Question:
There have been a lot of superlatives bandied about in the last 24 hours since Tiger Woods became just the fifth player in history to win golf’s modern career Grand Slam. And while I’m certain one RSG regular may bristle at some of the comments made, I’d like to try to put them into some sort of perspective. From the outset, let me say I’m a golf fan first, and a Tiger Woods fan second. Make no mistake that I have a sense of the game’s history. That’s why I marvel at what we’re witnessing. And it’s why I scoff at the notion advanced by his detractors that Tiger’s accomplishments pale in comparison to those of the great champions that preceded him. If those naysayers had the sense of history they claim to have, they’d surely acknowledge his accomplishments as what they are — historic. And to those who say it’s boring to watch him dust the field by 8, 12 or 15 strokes, I would hasten to remind them that despite how Tiger may make it appear, this sort of thing is anything but routine. That Woods has won three majors by such wide margins is exactly what makes them historic. See the record books of The Masters, US Open and The Open Championship. Tiger now owns the scoring records — either stroke scoring, or strokes relative to par, or both — in three of golf’s four major championships. Two of those championships have been contested since before the turn of the century. The LAST century. Peter Kessler of The Golf Channel may have asked the best question over the weekend when he posed this to his panel Sunday night: "Is Tiger that good, or are all the other players just ’streaky’?" We heard commentary during the tournament telecast this past weekend proclaiming Tiger to be "the best golfer in history." That’s pretty heady stuff, and words that I’m sure did not set well with one certain RSG regular. But when those words were spoken, they were appropriately offered with this caveat: "Nicklaus was the greatest champion, with 18 majors, but Tiger, with his ‘perfect’ mechanics, extraordinary length and finesse may be the best golfer to ever play the game." I think that may be the most succinct summary of what many of us have been trying to say for a while, but maybe didn’t have quite the "expert eye" to identify it. Three years ago I was hearing the same thing from players who’d been on TOUR for the past 20 years. They all marveled at how much more solid his fundamentals were than most other players, and this was even before he rebuilt his swing. It doesn’t take an expert eye to know it’s even better now. And then today in newspapers around the world, we see the latest round of accolades: Mark Calcavecchia said of Tiger, "He is the chosen one. I don’t think Nicklaus in his prime could have kept up with him." Tom Watson said, "He’s doing things that are supernatural." Ernie Els said, "We don’t all have his ability. He plays much better than the rest of the world." Nick Faldo said, "He’s in a different league. Guys will have to play the ‘Tigerless tour’ to have a chance to win. He’s better than Nicklaus was." Nick Price said, "He’s learned more in his 24 years than I’ve learned in 43." Fred Couples said, "He’s so good it’s scary. He’s lapping me. I have to get better." One RSG regular says, "He’s proven nothing until he gets to 18 majors." I guess everybody has a right to their opinion. Though I would remind everyone to consider the source. But this raises an interesting point. Curtis Strange had previously opined that he thought all of Nicklaus’s records were in jeopardy "except the 18 majors, and now I’m not so sure." (Incidentally, I would hasten to point out that Nicklaus considers his total to be 20, counting his US Amateur championships. Whether or not you agree that those should be counted, it’s only fair to mention that if he gets to count his Amateur titles, then Tiger is already a third of the way there with 7 majors, counting his three Amateur titles.) Whether Tiger gets to 18 professional majors will, no doubt, be fodder for discussion in future years. But I wonder if this isn’t a more plausible scenario: Eighteen majors is a lot to ask (we already knew that). But it doesn’t strike me as unfathomable that Tiger might get to 13 or 14 or 15. What if he continues to win majors by 5, 6, 8, 10 or 15 strokes? That would become quite a legacy on its own merit. It’s certainly conceivable that he might not finish with the *most* major titles, but that instead, he might be remembered for having won the ones he did in such a dominating fashion it would give rise to a different kind of debate that no one had previously pondered. In future years, the question might become this: "Who was better, Nicklaus or Woods? Nicklaus won more, but Tiger won almost as many, and when he did win, he blew ‘em away in a manner never previously seen." That’s exactly the kind of debate sports fans eat up for generations. It’s an interesting possibility to ponder. Of course the Tiger detractors would side with Nicklaus in such a debate on the basis of him winning more, and they would have a valid argument. But a case could be made that with today’s deeper fields, winning is more difficult, and therefore, a "near-equal" number of majors in today’s world might be equivalent to a few more majors in an earlier time. (Remember how many "experts" thought Tiger’s six-in-a-row was more impressive than Hogan’s for just the same reason?) And if Tiger continues winning majors by staggering margins, I think you’ve got yourself an interesting debate that will last for ages. Personally, I don’t think this is at all a far-fetched scenario. I’m not convinced that Tiger can get