Lanny Is Putting Everyone On Blast Today!

[ExTrumpet]

Being mentioned as a disappointment could only be a compliment in my opinion. The tour has never been more talented than it is now--with better equipment. Pretty tough to stand out and dominate every week.

 

And, for the record, I'm old enough to be a veteran on the Champions Tour, so my age bias is unrelated!!

[csiachos]

Wait, he said Fowler, Na, Stanely, Chucky Three sticks, and Keegan haven't met expectations?

 

 

I wonder where he comes up with this stuff.

My vote for post of 2017

 

Why? It's not like he was wrong.

No, I think Lanny is right and Kymar's post was hilarious

[Your-away!]

maybe it is his accent.. he just comes across as forced....a little angry almost...

 

Yep its called "little man syndrome"

[chrismikayla]

I can only take him in small doses. I'll take Johnny Miller even over him.

[Couples1]

Let's get Lanny and Dottie in the same booth together and see all the negative ions start to flow.

Have to be a very big booth ... with Lannys big ole head and Dotties big ole arse

[dlygrisse]

Let's get Lanny and Dottie in the same booth together and see all the negative ions start to flow.

Have to be a very big booth ... with Lannys big ole head and Dotties big ole arse

 

Does anyone else see the irony in these sort of posts?

[Roadking2003]

Lanny did EXACTLY what the network wanted: Create some buzz about the tournament. No big names involved other than Fowler. Who wants to watch this crap? Well other than golf fanatics. I fell asleep twice on it and still haven't completed watching the replay..

 

This is true. It's all about the entertainment value.

[PowderedToastMan]

It's amazing how people can't put two and two together, even on tour. I agree 100% with Lanny and if the players on tour thought about it a bit more, they'd probably see the point. My argument here is Jordan Spieth. So many people on tour openly admit they have no idea why he's good and wins. Yet he's 23 and has 10 wins. Then we hear these old timers saying their generation knew how to win. Then we hear these old timers saying Jordan knows how to win.

 

Could it be possible, maybe, that knowing how to win actually matters? Especially considering the best player of the last 3 years isn't particularly long, straight or accurate? Is it possible there's another element to greatness?

 

Honestly, you guys that disagree, just think about it for a bit. Maybe study performance psychology/sport psychology and see the countless examples of this.

 

I honestly think year 2000 Tiger skewed the golfing worlds view on this. Even though they knew Tiger had this killer instinct and shear desire to win, they thought it was mainly his athletic talents, even though he had been winning prolifically since he was a skinny kid. Then there was Hogan. The man had an incredible golf mind, but people were and still are obsessed with "the secret". His secret was that he prepared and knew how to execute.

 

Truth is, the modern golfer gets very pleased and self congratulatory after a win (considering the adoration that comes, it makes sense). This attitude directly conflicts with the desire to keep winning. There's a struggle to keep staying motivated.

 

My last point is Michael Jordan. Not many will argue that season 3 MJ that averaged close to 40 a game was more dominant than MJ during the last 3 peat. It's interesting because that's an admission that Jordan's wisdom and basketball IQ outweighed him no longer being "look at the hang time, look at the flying motion" Jordan. Then at 40, he almost took the worst team in the NBA, the Wizards, to the playoffs. The Kwame Brown Wizards.

 

Knowing how to win is a HUGE advantage, more of an advantage than DJ and Koepka's club head speed

[Shilgy]

It's amazing how people can't put two and two together, even on tour. I agree 100% with Lanny and if the players on tour thought about it a bit more, they'd probably see the point. My argument here is Jordan Spieth. So many people on tour openly admit they have no idea why he's good and wins. Yet he's 23 and has 10 wins. Then we hear these old timers saying their generation knew how to win. Then we hear these old timers saying Jordan knows how to win.

 

Could it be possible, maybe, that knowing how to win actually matters? Especially considering the best player of the last 3 years isn't particularly long, straight or accurate? Is it possible there's another element to greatness?

