I have to admit I am surprised at his play. He is improving the more he plays. I don't know how much better he can get, but I am intrigued. Honestly, I want him to win today.
I will be watching. Can he do it? What will it do for his confidence? The next 5 weeks (don't know how many tournaments he will play) leading up to the Masters will be must see TV. Watching him on Sunday, wearing red and black, seeking his first tournament win in 5 years will be fascinating.
But he really needs to show he can play four very competitive rounds.
Quote:
no one is interested in Tiger anymore
Huh? You may not like him and that is fine, to each his own. But to say no one is interested in Tiger anymore is dumb. TV is surely interested. The galleries at whatever tournament he enters sure tells a different story. How did you reach your conclusion?
I’m joking
Quote:
no one is interested in Tiger anymore
Huh? You may not like him and that is fine, to each his own. But to say no one is interested in Tiger anymore is dumb. TV is surely interested. The galleries at whatever tournament he enters sure tells a different story. How did you reach your conclusion?
Lol, swing and a miss.
Anyone but Rose.
Anyone but Rose.
Just curious...why not Rose? Is it just because he’s not an American? Justin Rose is one of the true good guys on tour.
Bay Hill next week with another star-studded field, minus FIGJAM. Can’t wait for Thursday!
Quote:
In comment 13858597 M.S. said:
Quote:
...but I'm rooting big time for a resurrection of the greatest golfer in the history of the PGA.
I'll be watching!!!
Greater than Jack? Debatable!
That's my opinion, but clearly Tiger/Jack is indeed debatable. I don't have the stats, but I'd be interested who had the higher tournament winning percentage.
In golf, success is measured in the majors. Jack had over 70 top ten finishes in majors during his career. He was top 3 46 times.
Majors are played on the most difficult courses against only the best players, it is the only measure in golf. Jack played against better players. Not fields but certainly players. He finished second to Trevino and Watson 8 times. Two of the greatest ever. Watson was good enough to lose in an Open playoff in his 60s while Woods missed the cut (Something Nicklaus didn't do at the Open until he was in his mind forties).
Your point about equipment doesn’t make much sense. Nicklaus had to play with equipment that was much less forgiving than today’s. That’s a handicap, not a benefit.
It’s true that there are many more talented players today than in Jack’s day. But there were more GREAT players in Jack’s day. Look at the all-time greats he had to face in their primes: Player, Palmer, Watson, Trevino, Ballesteros. Michelson is the only player you can say that of with Tiger, and he’s on the back end of what Jack faced.
Nicklaus had to fight off the Who’s Who of golf immortals to win his 18 majors. Tiger never had to face any of the game’s all time greats. In fact, he never won a single major where he came from behind to win. He played in an era where there was no rival to push him. The fields were stronger in general, but the top tier of the sport after Tiger was relatively mediocre.
Jack did play against more greats but I really don’t think that means much. There’s exponentially more Golfers now (because of Tiger I might add) and the talent pool is so deep that it’s impossible for any 1 or 2 guys to rise above and consistently win majors let alone be a rival.
When you actually factor in everything, which you have to if you are being fair, he’s atleast Jacks equal and in many cases you can argue he’s better.
Tiger had to face Mickelson, Singh, Els, Goosen, Furyk among many other tour winning golfers. The reality is that the talent pool that Tiger had to compete against was just much better. There were many many golfers that could be good enough to win on any given tournament.
It’s a fun conversation but certainly not cut and dry. Jack may have had faced tougher direct competition but Tiger had more competition on the whole.
Agree to disagree. As usual.
And just stop, Tiger had many top tier opponents throughout his career. Not just...uh, Phil. And yes, the vastly more difficult field certainly matters.
And just stop, Tiger had many top tier opponents throughout his career. Not just...uh, Phil. And yes, the vastly more difficult field certainly matters.
Yeah, I think Tiger's weak competition is overstated. Ernie Els and Mickelson would have been strong contenders in any era and they spanned his entire career, both with a slight headstart. Duval and Vijay had short runs at the top, but they still won a lot of tournaments. If he can add to his victory total the next few years against Spieth and DJ that will be impressive too.
You can ignore that if you want, but I think you are way off.
You can ignore that if you want, but I think you are way off.
Yes, the bench is deeper now. There’s a longer season, a lot more tournaments, and a LOT more money. That provides the opportunity for a lot more guys to be professional golfers for the long term.
But that’s a double edged sword. Over 100 guys made over $1M on tour last year. This weekends Valspar, a lower level tournament that most of the top players skipped for a bigger purse in Mexico, still payed out over $6M. You could come in 30th or 40th and win $30-$40K. Rinse and repeat over the season and you made 7 figures.
The result is a lot of good players who don’t feel compelled to go for greatness. In Jack’s time, you won or you went home. You couldn’t stay on tour unless you at least were scoring a lot of top 10s. It drove a lot more players to be great.
That said, Mcilroy and Spieth already have 4 and 3 majors respectively. If they keep focus, they could be all time greats. We’ll see.
Aw, shucks.
Big difference in sacrifice. As a football player you spend maybe 30-40 days a year on the road. Even during the season, players can spend more time with their family then the average worker does.
Golfers live on the road. It’s a grind of a lifestyle. After awhile, a lot of players choose to spend less time on road.