to 18 majors. I’m assuming, of course, that he’s human, and that he’ll endure slumps like every other golfer who’s ever played the game. Surely he won’t play this much better than everyone else for as long as he plays professional golf. Surely. It is reasonable to presume that he’ll either hit a wall, or someone will come along and challenge him, "stealing" a few majors from him, just as Trevino and Watson stole a few from Jack. I heard John Feinstein on the radio today say it’s quite possible that the player who will challenge Tiger for golf supremacy won’t come from the group that’s playing now. His nemesis may be 14 years old right now, and may be hitting balls at a driving range somewhere, dreaming of the day when he might get a chance to play against his idol, Tiger Woods. Mr. Feinstein makes a valid point. Remember that Nicklaus emerged on TOUR to take over from the king, Arnold Palmer, who is ten years older than Jack. And Watson became Jack’s foil — again, ten years age difference. Just as Hogan and Palmer and Nicklaus inspired generations of young golfers, you can bet the farm that Tiger is having the same affect on the next generation of players. If, indeed, the player that will challenge Tiger’s domination is still battling teenage acne, Tiger could dominate the game for about the next 7 or 8 years. That now seems quite plausible. If he averaged one major a year for the next eight years, he’d get to twelve. (He’s now averaging a little over 1 in 4 in the majors for his career.) Throw in a couple of double-major seasons and he’s at 14, alone in second place ahead of Bobby Jones. By the time he’s 32. That’s when most professional golfers are entering their prime. Making assumptions about someone winning a major a year is, admittedly, a bit of a stretch. Or so we thought. But this Tiger seems to be an animal of a different stripe. Whether he can sustain this remarkable level of play will, of course, be how he’s measured. And that’s as it should be. You get the feeling that no one is more aware of that than Tiger himself. But right here, right now, we may be seeing the best golfer who ever lived. Not the winningest player (yet), but the best golfer with the best swing; the best game; the best combination of power, accuracy and finesse; indeed, the best "total package" that the game has ever seen. In the meantime, we’ll be counting the wins. Don’t blink, or you may miss one. Or five. And as I mentioned before, Tiger’s winning percentage in major championships is now about the same as it is for his overall career — a little over 25%. And his winning percentage is well over 50% in the last 15 months or so. 15 wins in his last 27 starts. That’s unimaginable. If he doesn’t win the PGA next month, he’ll be at exactly 25% in majors since turning pro. 4 for 16 as a pro. This is the same guy about whom, just two years ago, critics were saying couldn’t win a US Open or a British Open because of his poor course management. Just to put his 21 career wins in perspective, take a look at the list of winners ahead of him on the career victories list. They are rapidly dwindling in number: RANK – PLAYER – NUMBER OF WINS 1. Sam Snead 81 2. Jack Nicklaus 70 3. Ben Hogan 63 4. Arnold Palmer 60 5. Byron Nelson 52 6. Billy Casper 51 T7. Walter Hagen 40 T7. Cary Middlecoff 40 9. Gene Sarazen 38 10. Lloyd Mangrum 36 11. Tom Watson 33 12. Horton Smith 32 T13. Harry Cooper 31 T13. Jimmy Demaret 31 15. Leo Diegel 30 T16. Gene Littler 29 T16. Paul Runyan 29 18. Lee Trevino 27 19. Henry Picard 26 T20. Tommy Armour 24 T20. Johnny Miller 24 T20. Macdonald Smith 24 T23. Johnny Farrell 22 T23. Raymond Floyd 22 T25. Willie Macfarlane 21 T25. Gary Player 21 T25. Lanny Wadkins 21 T25. Craig Wood 21 T25. Tiger Woods 21 He has reached 21 wins faster than anyone in history. Now consider some of the names he’s already passed on the list: Irwin Sanders Crenshaw Ford Kite Boros Norman Burke Cruickshank McSpaden Strange Price Shute Souchak Weiskopf Those guys weren’t exactly weekend hackers. Consider that Tiger won 8 times last year. Nobody thought he could come close to duplicating that, and yet he’s already won 6 this year, and shows no signs of slowing down. You can look at the list above and figure out for
… read more »
Response:
Well said. I agree that if Tiger somehow continues to play at the level that he’s playing right now the first person to challenge him in any consistent way is most likely not at the tour level yet. It will have to be someone that isn’t burdened by the notion of what is not possible in the game of golf because of the difficulty of the game. Someone who believes it’s possible to dominate. Someone who believes that their game can be in top form day in and day out. Who doesn’t have the mindset that the swing is a fickle mistress coming and going without warning. Some people took Tigers appraisal of his game as arrogance. He thinks he’s at 75% with every chance of of improving his weaknesses. I believe he’s being completely honest in his assesment. If he didn’t believe that then how much could he possibly be looking forward to the next decade? Should he really be expected to apologize for his game right now? And if he felt that he should any bets on how long it would take before his game got back in line with the rest of the tours? I think the chances of his reaching either the major or total victory records might just hinge on whether or not someone comes along to challenge him. I don’t know if he can keep up this level of play for long no matter what, but I sure don’t think he’ll be able to do it if the only challenge he has is scoring records.
