golfrewind.com

After the David Duval thread it rekindled a conversation I had with a few buddies a couple of years ago. It invloved the 1975 and 2001 Masters and and the similarities.

I can't remember if I posted it here before...if I did please excuse my apparent alzheimer's like symptoms at 40

Curious to hear your thoughts on it.

Here's mine for what it's worth...

1975 Masters: You had, arguably, the three best players in the game at that time going at it down the stretch in Nicklaus, Weiskopf and Miller.

Nicklaus was powerful but always calculating. He picked his moments, rarely beat himself...already established as the best in his era and likely the best of all-time even at that stage.

Weiskopf had arguably the sweetest swing in that era and IMO was as talented as anyone, including Nicklaus. Time and time again he had been victimized by his fellow Ohio State nemesis...Nicklaus. Jack simply out thought Tom down the stretch...shrewdly managing his way around and simply willing crucial putts in.

Miller was streaky. When he was on, he was extremely tough to beat. The Dessert Fox was possibly the best iron player in a three year stretch the game has ever seen. Caddy Andy Martinez was actually required to give Miller yardages to the half yard. In that three year stretch from '74-'76, Miller may have been the best in the game compiling 12 tour wins in the span.

As we all know, Nicklaus held off Weiskopf and Miller to claim Green Jacket #5.


2001 Masters: You had again, arguably, the three best players at that time going at it down the stretch. All three had a piece of the lead at one time or another that Sunday.

Woods is also powerful and calculating, picking his moments to attack. And as we know, Tiger rarely beats himself as evidenced by his front running record. Like Jack, Tiger is the best in his era and may one day supplant Jack in the record books.

Mickelson, like Weiskopf was to Nicklaus, typically plays second fiddle to Woods when they go down the stretch(then again most do.) Like Weiskopf, Mickelson has as much talent in the game as anyone. But, like Jack did to Tom, Tiger out thinks Phil down the stretch and has the ability to make those crucial putts in crunch time.

Duval, like Miller had a three year run('97-'99) that was very impressive compiling 11 wins in 33 starts. Granted he started to show signs of slipping out of form by 2001, but seemed to be himself in big events that year. Tremendous ball striker like Miller. When he was on..he was really tough to beat. Duval birdied 7 of his first 10 holes that Masters Sunday.

As we know, Woods outlasted Mickleson and Duval in what...to me anyway...reminded me of the 1975 classic.

Great comparison!

Well, except for Weiskopft's "sweet swing" vs. Mikelsons "wrestling a boa constrictor".

I remember back around 99 or so thinking that Woods, Duval, Garcia were going to mirror the Nicklaus, Palmer, Player days of the 60's.

Interesting way to look at it. Also, Miller struggled after his run for quite some time, and Duval of course is struggling mightily now.

Yes...that was one of the main reasons for the comparisons. Maybe I should have said "three year run and basically done."

Granted Miller won a few here and their after his "run" and Duval won his Open two years after his "run"...

But my point is they both went from the top of their profession(from their respective three year runs) to virtually being on PGA tour milk cartons.

Kinna leaves you

There are some similarities, but unless Duval turns it around for a couple more years starting like yesterday the comparisons fall flat. Miller won 3 times, including The Open in '76 to basically conclude his "streak". He won 5 more times, 80-83, winning at least 1 per year and picked up a couple of ATTs at Pebble playing intermttently throughout the rest of his career. I don't think Miller ever fell "off the map" quite like Duval's collapse.

I guess the milk carton reference may have been a little strong regarding Miller. Point well taken.

Miller won 15 times in his three year "run". He won 7 times over the next 18 years. Like Duval, Miller played intermittently in the later half of his career.

My point is after Duval's and Miller's respective three year runs of excellence...neither could come close to sustaining that level of play.