 

Honestly, you guys that disagree, just think about it for a bit. Maybe study performance psychology/sport psychology and see the countless examples of this.

 

I honestly think year 2000 Tiger skewed the golfing worlds view on this. Even though they knew Tiger had this killer instinct and shear desire to win, they thought it was mainly his athletic talents, even though he had been winning prolifically since he was a skinny kid. Then there was Hogan. The man had an incredible golf mind, but people were and still are obsessed with "the secret". His secret was that he prepared and knew how to execute.

 

Truth is, the modern golfer gets very pleased and self congratulatory after a win (considering the adoration that comes, it makes sense). This attitude directly conflicts with the desire to keep winning. There's a struggle to keep staying motivated.

 

My last point is Michael Jordan. Not many will argue that season 3 MJ that averaged close to 40 a game was more dominant than MJ during the last 3 peat. It's interesting because that's an admission that Jordan's wisdom and basketball IQ outweighed him no longer being "look at the hang time, look at the flying motion" Jordan. Then at 40, he almost took the worst team in the NBA, the Wizards, to the playoffs. The Kwame Brown Wizards.

 

Knowing how to win is a HUGE advantage, more of an advantage than DJ and Koepka's club head speed

You could also argue that Lanny and the like did not know "how to win" any more than today players but they certainly had an easier route to winning. Put a Lanny or Pavin or even Player on today's tour and they win much less often as their games would not have been suited for the modern game even with the newer equipment. Guys like Jack and Arnie would have been fine in the later eras as they did play a power game back then. As would the Weiskopfs and Watsons. No it's mot just about distance but you need to be able to move it out there with the players of today or get run over.

Others have worded it more eloquently but if you take 500 players that have 5% stars-30% great-30% good and 35% not so good players and make a tour of 125 guys. Now take 5000 guys with the same percentages. Half the guys that would have been stars when you had just 500 players can't even stay on tour in the bigger group. THAT is why the depth of field matters imo.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

It's amazing how people can't put two and two together, even on tour. I agree 100% with Lanny and if the players on tour thought about it a bit more, they'd probably see the point. My argument here is Jordan Spieth. So many people on tour openly admit they have no idea why he's good and wins. Yet he's 23 and has 10 wins. Then we hear these old timers saying their generation knew how to win. Then we hear these old timers saying Jordan knows how to win.

 

Could it be possible, maybe, that knowing how to win actually matters? Especially considering the best player of the last 3 years isn't particularly long, straight or accurate? Is it possible there's another element to greatness?

 

Honestly, you guys that disagree, just think about it for a bit. Maybe study performance psychology/sport psychology and see the countless examples of this.

 

I honestly think year 2000 Tiger skewed the golfing worlds view on this. Even though they knew Tiger had this killer instinct and shear desire to win, they thought it was mainly his athletic talents, even though he had been winning prolifically since he was a skinny kid. Then there was Hogan. The man had an incredible golf mind, but people were and still are obsessed with "the secret". His secret was that he prepared and knew how to execute.

 

Truth is, the modern golfer gets very pleased and self congratulatory after a win (considering the adoration that comes, it makes sense). This attitude directly conflicts with the desire to keep winning. There's a struggle to keep staying motivated.

 

My last point is Michael Jordan. Not many will argue that season 3 MJ that averaged close to 40 a game was more dominant than MJ during the last 3 peat. It's interesting because that's an admission that Jordan's wisdom and basketball IQ outweighed him no longer being "look at the hang time, look at the flying motion" Jordan. Then at 40, he almost took the worst team in the NBA, the Wizards, to the playoffs. The Kwame Brown Wizards.