Response:
Randy, I enjoyed your dissertation on Tiger. I agree with much of what you’ve said. He is the most complete golfer to ever play the game. He has no weaknesses. He neither smokes or drinks, he works out daily with a trainer who also has helped him improve his eating habits, and he has no family obligations to distract him. Golf is his life. It will be interesting to see if the motivation and drive for excellence remains as he marries, starts a family, gets injured, and ages. Dan
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There have been a lot of superlatives bandied about in the last 24 hours since Tiger Woods became just the fifth player in history to win golf’s modern career Grand Slam. And while I’m certain one RSG regular may bristle at some of the comments made, I’d like to try to put them into some sort of perspective. From the outset, let me say I’m a golf fan first, and a Tiger Woods fan second. Make no mistake that I have a sense of the game’s history. That’s why I marvel at what we’re witnessing. And it’s why I scoff at the notion advanced by his detractors that Tiger’s accomplishments pale in comparison to those of the great champions that preceded him. If those naysayers had the sense of history they claim to have, they’d surely acknowledge his accomplishments as what they are — historic. And to those who say it’s boring to watch him dust the field by 8, 12 or 15 strokes, I would hasten to remind them that despite how Tiger may make it appear, this sort of thing is anything but routine. That Woods has won three majors by such wide margins is exactly what makes them historic. See the record books of The Masters, US Open and The Open Championship. Tiger now owns the scoring records — either stroke scoring, or strokes relative to par, or both — in three of golf’s four major championships. Two of those championships have been contested since before the turn of the century. The LAST century. Peter Kessler of The Golf Channel may have asked the best question over the weekend when he posed this to his panel Sunday night: "Is Tiger that good, or are all the other players just ’streaky’?" We heard commentary during the tournament telecast this past weekend proclaiming Tiger to be "the best golfer in history." That’s pretty heady stuff, and words that I’m sure did not set well with one certain RSG regular. But when those words were spoken, they were appropriately offered with this caveat: "Nicklaus was the greatest champion, with 18 majors, but Tiger, with his ‘perfect’ mechanics, extraordinary length and finesse may be the best golfer to ever play the game." I think that may be the most succinct summary of what many of us have been trying to say for a while, but maybe didn’t have quite the "expert eye" to identify it. Three years ago I was hearing the same thing from players who’d been on TOUR for the past 20 years. They all marveled at how much more solid his fundamentals were than most other players, and this was even before he rebuilt his swing. It doesn’t take an expert eye to know it’s even better now. And then today in newspapers around the world, we see the latest round of accolades: Mark Calcavecchia said of Tiger, "He is the chosen one. I don’t think Nicklaus in his prime could have kept up with him." Tom Watson said, "He’s doing things that are supernatural." Ernie Els said, "We don’t all have his ability. He plays much better than the rest of the world." Nick Faldo said, "He’s in a different league. Guys will have to play the ‘Tigerless tour’ to have a chance to win. He’s better than Nicklaus was." Nick Price said, "He’s learned more in his 24 years than I’ve learned in 43." Fred Couples said, "He’s so good it’s scary. He’s lapping me. I have to get better." One RSG regular says, "He’s proven nothing until he gets to 18 majors." I guess everybody has a right to their opinion. Though I would remind everyone to consider the source. But this raises an interesting point. Curtis Strange had previously opined that he thought all of Nicklaus’s records were in jeopardy "except the 18 majors, and now I’m not so sure." (Incidentally, I would hasten to point out that Nicklaus considers his total to be 20, counting his US Amateur championships. Whether or not you agree that those should be counted, it’s only fair to mention that if he gets to count his Amateur titles, then Tiger is already a third of the way there with 7 majors, counting his three Amateur titles.) Whether Tiger gets to 18 professional majors will, no doubt, be fodder for discussion in future years. But I wonder if this isn’t a more plausible scenario: Eighteen majors is a lot to ask (we already knew that). But it doesn’t strike me as unfathomable that Tiger might get to 13 or 14 or 15. What if he continues to win majors by 5, 6, 8, 10 or 15 strokes? That would become quite a legacy on its own merit. It’s certainly conceivable that he might not finish with the *most* major titles, but that instead, he might be remembered for having won the