Except golf. Golf peaked in the 60s and 70s and has gone all the way down to the level of Phil Mickelson, Ernie Els, vijay Singh et al. As soon as a guy dominates, the field is weak. In American golf, eras have typically had 3, 4 guys battling it out at the top; Jones, Hagen, Sarazen followed by Hogan, Nelson, Snead then the Palmer, Player, Nicklaus time, and so on. Just because, with the possible exception of Phil, this era is dominated by one guy, does not have to mean the field is weak. It just might mean the one guy is way better.
Click to expand...

What if golf at its highest level came down with a bad case of Leadbetteritis for many years?
 
O

Old Tom

New
DCgolf said:
If I was a player on tour today, I would be mightily offended by someone who says the athletes of 40 years ago are better than my generation. Golf, according to the Chamblee's of the world, defies the human evolutionary law. In every other sport athletes are better today; bigger, stronger, faster. Except golf. Golf peaked in the 60s and 70s and has gone all the way down to the level of Phil Mickelson, Ernie Els, vijay Singh et al. As soon as a guy dominates, the field is weak. In American golf, eras have typically had 3, 4 guys battling it out at the top; Jones, Hagen, Sarazen followed by Hogan, Nelson, Snead then the Palmer, Player, Nicklaus time, and so on. Just because, with the possible exception of Phil, this era is dominated by one guy, does not have to mean the field is weak. It just might mean the one guy is way better.
Click to expand...

I think too much emphasis is placed on golf as a sport instead of a game. I think golf is more like bowling, horseshoes, pool, and archery, than it is like football, baseball, soccer, or basketball. Just because the players work out today doesn't mean that they are better golfers. It just means that they are better exercisers and may last a few years longer on tour, although I think modern medicine has a lot to do with that. As far as athletes go, I doubt that any current golfer is as good an athlete as Sam Snead was.

Old Tom
 
J

JonWil

New
There have been some very insightful comments.

Just for clarity: Chamblee’s fundamental premise was that Jack had to beat several competitors that were themselves ‘prolific’ winners and that tiger doesn’t have this peerage.
 
D

DCgolf

New
This is the oldest debate in sports. The classic Dempsey vs Marciano vs Ali quagmire. All a player can do is beat the people he/she is playing against. And leave it to the golf blogosphere I suppose to decide who is better. But I will concede this point: Tiger did play against fields that included Brandel Chamblee. So I suppose he has a point :)
 
B

Bigwill

New
Maybe what Brandel is seeing as weaker competition is simply a case of greater parity. It could be that there are more guys capable of winning today. More evenly distributed wins means less players with a lot of wins. Of course, when Tiger was playing out of his mind, there were less wins for everyone.
 
O

Old Tom

New
Brian Manzella said:
2000 Tiger would give Hogan and Jack a shot a side.

And win.
Click to expand...

Brian - You must be too young to remember Nicklaus when he was 25 years old! I agree with you about Hogan, but I think both Byron Nelson and Bobby Jones would also have held their own against Woods at his peak and their peaks.

Old Tom
 
dschultz6072

dschultz6072

New
742460fabf6994f7ea3e804516081f43.jpg
 
B

Brian Manzella

Administrator
Old Tom said:
Brian - You must be too young to remember Nicklaus when he was 25 years old! I agree with you about Hogan, but I think both Byron Nelson and Bobby Jones would also have held their own against Woods at his peak and their peaks.

Old Tom
Click to expand...

Maybe you slept through the 2000 US Open?
 
D

DCgolf

New
Old Tom said:
Brian - You must be too young to remember Nicklaus when he was 25 years old! I agree with you about Hogan, but I think both Byron Nelson and Bobby Jones would also have held their own against Woods at his peak and their peaks.

Old Tom
Click to expand...

You mean their best ball right?
 
C

conkanen

New
Until Tiger beats Jacks Major record, Jack is the best. And based on what golfers do in Majors over the age of 35, Tiger will have to match Jacks record here to do it. It's going to be an interesting few years.
 
D

DCgolf

New
Burner said:
I understand he even rolled his own cigarettes!
Click to expand...

Not Sam..he was a legendary no smoke, no drink, early to bed guy. My favorite Snead quote: "Give me a millionaire with a bad swing and I can have a wonderful afternoon". What a talent though...
 
O

Old Tom

New
Brian Manzella said:
Maybe you slept through the 2000 US Open?
Click to expand...

As I recall, Woods was using the new Nike solid ball for some time before Titleist and the other manufacturers caught on that something had changed the golf world. Much the same happened when the feathery gave way to the gutty in the 1850's and the gutty gave way to the wound balata around 1900. In each case the old ball was abandoned in a matter of a few years. In other words, for a brief time Woods had a huge equipment advantage over the field which magnified his superiority.

Nicklaus, on the other hand, always played the universally acknowledged lousy MacGregor ball. Even the MacGregor staff players usually switched to Titleist after their first hole, and Hogan eventually split with MacGregor over their insistence that he play their ball.

Maybe it was your bottle and nappy time so you slept through the 1965 Masters?

Old Tom
 
Burner

Burner

New
DCgolf said:
Not Sam..he was a legendary no smoke, no drink, early to bed guy. My favorite Snead quote: "Give me a millionaire with a bad swing and I can have a wonderful afternoon". What a talent though...
Click to expand...

DC, it was only a joke based on the amount of energy expended on rolling a cigarette rather than fishing one out of a packet - about as much
exercise (assumed) that most pro golfers of that era took.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top