 

Knowing how to win is a HUGE advantage, more of an advantage than DJ and Koepka's club head speed

You could also argue that Lanny and the like did not know "how to win" any more than today players but they certainly had an easier route to winning. Put a Lanny or Pavin or even Player on today's tour and they win much less often as their games would not have been suited for the modern game even with the newer equipment. Guys like Jack and Arnie would have been fine in the later eras as they did play a power game back then. As would the Weiskopfs and Watsons. No it's mot just about distance but you need to be able to move it out there with the players of today or get run over.

Others have worded it more eloquently but if you take 500 players that have 5% stars-30% great-30% good and 35% not so good players and make a tour of 125 guys. Now take 5000 guys with the same percentages. Half the guys that would have been stars when you had just 500 players can't even stay on tour in the bigger group. THAT is why the depth of field matters imo.

 

I had something typed, but you put it much better. Agree 100%. The Wadkinseseses of the golf world are very fortunate they came along when they did. It doesn't diminish what Lanny did, it just diminishes how much stock I put in his hot takes on the modern game.

[dlygrisse]

It's amazing how people can't put two and two together, even on tour. I agree 100% with Lanny and if the players on tour thought about it a bit more, they'd probably see the point. My argument here is Jordan Spieth. So many people on tour openly admit they have no idea why he's good and wins. Yet he's 23 and has 10 wins. Then we hear these old timers saying their generation knew how to win. Then we hear these old timers saying Jordan knows how to win.

 

Could it be possible, maybe, that knowing how to win actually matters? Especially considering the best player of the last 3 years isn't particularly long, straight or accurate? Is it possible there's another element to greatness?

 

Honestly, you guys that disagree, just think about it for a bit. Maybe study performance psychology/sport psychology and see the countless examples of this.

 

I honestly think year 2000 Tiger skewed the golfing worlds view on this. Even though they knew Tiger had this killer instinct and shear desire to win, they thought it was mainly his athletic talents, even though he had been winning prolifically since he was a skinny kid. Then there was Hogan. The man had an incredible golf mind, but people were and still are obsessed with "the secret". His secret was that he prepared and knew how to execute.

 

Truth is, the modern golfer gets very pleased and self congratulatory after a win (considering the adoration that comes, it makes sense). This attitude directly conflicts with the desire to keep winning. There's a struggle to keep staying motivated.

 

My last point is Michael Jordan. Not many will argue that season 3 MJ that averaged close to 40 a game was more dominant than MJ during the last 3 peat. It's interesting because that's an admission that Jordan's wisdom and basketball IQ outweighed him no longer being "look at the hang time, look at the flying motion" Jordan. Then at 40, he almost took the worst team in the NBA, the Wizards, to the playoffs. The Kwame Brown Wizards.

 

Knowing how to win is a HUGE advantage, more of an advantage than DJ and Koepka's club head speed

You could also argue that Lanny and the like did not know "how to win" any more than today players but they certainly had an easier route to winning. Put a Lanny or Pavin or even Player on today's tour and they win much less often as their games would not have been suited for the modern game even with the newer equipment. Guys like Jack and Arnie would have been fine in the later eras as they did play a power game back then. As would the Weiskopfs and Watsons. No it's mot just about distance but you need to be able to move it out there with the players of today or get run over.

Others have worded it more eloquently but if you take 500 players that have 5% stars-30% great-30% good and 35% not so good players and make a tour of 125 guys. Now take 5000 guys with the same percentages. Half the guys that would have been stars when you had just 500 players can't even stay on tour in the bigger group. THAT is why the depth of field matters imo.

 

I had something typed, but you put it much better. Agree 100%. The Wadkinseseses of the golf world are very fortunate they came along when they did. It doesn't diminish what Lanny did, it just diminishes how much stock I put in his hot takes on the modern game.

 

These sort of arguments get old..I am a firm believer that a great player is a great player in any era. Everyone grows up with basically the same advantages in equipment, info and training in each era in a relative sense.

 

It all comes down to mental makeup. Do you have the will and drive to succeed? Will you perform under pressure? Every generation has had hugely talented guys who have failed, and scrappy guys who exceeded expectations, the few true greats had talent and were mentally tough.