Players today learn the game at a younger age, which increases the talent pool and makes it harder to be much better than your competition. The international game has also blown up the last couple of decades. That is why Tiger doesn’t have 2 or 3 rivals who are golf legends.
The fact that Tiger dominated in an era where golf was more readily available at a younger age producing more high quality players with no one doing it since is evidence enough that you are, at the very least, not being very honest in this debate.
I’m fine saying Jack and Tiger are equals, putting certain aspects of the game in favor for each of them, but to totally dismiss Tiger because he didn’t play against another golf legend is ridiculous.
Based on that logic Federer isn’t he greatest because he didn’t play the majority of his career against greats like Connors, Becker, Sampras and prime Agassi?
[quote] He played in an era of a lot of good, but not great players. Nobody charged Tiger, put a little fear in him that he’d get caught. Tiger never won a major where he had to come from behind in the last round. And that’s because there was no great player to push him.
There is so much flawed, ignorant logic about that statement that it just makes me laugh. You are bordering on Stan status with your blind hatred for anything Tiger. Well done sir.
That’s just whack logic. So, when Tiger was behind in majors he didn’t try hard because it was someone like Michelson or Singh in front instead of Nicklaus or Palmer?
Good gosh, however did Nicklaus ever find it within himself to mount a charge when guys like Tom Kite or Tom Weiskopf were leading?
Tiger had plenty of players to push him. Or maybe he is just that damn good. Me thinks it’s both.
[quoteAgain, most of his success came on the downside of Palmer’s career and before many of the other golfers you guys listed. [/quote]
Not sure how you figure that with Palmer. 3 of his 7 majors and 14 of his 19 other top 5 finishes occurred during Nicklaus’s pro career.
Yes, he won a lot when Jack was playing. However, the reality is that Palmer won the majority of tournaments before and during the first 3/4 years of Jacks career. By the time Jack getting it going, Palmer was winding down.
The point is, prime Jack didn’t have to compete with prime Palmer.
Yes, he won a lot when Jack was playing. However, the reality is that Palmer won the majority of tournaments before and during the first 3/4 years of Jacks career. By the time Jack getting it going, Palmer was winding down.
The point is, prime Jack didn’t have to compete with prime Palmer.
Did Palmer’s prime start before Jack hit the scene? Sure. But most of his prime was during Jack’s career. 3 of 7 majors, and 35 of his 62 overall victories.
Palmer’s prime started late, in large part because he served 3 years in the coast guard.
Sure.
And beyond Palmer:
7 of Player’s 9
All 8 of Watson’s
All 6 of Trevino’s
4 of Ballesteros’s 5
Here's a list of Tiger major wins with Els' in top 6.
US Open 00 - 2nd
British Open 00 - 2nd
Masters 01 - 6th (tied)
Masters 02 - 5th
British Open 06 - 3rd
PGA Champ 07 - 3rd
Els' also won the British Open in 2012 with Tiger tying for 3rd (his closest Major loss in a decade). But yeah, Phil is Tiger's only great contemporary and nobody good was ever on his heels.
Quote:
came during Tigers prime. Soooooo....
Sure.
And beyond Palmer:
7 of Player’s 9
All 8 of Watson’s
All 6 of Trevino’s
4 of Ballesteros’s 5
Great! Still doesn’t prove anything, it’s a cherry picked biased tale on being the one and only reason player X would be better ham player Y. Conveniently, no one has commented on Federer. What’s the difference?
Quote:
came during Tigers prime. Soooooo....
Sure.
And beyond Palmer:
7 of Player’s 9
All 8 of Watson’s
All 6 of Trevino’s
4 of Ballesteros’s 5
Ballesteros’ majors came in Jacks prime? His first major was in 1979 when Jack was nearly 40 years old. Watson? Seven of his eight majors came in the late 70s into the early 80s. Again, Jack was nearly 40 years old or older. That’s prime age for a golfer? Just stop.
Ballesteros’ majors came in Jacks prime? His first major was in 1979 when Jack was nearly 40 years old. Watson? Seven of his eight majors came in the late 70s into the early 80s. Again, Jack was nearly 40 years old or older. That’s prime age for a golfer? Just stop.
I suppose he was past his prime. But past his prime Jack still won 4 majors when Seve was winning his 5. And 6 while Watson was winning his 8.
Quote:
Ballesteros’ majors came in Jacks prime? His first major was in 1979 when Jack was nearly 40 years old. Watson? Seven of his eight majors came in the late 70s into the early 80s. Again, Jack was nearly 40 years old or older. That’s prime age for a golfer? Just stop.
I suppose he was past his prime. But past his prime Jack still won 4 majors when Seve was winning his 5. And 6 while Watson was winning his 8.
Nice stat. Still don’t know what that has to do with the fact that Jack didn’t have to play against a lot of these players for a large chin knot his career.
Yes, Jack played against some great competitors at different points in his career in a very small field. Tiger also played against some great competitors while also competing with a vastly larger field of good to great golfers. In my opinion, there’s a lot more pressure with what Tiger had to play with, in terms of competition.
But honestly, we can debate this forever. People's dislike for Tiger tends to cloud their view of his place in history IMO. What I didn’t know is that Jack was generally disliked in the beginning of his career because Palmer was such a beloved golfer and Jack was taking over the throne. Clearly that changed as time went on but I still found that interesting.