ones he did in such a dominating fashion it would give rise to a different kind of debate that no one had previously pondered. In future years, the question might become this: "Who was better, Nicklaus or Woods? Nicklaus won more, but Tiger won almost as many, and when he did win, he blew ‘em away in a manner never previously seen." That’s exactly the kind of debate sports fans eat up for generations. It’s an interesting possibility to ponder. Of course the Tiger detractors would side with Nicklaus in such a debate on the basis of him winning more, and they would have a valid argument. But a case could be made that with today’s deeper fields, winning is more difficult, and therefore, a "near-equal" number of majors in today’s world might be equivalent to a few more majors in an earlier time. (Remember how many "experts" thought Tiger’s six-in-a-row was more impressive than Hogan’s for just the same reason?) And if Tiger continues winning majors by staggering margins, I think you’ve got yourself an interesting debate that will last for ages. Personally, I don’t think this is at all a far-fetched scenario. I’m not convinced that Tiger can get to 18 majors. I’m assuming, of course, that he’s human, and that he’ll endure slumps like every other golfer who’s ever played the game. Surely he won’t play this much better than everyone else for as long as he plays professional golf. Surely. It is reasonable to presume that he’ll either hit a wall, or someone will come along and challenge him, "stealing" a few majors from him, just as Trevino and Watson stole a few from Jack. I heard John Feinstein on the radio today say it’s quite possible that the player who will challenge Tiger for golf supremacy won’t come from the group that’s playing now. His nemesis may be 14 years old right now, and may be hitting balls at a driving range somewhere, dreaming of the day when he might get a chance to play against his idol, Tiger Woods. Mr. Feinstein makes a valid point. Remember that Nicklaus emerged on TOUR to take over from the king, Arnold Palmer, who is ten years older than Jack. And Watson became Jack’s foil — again, ten years age difference. Just as Hogan and Palmer and Nicklaus inspired generations of young golfers, you can bet the farm that Tiger is having the same affect on the next generation of players. If, indeed, the player that will challenge Tiger’s domination is still battling teenage acne, Tiger could dominate the game for about the next 7 or 8 years. That now seems quite plausible. If he averaged one major a year for the next eight years, he’d get to twelve. (He’s now averaging a little over 1 in 4 in the majors for his career.) Throw in a couple of double-major seasons and he’s at 14, alone in second place ahead of Bobby Jones. By the time he’s 32. That’s when most professional golfers are entering their prime. Making assumptions about someone winning a major a year is, admittedly, a bit of a stretch. Or so we thought. But this Tiger seems to be an animal of a different stripe. Whether he can sustain this remarkable level of play will, of course, be how he’s measured. And that’s as it should be. You get the feeling that no one is more aware of that than Tiger himself. But right here, right now, we may be seeing the best golfer who ever lived. Not the winningest player (yet), but the best golfer with the best swing; the best game; the best combination of power, accuracy and finesse; indeed, the best "total package" that the game has ever seen. In the meantime, we’ll be counting the wins. Don’t blink, or you may miss one. Or five. And as I mentioned before, Tiger’s winning percentage in major championships is now about the same as it is for his overall career — a little over 25%. And his winning percentage is well over 50% in the last 15 months or so. 15 wins in his last 27 starts. That’s unimaginable. If he doesn’t win the PGA next month, he’ll be at exactly 25% in majors since turning pro. 4 for 16 as a pro. This is the same guy about whom, just two years ago, critics were saying couldn’t win a US Open or a British Open because of his poor course management. Just to put his 21 career wins in perspective, take a look at the list of winners ahead of him on the career victories list. They are rapidly dwindling in number: RANK – PLAYER – NUMBER OF WINS 1. Sam Snead 81 2. Jack Nicklaus 70 3. Ben Hogan 63 4. Arnold Palmer 60 5. Byron Nelson 52 6. Billy Casper 51 T7. Walter Hagen 40 T7. Cary Middlecoff 40 9. Gene Sarazen 38 10. Lloyd Mangrum 36
… read more »
Response:
We heard commentary during the tournament telecast this past weekend proclaiming Tiger to be "the best golfer in history." That’s pretty heady stuff, and words that I’m sure did not set well with one certain RSG regular. But when those words were spoken, they were appropriately offered with this caveat: "Nicklaus was the greatest champion, with 18 majors, but Tiger, with his ‘perfect’ mechanics, extraordinary length and finesse may be the best golfer to ever play the game."