 

Great is great in any era, mediocre is mediocre. Jack and Tiger would dominate any era, Matt Kuchar, CHII and Jim Colbert (all great guys, but never dominant) would be good to average in any era. Maybe the totals would be slightly different, but the level of dominance would be very similar.

[DavePelz4]

In my early days, Lanny was a player I enjoyed watching. Heart on the sleeve, you know exactly where he stands kind of guy. Initially thought that he was a good announcer in the CBS days but after he got axed, he became po'd at the world and it continually shows up in every broadcast. The world is changing, golf is changing but Lanny wants it to be the same way, which it will never be.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

It's amazing how people can't put two and two together, even on tour. I agree 100% with Lanny and if the players on tour thought about it a bit more, they'd probably see the point. My argument here is Jordan Spieth. So many people on tour openly admit they have no idea why he's good and wins. Yet he's 23 and has 10 wins. Then we hear these old timers saying their generation knew how to win. Then we hear these old timers saying Jordan knows how to win.

 

Could it be possible, maybe, that knowing how to win actually matters? Especially considering the best player of the last 3 years isn't particularly long, straight or accurate? Is it possible there's another element to greatness?

 

Honestly, you guys that disagree, just think about it for a bit. Maybe study performance psychology/sport psychology and see the countless examples of this.

 

I honestly think year 2000 Tiger skewed the golfing worlds view on this. Even though they knew Tiger had this killer instinct and shear desire to win, they thought it was mainly his athletic talents, even though he had been winning prolifically since he was a skinny kid. Then there was Hogan. The man had an incredible golf mind, but people were and still are obsessed with "the secret". His secret was that he prepared and knew how to execute.

 

Truth is, the modern golfer gets very pleased and self congratulatory after a win (considering the adoration that comes, it makes sense). This attitude directly conflicts with the desire to keep winning. There's a struggle to keep staying motivated.

 

My last point is Michael Jordan. Not many will argue that season 3 MJ that averaged close to 40 a game was more dominant than MJ during the last 3 peat. It's interesting because that's an admission that Jordan's wisdom and basketball IQ outweighed him no longer being "look at the hang time, look at the flying motion" Jordan. Then at 40, he almost took the worst team in the NBA, the Wizards, to the playoffs. The Kwame Brown Wizards.

 

Knowing how to win is a HUGE advantage, more of an advantage than DJ and Koepka's club head speed

You could also argue that Lanny and the like did not know "how to win" any more than today players but they certainly had an easier route to winning. Put a Lanny or Pavin or even Player on today's tour and they win much less often as their games would not have been suited for the modern game even with the newer equipment. Guys like Jack and Arnie would have been fine in the later eras as they did play a power game back then. As would the Weiskopfs and Watsons. No it's mot just about distance but you need to be able to move it out there with the players of today or get run over.

Others have worded it more eloquently but if you take 500 players that have 5% stars-30% great-30% good and 35% not so good players and make a tour of 125 guys. Now take 5000 guys with the same percentages. Half the guys that would have been stars when you had just 500 players can't even stay on tour in the bigger group. THAT is why the depth of field matters imo.

 

I had something typed, but you put it much better. Agree 100%. The Wadkinseseses of the golf world are very fortunate they came along when they did. It doesn't diminish what Lanny did, it just diminishes how much stock I put in his hot takes on the modern game.

 

These sort of arguments get old..I am a firm believer that a great player is a great player in any era. Everyone grows up with basically the same advantages in equipment, info and training in each era in a relative sense.

 

It all comes down to mental makeup. Do you have the will and drive to succeed? Will you perform under pressure? Every generation has had hugely talented guys who have failed, and scrappy guys who exceeded expectations, the few true greats had talent and were mentally tough.

