Johnny Miller has a very large family and at the peak of his career decided to spend more time at home. Miller mentions in his book that during one of those lengthy times at home he chopped a lot of wood which caused him to bulk up and it changed his swing.
Didn't he have some fairly severe problems with the yips as well?
Johnny Miller was a "good" player, not a "great" player whereas Woods is the latter.
Almost the only thing he's ever remembered for is the 63 at Oakmont whereas Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, and Watson have left many memories over a decent period.
Didn't he have some fairly severe problems with the yips as well?
Yes, in addition to his famous "bulking up" with the wood chopping, he did later develop serious putting problems.
Johnny had "it" for a few years, and then he lost "it." At his best, he was amazing, as am I on those few swings the golf gods allow me every season, but it is not flashes of brilliance or short periods of success that determine true greatness. It's sustained dominance.
With Johnny playing his best game and Tiger playing his best, I'd still give the edge to Tiger, who has proven the ability to make clutch putts time and again. However, course conditioning is so much better today and equipment so much more tailored to get the most out of player's game that making any comparison is speculative at best.
The things that make golf more popular today than ever.
- Watching Tiger become the greatest of all time right before our eye's
- Having old pro's like Miller, McCord, and Feherty announcing the broadcast's
Last edited by Scott1s : March 7th, 2006 at 01:59 PM.
I think in their prime it would be closer than most people think. Miller had a stretch where he was simply unbeatable. And when iron play is discussed, Miller wasn't bombing the ball out 300+ yds off the tee and hitting 9 irons or wedges into par 4's, or hitting 8 and 9 irons into 170 yard par 3's.
Discussing modern players and those from the past will always start interesting debates. Great stuff.
I heard Jim Rome interview Johnny on Rome's radio show today and here's a few highlights from the interview:
Miller said his comments about beating Tiger that were quoted in the USA TODAY weren't quoted completely. He said he stated that in his prime he could beat Tiger on an ordinary course (He cited Tucson as an example) because he could go low. 63's and 64's were commom in his prime and I can understand his position. He also gave Tiger credit for his short game (while saying his own wasn't that great) and called Tiger the best putter in the world.....ever. The USA TODAY picked a portion of his comments and ran with it. Miller chuckled about it and said that ought to fire Tiger up.
Miller said Jack would be a better match for Tiger because of what he called the "Choke Factor." Tiger and Jack just don't/didn't have a choke factor whereas the players today all seem to have one.
Miller said guys like Jack, Floyd, Watson, and Trevino wouldn't fold on Sunday's like today's players seem too. He said Tiger wouldn't win many tournaments with bogies on #17 and #18 like at Augusta and Doral. Not against those guys.
Miller added that Phil is a great player but Tiger just has his number. Yeah, like we didn't know that!
He said Tiger should break all the records and become the undisputed greatest of all time and the only thing that could prevent that is injury or Tiger "succumbing to Demons." He described "demons" as the driver going south ala Seve and Duval or missing short putts like Phil is apt to do.
I've got bad news for all you Miller haters.....he's increasing his events to 14 this year as opposed to the usual 9.
HAHA! Sounds like USA Today really did misconstrue what he said. If he indeed did mean it the way he described on Rome's show, then I would completely agree with him. There are plenty of guys on the Tour TODAY who could beat Tiger on so-called ordinary courses. Tiger isn't so much the lowest scoring guy as he is the most consistent player in terms of scores. Johnny seemed like he was Phil Mickelson except without the choke factor back in the day when he was REALLY good in that 3 year span or so. He would attack pins without hesitation and on a regular golf course, I think he definitely could beat Tiger - unless of course he made the mistake that Ames made and talked smack to Tiger. In that case, Tiger would be motivated to go pin hunting and he would likely win.
As for demons, Johnny actually mentioned this the other day. He was talking about how Tiger usually hits it into trouble and comes out smelling like a rose. He said Seve had the same thing happen for him the first half of his career, but then it all fell apart in the second half of his career as he began getting terrible lies and angles, etc. Tiger has had a period in his career where it seemed that he was getting a ton of bad breaks (the 2 years without a major...remember the 2003 British Open where his ball was 10 yards off line on the first hole and somehow NO ONE saw it and he took double bogey after not being able to find it...ended up losing by 2 that year I think, plus the 81 during the 3rd round of the 2002 British Open, etc.).
Somehow I don't believe Tiger has reached his potential yet. Jonny Millers Irons are better because he was hitting from the fairway. When Tiger does reach his prime he will be the best ever. (Some may argue he is now)
Interesting comments there league...I figured there had to be more to the story than was reported. Isn't there always?
What I wanna know about Tiger is....what's with this pink stuff on Sundays? I thought blood red was his Sunday "killer" color? "Coral" just doesn't seem to have the same intimidating effect? What's next, Tiger consoling his vanquished opponents on the 18th green and passing out self-esteem pamphlets and invites to his scrapbooking party Monday night?
I think if they both were in their prime using the same equipment tiger would still dominate... Tiger is dominating players today using the same equipment and technology he is using so at that you are comparing apples to apples. Maybe when you compare past scores to current scores it isnt fair, but when you compare tournament wins to tournament wins I believe it is fair. Everyone playing today has the same advantages that Tiger has. Just as everyone playing when Miller and Jack played had the same.
Tiger mentioned that one of his Sunday shirts this year was "salmon." Now there's a real intimidating color. Did anyone else notice that Chopra wore bright red on Sunday? I'm sure Tiger did!
LOL yeah. Methinks Mrs. Woods has been the deciding factor in him going with the pinkish shirts.
Maybe she ******* up the laundry???
I know my wife has.
Dumb like a fox though- cuz, I now do the laundry
Now that the comments have been clarified it all seems to make more sense.
Miller was raving about Tiger on sunday (when doesn't he), so it would seem strange that he would say those things afterward.
Last edited by shaderunner : March 24th, 2007 at 06:18 PM.
Reason: language
"I'm not so sure Tiger could beat me if I played my best game and he played his," Miller said Wednesday at Doral."
"My irons were better than Tiger's, and so I wouldn't have been afraid of Tiger, even though he would've dusted me on a consistent level because of his short game. I had no short game."
Comments?
I don't understand what's so controversial about this. The bold is mine and I'll repeat "he would've dusted me on a consistent level because of his short game. I had no short game" Miller WAS the best golfer in the world for a short time.
March 7th, 2006, 02:31 AM
In his prime he dusted everyone with his irons! You can look it up.
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