You’ve got a tremendous argument here. I think there is definitely room to make the assertion. I do have a question, though. What makes Tiger a better golfer than Bobby Jones? — Jeff Rogers http://www.rogersnetwork.com/
Response:
There have been a lot of superlatives bandied about in the last 24 hours since Tiger Woods became just the fifth player in history to win golf’s modern career Grand Slam. And while I’m certain one RSG regular may bristle at some of the comments made, I’d like to try to put them into some sort of perspective.
<Snip Well thought out, well written, and IMO, virtually unassailable. Jay Beckman Chandler, AZ
Response:
There have been a lot of superlatives bandied about in the last 24 hours since Tiger Woods became just the fifth player in history to win golf’s modern career Grand Slam. And while I’m certain one RSG regular may bristle at some of the comments made, I’d like to try to put them into some sort of perspective.
< marathon post snipped … what *is* your typing rate in wpm? I share your sentiments, and agree with what you’re saying about Tiger’s record and where he’s going on the path to greatness. The fact that he has won the four majors at 24, and his complete recent dominance makes his performance close to Bradman-esque. However, as possibly a small nitpick, you persist in using (apart from majors) solely USPGA Tour wins as the prime measure of your "greatness ranking" i.e. another case of the "USA" equating to "The World". I think international victories should, to some extent, also be factored into any equation. Up until possibly the ’70s, certainly in the 50s and 60s, US golf didn’t have quite the overwhelmingly powerful position vis-a-vis the world as it does now. Peter Thomson, for instance, has said that one reason he didn’t play much in the USA in his prime (1955-65, including the early Nicklaus years), was that before the advent of colour television, when courses started becoming greatly improved for enhanced TV broadcasting, the standard of a lot of the public courses on which USPGA Tour events were then played was actually quite second-rate. Given that Nicklaus has a dozen or so international wins, Greg Norman has 70, Gary Player has 30 or so, and even Arnold Palmer has 13, these must surely count for something. They might not always have been in super-strong fields (sometimes they were … Australian Opens in the 60s were close to those of a USPGA event in standard, sometimes having Thomson, Player, Palmer and Nicklaus together). And every one of Norman’s seventy international victories, for example, was a tournament (or two, or three, given that he didn’t always win) not spent on the USPGA Tour building his record there. He didn’t even play the USPGA tour until he was 29. Tiger now has 4 international victories (two in Asia, one in Germany and the Open). While the Open Championship clearly demonstrated his ability to adapt his excellence to a range of conditions, guys like Player and Norman did it constantly throughout their careers. Surely that should be factored into any "ranking" when it comes to historical greatness and who’s been "overtaken". Cheers Colin Wilson Australian handicap: 10.1 RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/wilsonc.htm
Response:
[snip] – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Tiger Woods has never been anything but a gentleman with his opponents. He’s faced them and congratulated them when they won, and he’s never rubbed anybody’s nose in it when he was the victor. And while he’s been a fiery competitor (he’s admitted that he plays his best when he plays in a "controlled rage") and has shown his on-the-edge emotions (ranging from fist-pumping to some unfortunate utterances), no one can point to a single time when he’s been a sore loser. He’s accepted defeat with dignity every time he’s faced it. You’ve never heard him make excuses or pointed to bad bounces or bad luck. He’s never taken anything away from those who have earned their victories over him. That is a fact that has been conspicuously overlooked in the face of the pettiness that has dominated discussions about his behavior in this forum and others like it.