 

Great is great in any era, mediocre is mediocre. Jack and Tiger would dominate any era, Matt Kuchar, CHII and Jim Colbert (all great guys, but never dominant) would be good to average in any era. Maybe the totals would be slightly different, but the level of dominance would be very similar.

 

If you choose to ignore the exponential increase in golfers, and therefore, very good golfers, in the last couple generations, then you might be onto something . . .

[Ashley Schaeffer]

In my early days, Lanny was a player I enjoyed watching. Heart on the sleeve, you know exactly where he stands kind of guy. Initially thought that he was a good announcer in the CBS days but after he got axed, he became po'd at the world and it continually shows up in every broadcast. The world is changing, golf is changing but Lanny wants it to be the same way, which it will never be.

 

Isn't that the truth! So many of the analysts on TV are so quick to point out that "the game used to be about X, and now it's all about Y. If it was still about X, these Y guys would be hosed, boy howdy." OK, well, sorry? Reminds me of Entourage when E told Vince he'd be way further along if he had Vince's face. Vince's response, "Yeah, well, you don't, so . . ."

[tbowles411]

In my early days, Lanny was a player I enjoyed watching. Heart on the sleeve, you know exactly where he stands kind of guy. Initially thought that he was a good announcer in the CBS days but after he got axed, he became po'd at the world and it continually shows up in every broadcast. The world is changing, golf is changing but Lanny wants it to be the same way, which it will never be.

Agreed. That can be said for many of the older set now. Yes, I'm looking directly at you Johnny Miller...

 

The sport has changed dramatically from the clothes, heavy shoes and of course the equipment. Things change and he needs to get over himself IMO.

[bullie76]

I liked Lanny as a player. Aggressive style that some of these guys could learn from. But as an announcer, he can be a little tiresome with his negativity. I don't want a full time sunshine pumper, but a little more balance would be nice.

[dlygrisse]

It's amazing how people can't put two and two together, even on tour. I agree 100% with Lanny and if the players on tour thought about it a bit more, they'd probably see the point. My argument here is Jordan Spieth. So many people on tour openly admit they have no idea why he's good and wins. Yet he's 23 and has 10 wins. Then we hear these old timers saying their generation knew how to win. Then we hear these old timers saying Jordan knows how to win.

 

Could it be possible, maybe, that knowing how to win actually matters? Especially considering the best player of the last 3 years isn't particularly long, straight or accurate? Is it possible there's another element to greatness?

 

Honestly, you guys that disagree, just think about it for a bit. Maybe study performance psychology/sport psychology and see the countless examples of this.

 

I honestly think year 2000 Tiger skewed the golfing worlds view on this. Even though they knew Tiger had this killer instinct and shear desire to win, they thought it was mainly his athletic talents, even though he had been winning prolifically since he was a skinny kid. Then there was Hogan. The man had an incredible golf mind, but people were and still are obsessed with "the secret". His secret was that he prepared and knew how to execute.

 

Truth is, the modern golfer gets very pleased and self congratulatory after a win (considering the adoration that comes, it makes sense). This attitude directly conflicts with the desire to keep winning. There's a struggle to keep staying motivated.

 

My last point is Michael Jordan. Not many will argue that season 3 MJ that averaged close to 40 a game was more dominant than MJ during the last 3 peat. It's interesting because that's an admission that Jordan's wisdom and basketball IQ outweighed him no longer being "look at the hang time, look at the flying motion" Jordan. Then at 40, he almost took the worst team in the NBA, the Wizards, to the playoffs. The Kwame Brown Wizards.

 

Knowing how to win is a HUGE advantage, more of an advantage than DJ and Koepka's club head speed

You could also argue that Lanny and the like did not know "how to win" any more than today players but they certainly had an easier route to winning. Put a Lanny or Pavin or even Player on today's tour and they win much less often as their games would not have been suited for the modern game even with the newer equipment. Guys like Jack and Arnie would have been fine in the later eras as they did play a power game back then. As would the Weiskopfs and Watsons. No it's mot just about distance but you need to be able to move it out there with the players of today or get run over.

