"It was like watching a four-month long black-and-white movie."

Another classic from Dan Jenkins, this time trying to figure out the worst year ever for major winners. I won't spoil his choice, but this was beautiful:

Although 1985 loomed large, it was soon challenged by 1987. Here was a year that gave us Larry Mize, Scott Simpson, Nick Faldo and Larry Nelson.

It was like watching a four-month long black-and-white movie.

Comments

[tom dunne]

Jenkins was tweeting about this topic during the rain delays at Bethpage this summer. Granted, I've never been a Tour beat writer, but I'm still not sure I agree with the way he measures major seasons. I guess game stories are easier when the big stars prevail because their personalities have already been established and the historical context already exists, but writers have more of an opportunity to do something new and interesting, something that stands out from the herd, when a darkhorse comes in. Alan Shipnuck did this after Cabrera won the Masters. When the unheralded winner has a decent backstory (for the writers who got past the language issue, Y.E. Yang was a really funny and interesting guy), the journos who aren't on a super-tight deadline often do a great job.

[Hawkeye]

At least ´03 had some thrilling finishes - Micheel's approach on the 18th at Oak Hill was one of the shots of the decade, and the Weir-Mattiace showdown (68 and 65 on Sunday on spongy fairways) would have been an all-time classic hade it been Mickelson and Woods instead.
I, for one, hold ´96 as the worst. Heartbreakers at Augusta and Oakland Hills, and khaki pants on three of the winners. Snore.

[court]

Another careless and thoughtless mailed in article. No appreciationfor what it took to win a major this year - or the heartbreak of not winning. Just "boring" or "not boring". That label falls into the same catagory as sarcasm being the lowest form of humor.

You'd think that after all the years Jenkins has covered golf - he might have SOME clue of the nature of sports and competition...but I guess I was wrong. He still doesn't get it.

If Dan's bored - get out of the game.

Thanks Geoff - I'm going to leave Jenkins off my list of worthwhile reading.

[Limey]

If I remember rightly, and it's about a month since I played so things may have changed, the guy with the lowest score wins. So why is Jenkins whining? The big guys couldn't come through in the clutch in 2009, thats a reason to celebrate not castigate. Jenkins is probably looking for 4 winners from the USA but that is becoming increasingly unlikely every year.

[Ky Laffoon's Ghost]

I agree that Jenkins seems to be coasting, but his lowbrow novels can be funny if you ignore the misogyny and bigotry. Nothing wrong with B&W movies. That's where Ingrid Bergman and Katharine Hepburn and Grace Kelly live.

[Ludell Hogwaller]

Nelson had special incentive to win that year. He had bought into a course and we were well into an overhaul, (Larry had a strong feel for classic architecture) when he runnoft . . . to play a major.

We didn't take him serious--he hadn't hit a practice ball all summer and we didn't see him hit one prior to leaving for the tournament. We hardly watched the first two days of the event, because we knew he was just going to get away from us.

We never saw Larry again. So maybe he did become invisible.
But the B&W movie comment was uncalled for--those films have much more class than our CG SFXfests of today.

[Tighthead]

If Cabrera wins a major, it is not a contender for worst year.

[shug]

Hard to figure out what DJ wants in a major. A charismatic winner? Dramatic shots? Great competition? The 87 Masters had plenty of drama -- there were a lot of good players in it right up until the end, and then Norman and Ballesteros went to the playoff. Plenty of drama there. Ditto the 87 Open, with Simpson holding on while Watson and Ballesteros tried to catch him.
Maybe Jenkins just prefers his own creations (KL's ghost, you got it right -- lowbrow, with redneck prejudices parading as social commentary). Or maybe he's just another unfunny old fart.

[F. X. Flinn]

What the hell does this have to do with Tiger Woods?

[Aunt Blabbie]

Dan Jenkins can do no wrong.

[so15minutesago]

Jenkins has been mailing it in for many years now. He is completely incapable of producing a piece without mentioning Hogan either! zzzzzzzzzz

[UB]

DJ spelled it out in the article: "Not only would such winners have created bigger headlines, more space and more readers, they wouldn't have defied logic.
You're rooting for journalism here, not against humans."

Circulation is what it is all about; you got that paper under your arm?

[Pickworth]

When you get to be a grand old daddy, with a daughter who's career flatters you some more, you can test the air for sentiment. He's holding up a shot of single malt to the light and deciding if it's any good. I'd do the same.

He's self-aware, too, as UB noted. I wonder what recent events have caused him to reminisce? I think I can guess.

Did Lauren Bacall know any golfers? Either way, she's up there with your trio, friendly ghost.

[tlavin]

Jenkins is as much of a snoozer as the four mutt winners that he's whining about. It reminds me of the Joe Biden line about Giuliani: Every sentence has a noun, a verb and 911. With Jenkins, you just lose 911 and put in Ben God Hogan.

Well, at least there's no evidence that Hogan was an ass bandit.

[I am Tiger Woods]

Dan Jenkins is like reading four year old black & white