What I’ve been trying to put into words for some time. You beat me to it. Considering how atheletes these days can be so full of themselves, and even how some golfers can find everything to whine about when they are having a tough day, he’s done pretty well by himself and the game. When Clarke beat him this year, he attributed his loss primarily to Clarke’s brilliant play. Sergio tries to stare him down and Tiger just takes a pass on the whole fiasco, both during AND after the day. Some folks will be able to pick him apart over every little thing. Despite how he may golf, he is not a machine. He is gonna make mistakes of the tounge. And considering how much exposure he does get, folks will have plenty to pick apart. But it’s nice to see such a intense competitor leave it on the field of play, and express it with his clubs, instead of his mouth. Perhaps a better gauge of how Tiger is received might come from the players themselves, rather than from some self-annointed protector of public decorum. Hal Sutton, who emerged victorious after staring down Tiger at The Players Championship, and who’s never been accused of being anything but a gentleman himself, said of Tiger Woods, "I sometimes sit around and wonder how in the world a young guy who has signed $100 million worth of contracts and has won as much as he has can still come out and be a pretty likable guy.
And my impression is that Hal is the kinda guy who doesn’t play nice just to impress folks. If he said it, I’m inclined to believe it. Tiger handles himself well. I don’t see how any of the other players can be jealous.
Oh, I can. Els probably has at least 2 more wins in his pocket, maybe 3, if Tiger isn’t playing like this. What do ya wanna bet that David isn’t anywhere near that pot bunker on Sunday if he is protecting a 3 stroke lead instead of chasing Tiger? How many different winners in the last year are there if Tiger hasn’t sucked up so many victories? David rebuilt his whole body. Els rebuilt his soul. You wanna tell me at night, looking in the mirror, with a smile on their face, they aren’t just a tad bit jealous that they haven’t gotten to call Butch, or someone and declare "I’ve got it" and have it actually work out? [snip] Before you buy.
Response:
Well thought out,well put together – an excellent post cheers randy tom Tom Donnellan RSG Roll Call :http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/donnellant.htm
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There have been a lot of superlatives bandied about in the last 24 hours since Tiger Woods became just the fifth player in history to win golf’s modern career Grand Slam. And while I’m certain one RSG regular may bristle at some of the comments made, I’d like to try to put them into some sort of perspective. From the outset, let me say I’m a golf fan first, and a Tiger Woods fan second. Make no mistake that I have a sense of the game’s history. That’s why I marvel at what we’re witnessing. And it’s why I scoff at the notion advanced by his detractors that Tiger’s accomplishments pale in comparison to those of the great champions that preceded him. If those naysayers had the sense of history they claim to have, they’d surely acknowledge his accomplishments as what they are — historic. And to those who say it’s boring to watch him dust the field by 8, 12 or 15 strokes, I would hasten to remind them that despite how Tiger may make it appear, this sort of thing is anything but routine. That Woods has won three majors by such wide margins is exactly what makes them historic. See the record books of The Masters, US Open and The Open Championship. Tiger now owns the scoring records — either stroke scoring, or strokes relative to par, or both — in three of golf’s four major championships. Two of those championships have been contested since before the turn of the century. The LAST century. Peter Kessler of The Golf Channel may have asked the best question over the weekend when he posed this to his panel Sunday night: "Is Tiger that good, or are all the other players just ’streaky’?" We heard commentary during the tournament telecast this past weekend proclaiming Tiger to be "the best golfer in history." That’s pretty heady stuff, and words that I’m sure did not set well with one certain RSG regular. But when those words were spoken, they were appropriately offered with this caveat: "Nicklaus was the greatest champion, with 18 majors, but Tiger, with his ‘perfect’ mechanics, extraordinary length and finesse may be the best golfer to ever play the game." I think that may be the most succinct summary of what many of us have been trying to say for a while, but maybe didn’t have quite the "expert eye" to identify it. Three years ago I was hearing the same thing from players who’d been on TOUR for the past 20 years. They all marveled at how much more solid his fundamentals were than most other players, and this was even before he rebuilt his swing. It doesn’t take an expert eye to know it’s even better now. And then today in newspapers around the world, we see the latest round of accolades: Mark Calcavecchia said of Tiger, "He is the chosen one. I don’t think Nicklaus in his prime could have kept