Others have worded it more eloquently but if you take 500 players that have 5% stars-30% great-30% good and 35% not so good players and make a tour of 125 guys. Now take 5000 guys with the same percentages. Half the guys that would have been stars when you had just 500 players can't even stay on tour in the bigger group. THAT is why the depth of field matters imo.

 

I had something typed, but you put it much better. Agree 100%. The Wadkinseseses of the golf world are very fortunate they came along when they did. It doesn't diminish what Lanny did, it just diminishes how much stock I put in his hot takes on the modern game.

 

These sort of arguments get old..I am a firm believer that a great player is a great player in any era. Everyone grows up with basically the same advantages in equipment, info and training in each era in a relative sense.

 

It all comes down to mental makeup. Do you have the will and drive to succeed? Will you perform under pressure? Every generation has had hugely talented guys who have failed, and scrappy guys who exceeded expectations, the few true greats had talent and were mentally tough.

 

Great is great in any era, mediocre is mediocre. Jack and Tiger would dominate any era, Matt Kuchar, CHII and Jim Colbert (all great guys, but never dominant) would be good to average in any era. Maybe the totals would be slightly different, but the level of dominance would be very similar.

 

If you choose to ignore the exponential increase in golfers, and therefore, very good golfers, in the last couple generations, then you might be onto something . . .

 

Nahh....not ignoring anything. How many guys on tour are really mentally tough, the kind of tough that makes you better when everyone else is choking their brains out? I'm talking Tiger, Jack, Hogan, Nelson, type of tough. Watson in his prime tough. I thought Spieth might have had it, but I'm not so sure now. Rory really doesn't have it, he's just so good when he's on that no one can catch him, but I suspect he's done at an early age with that that sort of winning. DJ, Seriously? Adam Scott, LOL, Fowler? He is scared to win. CHIII he doesn't really want to win, if a win falls into his lap good so what?, but he's really good at cashing checks....and who can blame him?

 

You can send guys to the gym, put them on a Trackman, SAM putting lab, yoga class whatever you want, but some guys know how to win others just don't. So sure there are more guys that have a chance to get hot for a week, but the greats are the greats for a reason, and being born in the 1940's vs. the 1990's has nothing to do with it.

 

The fact that you think the modern athlete, especially in golf, has some super human powers is really quite silly, Sam Snead was a great athlete, he's make Rory look like a munchkin, certainly not "jacked" if anything today they are more mentally fragile, more pampered. In fact I would put a prime Tiger, Jack or Hogan up against anyone today and say they were going to win 3/4 the time.

 

And by the way, I am pretty sure you don't know the real meaning of the work exponential, because whatever increases they have gained sure as hell aint exponential. Maybe marginal.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

 

If you choose to ignore the exponential increase in golfers, and therefore, very good golfers, in the last couple generations, then you might be onto something . . .

 

Nahh....not ignoring anything. How many guys on tour are really mentally tough, the kind of tough that makes you better when everyone else is choking their brains out? I'm talking Tiger, Jack, Hogan, Nelson, type of tough. Watson in his prime tough. I thought Spieth might have had it, but I'm not so sure now. Rory really doesn't have it, he's just so good when he's on that no one can catch him, but I suspect he's done at an early age with that that sort of winning. DJ, Seriously? Adam Scott, LOL, Fowler? He is scared to win. CHIII he doesn't really want to win, if a win falls into his lap good so what?, but he's really good at cashing checks....and who can blame him?

 

You can send guys to the gym, put them on a Trackman, SAM putting lab, yoga class whatever you want, but some guys know how to win others just don't. So sure there are more guys that have a chance to get hot for a week, but the greats are the greats for a reason, and being born in the 1940's vs. the 1990's has nothing to do with it.

