Tiger may be better than them all, but it is debatable, since so much of the game is played within that 5 inch space between the ears, and I don’t know how he would have held up against Jack in his prime, or against Trevino, the way he could get into one’s head when paired with them.

I am not quite sure whether I would wish T.W. to injure himself, but the current position would be a whole lot better without him, more level…and they would not be playing for as much cash as they are with him. I feel that the top 50 golfers have become a little greedy and they can now pick and choose which comps to play. Fancy TW missing the ‘Nelson Classic’. P.M. also misses a few that he shouldn’t…they all have too much money to care

I am pleased that a lot of first time winners are showing up and taking the honours pretty often. I hope that they keep it up and cut out the top 10, just to even things up a little.

I read Mr. Beardsley’s article, and the question posed is a difficult one to answer.

Perhaps golf’s ‘Golden Era’ has yet to appear if indeed one can even define what that would encompass. From the groupings presented for consideration I’d be inclined to suggest that the Bay Boomer era comes closer than the others to fitting the Golden Era title.

My rationale for that conclusion is based on two factors … the size and skill level of the fields, and the fact that it was, in my opinion, the period that jump-started such a tremendous growth of the game and equipment development around the world.

Yet equipment improvements continue as does the skill level of the fields, so we still may not have experienced golf’s Golden Era depending on how one chooses to define it. Perhaps a better measurement would be the overall quality of the game over a typical 72-hole tournament … and I see that as not yet having ‘peaked’.

Much can be said in credit to the game’s earlier players considering the equipment they had to play with and the venues they played on. But unlike today’s tournaments, I doubt that the frequent winners of old faced such a high percentage of competitors capable of winning any given tournament.

No, the question posed is not an easy one to answer qualitatively.

Jim M

I was pretty much on board with this writer until he got to the critique of the “Modern Era”. Regarding Phil (the Thrill) Mickelson’s position as #2 in the era, “But with his poor international record - Phil isn’t a lock”. What!!??? International wins will become a condition for golfing greatness when the world’s best players stop coming to the USA to play against the best players, on the best courses, in the best tourneyments. How can not doing well on raw courses, in miserable conditions on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th best circuits in anyway diminish such a powerful record on the PGA Tour? Any of the other (international) players mentioned would trade records with Phil in a heartbeat and be thrilled. Plus, I would guess that there is still more to come, much more. Errr, I take back that 2nd best circuit crack, since that would obviously be the Nationwide Tour. (Proof? How many first time winners on the PGA Tour this year were Nation Wide Tour alumni and how many were former Euro, Austrasian “grads”.). I say the Phil is a lock for the bridesmaid of this era and probably ViJay is the “show” horse.

I really do love our international friends. There are many, many great golfers among them. But to knock Phil’s record because he hasn’t spend much time or effort to prepare a game suited for international play is just…well…WRONG!

Fairways and Greens,

Wichita Sam