up with him." Tom Watson said, "He’s doing things that are supernatural." Ernie Els said, "We don’t all have his ability. He plays much better than the rest of the world." Nick Faldo said, "He’s in a different league. Guys will have to play the ‘Tigerless tour’ to have a chance to win. He’s better than Nicklaus was." Nick Price said, "He’s learned more in his 24 years than I’ve learned in 43." Fred Couples said, "He’s so good it’s scary. He’s lapping me. I have to get better." One RSG regular says, "He’s proven nothing until he gets to 18 majors." I guess everybody has a right to their opinion. Though I would remind everyone to consider the source. But this raises an interesting point. Curtis Strange had previously opine d that he thought all of Nicklaus’s records were in jeopardy "except the 18 majors, and now I’m not so sure." (Incidentally, I would hasten to point out that Nicklaus considers his total to be 20, counting his US Amateur championships. Whether or not you agree that those should be counted, it’s only fair to mention that if he gets to count his Amateur titles, then Tiger is already a third of the way there with 7 majors, counting his three Amateur titles.) Whether Tiger gets to 18 professional majors will, no doubt, be fodder for discussion in future years. But I wonder if this isn’t a more plausible scenario: Eighteen majors is a lot to ask (we already knew that). But it doesn’t strike me as unfathomable that Tiger might get to 13 or 14 or 15. What if he continues to win majors by 5, 6, 8, 10 or 15 strokes? That would become quite a legacy on its own merit. It’s certainly conceivable that he might not finish with the *most* major titles, but that instead, he might be remembered for having won the ones he did in such a dominating fashion it would give rise to a different kind of debate that no one had previously pondered. In future years, the question might become this: "Who was better, Nicklaus or Woods? Nicklaus won more, but Tiger won almost as many, and when he did win, he blew ‘em away in a manner never previously seen." That’s exactly the kind of debate sports fans eat up for generations. It’s an interesting possibility to ponder. Of course the Tiger detractors would side with Nicklaus in such a debate on the basis of him winning more, and they would have a valid argument. But a case could be made that with today’s deeper fields, winning is more difficult, and therefore, a "near-equal" number of majors in today’s world might be equivalent to a few more majors in an earlier time. (Remember how many "experts" thought Tiger’s six-in-a-row was more impressive than Hogan’s for just the same reason?) And if Tiger continues winning majors by staggering margins, I think you’ve got yourself an interesting debate that will last for ages. Personally, I don’t think this is at all a far-fetched scenario. I’m not convinced that Tiger can get to 18 majors. I’m assuming, of course, that he’s human, and that he’ll endure slumps like every other golfer who’s ever played the game. Surely he won’t play this much better than everyone else for as long as he plays professional golf. Surely. It is reasonable to presume that he’ll either hit a wall, or someone will come along and challenge him, "stealing" a few majors from him, just as Trevino and Watson stole a few from Jack. I heard John Feinstein on the radio today say it’s quite possible that the player who will challenge Tiger for golf supremacy won’t come from the group that’s playing now. His nemesis may be 14 years old right now, and may be hitting balls at a driving range somewhere, dreaming of the day when he might get a chance to play against his idol, Tiger Woods. Mr. Feinstein makes a valid point. Remember that Nicklaus emerged on TOUR to take over from the king, Arnold Palmer, who is ten years older than Jack. And Watson became Jack’s foil — again, ten years age difference. Just as Hogan and Palmer and Nicklaus inspired generations of young golfers, you can bet the farm that Tiger is having the same affect on the next generation of players. If, indeed, the player that will challenge Tiger’s domination is still battling teenage acne, Tiger could dominate the game for about the next 7 or 8 years. That now seems quite plausible. If he averaged one major a year for the next eight years, he’d get to twelve. (He’s now averaging a little over 1 in 4 in the majors for his career.) Throw in a couple of double-major seasons and he’s at 14, alone in second place ahead of Bobby Jones. By the time he’s 32. That’s when most professional golfers are entering their prime. Making assumptions about someone winning a major a year is, admittedly, a bit of a stretch. Or so we thought. But this Tiger seems to be an animal of a different stripe. Whether he can sustain this remarkable level of play will, of course, be how he’s measured. And that’s as it should be. You get the feeling that no one is more aware of that than Tiger himself. But right here, right now, we may be seeing the best golfer who ever lived. Not the winningest player (yet), but the best golfer with the best swing; the best game; the best combination of power, accuracy and finesse; indeed, the best "total