 

The fact that you think the modern athlete, especially in golf, has some super human powers is really quite silly, Sam Snead was a great athlete, he's make Rory look like a munchkin, certainly not "jacked" if anything today they are more mentally fragile, more pampered. In fact I would put a prime Tiger, Jack or Hogan up against anyone today and say they were going to win 3/4 the time.

 

And by the way, I am pretty sure you don't know the real meaning of the work exponential, because whatever increases they have gained sure as hell aint exponential. Maybe marginal.

 

1. I don't know how to measure "mentally tough"; maybe you have some metric you can share that isn't the typical circular reasoning based on number of wins.

 

2. I never said the modern golfer has super powers.

 

3. I said GOLFERS have increased exponentially. Meaning the NUMBER of golfers. If you think the number of golfers has increased only "marginally" since the golden age of chipped putts, then I don't know what to say. Maybe (almost certainly), you misread what I wrote and/or I should've been more clear.

[Shilgy]

 

 

Nahh....not ignoring anything. How many guys on tour are really mentally tough, the kind of tough that makes you better when everyone else is choking their brains out? I'm talking Tiger, Jack, Hogan, Nelson, type of tough. Watson in his prime tough. I thought Spieth might have had it, but I'm not so sure now. Rory really doesn't have it, he's just so good when he's on that no one can catch him, but I suspect he's done at an early age with that that sort of winning. DJ, Seriously? Adam Scott, LOL, Fowler? He is scared to win. CHIII he doesn't really want to win, if a win falls into his lap good so what?, but he's really good at cashing checks....and who can blame him?

 

You can send guys to the gym, put them on a Trackman, SAM putting lab, yoga class whatever you want, but some guys know how to win others just don't. So sure there are more guys that have a chance to get hot for a week, but the greats are the greats for a reason, and being born in the 1940's vs. the 1990's has nothing to do with it.

 

The fact that you think the modern athlete, especially in golf, has some super human powers is really quite silly, Sam Snead was a great athlete, he's make Rory look like a munchkin, certainly not "jacked" if anything today they are more mentally fragile, more pampered. In fact I would put a prime Tiger, Jack or Hogan up against anyone today and say they were going to win 3/4 the time.

 

And by the way, I am pretty sure you don't know the real meaning of the work exponential, because whatever increases they have gained sure as hell aint exponential. Maybe marginal.

DJ is not mentally tough? When you leading, maybe, the US Open and you're waiting for the yahoos to decide your penalty? You're not sure about Spieth and he already has twice the majors and half the wins of Lanny? And under 24 years of age? How do any of us know Hogan and Nelson were tough? Did we see them play? We just know they won a lot. Around and during a world war.

Depth of field does matter and in one example you're correct. The current guys don't win as much. You feel it's because they don't want it bad enough and aren't tough enough. Others of us look at it this way.

If on tour today there are six Trevino's, five Watson's, seven Floyd's, four Caspers, six Weiskopfs, ten Wadkins, and still assorted Stockton's, Crenshaws, and Miller's how many times would each win AND how many times would a Jack win? That may be a bit of an exaggeration but perhaps you get the point? They are out there but with the number of great players they cannot all won with the regularity you seem to expect. Assuming a Jack or Tiger would still get his what does that leave to the rest of the guys?

 

Edit, what if the current generation just had two of each of the players I mentioned? Who still "gets theirs"? Most, of course, would win many fewer regular events and majors. Sort of like the tour players today that get blasted

[Lagavulin62]

Lanny to me is similar to Fuzzy. Just a couple of smartasses that didn't do a whole lot. I never did care for either.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

Saying the best now wouldn't win in the Legends' era is silly.

Saying a few of the Legends wouldn't win now is silly.

Saying winning now is as easy as it was then is lunacy.

[EKELLY]

Personally, I think Lanny's 20 something wins is a career total that very FEW will ever achieve.......

