just read this article

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3992192

the jist of it is: tiger isnt the greatest ever cause he hasnt passed nickalus record of 18 majors....and might not ever now because of his knee....i think if you look at what hes done in his career you still gotta consider him among greatest ever....to dominate the competition hes played against, the way he has, now granted i did not see nickalus play...but in my mind tiger is greatest ever right now, if he never wins another tournament. is this crazy to say??

eh, imo, if he never wins another tournament, a very significant part of his career would be winless enough to not be the greatest ever. If you are going to say things like Tiger would be the greatest ever right now without winning another tournament, you have to throw Ben Hogan into the argument for sure. Anyway, it all doesn't matter because Tiger is 595% to win another tournament, 100% to win another major and probably 85% to pass Jack's record.

lmao, it amazes me that anyone can still think tiger is not the greatest ever

i mean, do these people actually watch him play?

and in before butcho heart attack

i would so preggers sex candace parker

Tiger isn't the best ever yet, I don't see how people can say he's the best ever if he doesn't hold the two most important records yet, PGA Tour Wins and Major Victories. When he passes Jack and Sammy then yea, there will be absolutely no debate, but until then, it's still Jack.

Also I love Reilly

Tiger himself would say that nicklaus is #1. He's had the best 10 year stretch though.

The vast majority of people that say Tiger is already the greatest of all time simply have no knowledge of Nicklaus and the era in which he competed.

As Reilly pointed out, check out the players with multiple majors that Nicklaus competed against vs. those that Tiger is competing against. Those players would wipe the floor against the current group.

Sure I do. Did you ever watch Nicklaus play? What about Palmer and Trevino and Hogan and Casper and Watson, etc....

See, the younger generation has no basis for comparison because of the ignorance factor. They see Tiger as a great athlete dominating the competition which hasn't been seen in their generation and just figure he's the best.

As I've said before, all the above is subjective. The only objective factors we have to work with are PGA Tour victories and majors. Jack is ahead in both categories. Seems pretty black and white to me.

You know, from now on when somebody brings up Tiger as the GOAT, they really need to mention players from all generations. Otherwise, their argument has little credibility.

BO

I'm sorry but Billy Casper shot like a 90 in the Masters in 2005. No golfer in the modern era shoots in the 90s. Pretty obviously Tiger's competition is tougher.

is that a serious ****ing comment? Casper was like 75 at the time

Gary Player shot 73 in 2001.....

This has to be the stupidest thing that anyone has ever written. Usually, Rick Reilly knows what he is talking about, but I don't know if he hit his head before he started typing this article or what. How the **** can you say Tiger's career is at a crossroads? He has played in two tournaments (neither of them majors) since his surgery, and he is somehow at a crossroads all of a sudden? If it had been three years since Tiger had won a major, and only collected 2-3 tourneys along the way, then maybe we're at a crossroads, but I'd at least let the guy tee it up at Augusta, Bethpage, Turnberry and Hazeltine before I said that the #1 golfer in the world is at a crossroads. Also, if winning the last major that you entered is a crossroads, I guess Padraig Harrington is starting to wonder if he can ever win again. Get real, Reilly.

anyone remember how Tiger fared after his other long layoffs?

Yeah it's kind of weird that everyone was nuthugging Tiger a month ago and there was all this "undefeated season?" garbage and now some are starting to question his abilities after just two events. lol @ that. Media is so ridiculously reactionary.

It's also hard to compare eras. Not because of equipment, in fact that is essentially an equalizer, in that everyone played with the same stuff. No, I can't figure out what if any psychological advantage Tiger has that Jack didn't have. Jack had as many second place finishes in majors as he did wins, from which one could extract 1) he was in the hunt all the time, and 2) perhaps his contemporaries weren't "afraid" of him. I have no idea what if anything there is to this.

Then there is the whole "Tiger has never come back on the final day to win a major" thing, coupled with "he has never lost a major when leading after 54 holes". Well, both of these are on ridiculously shaky footing and not to be taken too seriously. May and DiMarco, among others, outplayed him on the final day of a major. In their cases they went on to lose in a playoff. On the flip side he has nearly run down a bunch of eventual winners such as Beem in 2002 or Cabrera in 2007.

All I can say for sure is the next few years will be interesting. I'm sure he'll set the new record and then some, but having seen the tail end of Jack's career I would hardly be upset if he didn't.

tiger is 33. he will be the greatest ever, so the argument with all the "what ifs" and whether he is the GOAT at this second is moot.

Yeah, the media is very reactionary, no question. That's why I don't pay much attention to TV opinions. Only facts.

And talk about reactionary. The stupidest thing ever written? Please.

Reilly is right, Tiger's career is at a crossroads. Not the crossroads, or perhaps not even an important crossroads. But any athlete's career is at a crossroads after reconstructive knee surgery. You just never know how the knee is going to feel after that procedure. Some are as good as new, some are mere shadows of their former self.

One of the reasons Reilly is so critical over Tiger's performance so far is that Tiger has been nearly unbeatable in the two events he has entered. And in those two events this year he never contended. Is it a knee jerk reaction? Perhaps. But it is good factual information.

And some extra food for thought, it is Reilly's job to know the subjects he covers. It is possible that Tiger's knee is not as it should be, and Reilly knows it. If that were to be the case, then Tiger most certainly would be at the crossroads of his career. But I wouldn't wish that on anybody.

BO