package" that the game has ever seen. In the meantime, we’ll be counting the wins. Don’t blink, or you may miss one. Or five. And as I mentioned before, Tiger’s winning percentage in major championships is now about the same as it is for his overall career — a little over 25%. And his winning percentage is well over 50% in the last 15 months or so. 15 wins in his last 27 starts. That’s unimaginable. If he doesn’t win the PGA next month, he’ll be at exactly 25% in majors since turning pro. 4 for 16 as a pro. This is the same guy about whom, just two years ago, critics were saying couldn’t win a US Open or a British Open because of his poor course management. Just to put his 21 career wins in perspective, take a look at the list of winners ahead of him on the career victories list. They are rapidly dwindling in number: RANK – PLAYER – NUMBER OF WINS 1. Sam Snead 81 2. Jack Nicklaus 70 3. Ben Hogan 63 4. Arnold Palmer 60 5. Byron Nelson 52 6. Billy Casper 51 T7. Walter Hagen 40 T7. Cary Middlecoff 40 9. Gene Sarazen 38 10. Lloyd Mangrum 36 11. Tom Watson 33 12. Horton Smith 32 T13. Harry Cooper 31 T13. Jimmy Demaret 31 15. Leo Diegel 30 T16. Gene Littler 29 T16. Paul Runyan 29 18. Lee Trevino 27 19. Henry Picard 26 T20. Tommy Armour 24
… read more »
Response:
An excellent post. I have two comments. First, saying that Nicklaus did not play against the same depth of field. I disagree. It is said that Nicklaus’ dominated in his time the way Tiger is dominating now. No, he did not win by the same margins as Tiger has, but he dominated all the same. I think it somewhat cheapens the other players during Nicklaus’s prime time to say the fields are deeper now. Remember, Nicklaus played against some pretty awesome talent, Weiskoph, Hogan (briefly), Miller, Trevino, Player, Palmer, et al. There are a heck of a lot of good players there. It was Hogan who said at Cherry Hills "I just played with a kid that chould have won this tournament by 6 shots" and Nicklaus was that kid. We were hearing the same types of comments from Palmer and Nicklaus a few years ago about Tiger. What I mean is, it is a relative statement. Nicklaus did what he needed to do to win, as did Hogan, Jones, Nelson, Snead and all the rest. Could he have domintated against Tiger ? Good question. Unanswerable by me. But it is all about doing what is needed to win. Second thing I would like to point out is how you laud the Golfer Gentleman that Tiger Woods is. You are absolutely correct. And credit for that should go to his parents, who, in my opinion, have raised and excellent young man. I cannot say enough about how they have raised a true credit to the human race. Thanks again for writing a totally enjoyable post, Geoff – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text —— Original Message —– Newsgroups: rec.sport.golf Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 10:07 PM It’s an interesting possibility to ponder. Of course the Tiger detractors would side with Nicklaus in such a debate on the basis of him winning more, and they would have a valid argument. But a case could be made that with today’s deeper fields, winning is more difficult, and therefore, a "near-equal" number of majors in today’s world might be equivalent to a few more majors in an earlier time. (Remember how many "experts" thought Tiger’s six-in-a-row was more impressive than Hogan’s for just the same reason?) And if Tiger continues winning majors by staggering margins, I think you’ve got yourself an interesting debate that will last for ages.
Response:
Second thing I would like to point out is how you laud the Golfer Gentleman that Tiger Woods is. You are absolutely correct. And credit for that should go to his parents, who, in my opinion, have raised and excellent young man. I cannot say enough about how they have raised a true credit to the human race.
I didn’t see him spit once at The Open. That, and the occasional colloquialism seem to be his only flaws. He is remarkably composed for a 24-yr old, especially as he must feel plenty of pressure. Not pressure towin, but pressure to turn up, pressure to please his sponsors, pressure to please the TV networks and the fans — and the biggest pressure of all, to match up to his own high standards. Stan — Stan The Man +++Naked Under This Macintosh+++ DELETE X if replying
Response:
: An excellent post. : I have two comments. : First, saying that Nicklaus did not play against the same depth of field. I : disagree. Jack himself recently said that the depth of the fields is greater now then when he played but that there weren’t as many great golfers now as there were then. He also said that when he played (referring to majors I believe) he could discount 80% of the field as not believing they could when a particular tournament and that left him thirty players that he had to contend with. James Jackson
Response:
Randy following is all the arguements i can find against your review: regards Mark Blake Fairway: [faer-wai] "An unfamiliar tract of mown grass running directly from tee to the green. Your ball can usually be found immediately to the left or right of it." RSG Roll Call: http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/blakem.htm