 

To be exact, only 28 guys in the entire history of golf have more PGA Tour wins than Lanny.

My point exactly.

[EKELLY]

Let's get Lanny and Dottie in the same booth together and see all the negative ions start to flow.

Have to be a very big booth ... with Lannys big ole head and Dotties big ole arse

Grew up around Dottie in Toga. Colossal @#$%!......

[Soloman1]

 

It's easier to win now since Tiger is out and not dominating like Jack did.

 

For heaven's sake people, billiard table courses with cryogenically built, gyroscopically balanced, low spin super balls with Titanium forged, trampoline faced, NASA designed heads on filament wound shafts built with technology learned from crashed alien spacecraft at Roswell are waaaay different than tiny, manly wood on steel and balata balls on courses that modern pros would turn their noses up and have their tasseled loafer media manager craft a social media post to whine about.

 

Haha. That should rile a few more Millenials up.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

It's easier to win now since Tiger is out and not dominating like Jack did.

 

For heaven's sake people, billiard table courses with cryogenically built, gyroscopically balanced, low spin super balls with Titanium forged, trampoline faced, NASA designed heads on filament wound shafts built with technology learned from crashed alien spacecraft at Roswell are waaaay different than tiny, manly wood on steel and balata balls on courses that modern pros would turn their noses up and have their tasseled loafer media manager craft a social media post to whine about.

 

Haha. That should rile a few more Millenials up.

 

So true! You are so right. You've just tapped into the Legends' mindset. That was a perfect post to demonstrate the folly of the bluehair way of thinking. Kudos, bru!

[PowderedToastMan]

I would like to point out that Tiger Woods won 79 times in the modern era, playing a limited schedule, so it is possible to win lots in this era. Even when equipment advances neutralized distance advantages. Obviously Tiger is a generational talent, but modern equipment should have reduced his winning percentage, right? More guys started hitting greens in 2 for example. Yet his clip from 2004-2010 was still over 30%.

 

Point being, when you are better, you will still win. Deeper field means nothing when you are better than everyone.

 

I shouldn't have brought up Tiger though. So many people think his competition was weak (9 win 2004 Vijay, almost 50 win Phil, Ernie Els, etc etc). Even though Tiger played against many of the guys still succeeding now, many believe he played against country club hacks who happen to have green jackets and and phenomenal records.

[Darth Putter]

With Tiger seemingly gone and Phil in the twilight of his career. I think there is an opportunity for younger players. I don't think the Adam Scott/ Sergio/ Rose/ Kuchar generation scares them either.

 

I expect to see some very nice win/ major totals from Dustin Johnson (only at age 33) on down over the next couple of decades.

 

The competition is fierce but...

[Shilgy]

I would like to point out that Tiger Woods won 79 times in the modern era, playing a limited schedule, so it is possible to win lots in this era. Even when equipment advances neutralized distance advantages. Obviously Tiger is a generational talent, but modern equipment should have reduced his winning percentage, right? More guys started hitting greens in 2 for example. Yet his clip from 2004-2010 was still over 30%.

 

Point being, when you are better, you will still win. Deeper field means nothing when you are better than everyone.

 

I shouldn't have brought up Tiger though. So many people think his competition was weak (9 win 2004 Vijay, almost 50 win Phil, Ernie Els, etc etc). Even though Tiger played against many of the guys still succeeding now, many believe he played against country club hacks who happen to have green jackets and and phenomenal records.

Oh I agree. But put Jack and Tiger in the same era. What are their career totals? My answer is both would be lower. It seems some on here think they would still win the same amount.

[PGArox]

Only two players of a younger generation have more wins than Lanny - Tiger and Phil.

 

How could you forget the great Vijay Singh?

[grm24]

Only two players of a younger generation have more wins than Lanny - Tiger and Phil.

No. VJ has 34 PGA Tour wins. And DL3 has the same number of PGA Tour wins as Lanny (21) and majors (1).