Tiger's place in history - Page 3 - Golf and Golf Tournament Forum

Two Plus Two Forums Sports and Games Golf

Tiger's place in history

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3

06-17-2008 , 07:24 PM

#51

loK2thabrain

Tiger > Jack

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 23,203

Quote:

Originally Posted by blah_blah

in addition to nicklaus (who, remember, we have to assume was better than woods without the benefit of the bigger, stronger, trained harder bit),

ummm, why?

Take away Tiger's bigger/stronger benefit.....fine. His short game is still wayyyyyy better than Nicklaus. Fact is Jack didn't really do anything that much better than Tiger. The only thing you can for sure say is that he was straighter with the driver year to year. Other than that, what edge do you give Jack?

You're obviously a smart guy and I'm genuinely interested in your response.

Quote

06-17-2008 , 07:43 PM

#52

dtf13

journeyman

Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 393

Here is how I would break it down IMO.

Head-to-Head Comparison:
Driving: Jack
Iron Play: Draw
Scrambling: Tiger
Putting: Tiger
Mental Toughness: Draw
Clutchness: Tiger

Competition:
Great Rivals: Jack
Great Fields: Tiger

Misc:
Wife: Tiger

Overall: Tiger

Quote

06-17-2008 , 07:45 PM

#53

dtf13

journeyman

Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 393

Quote:

Originally Posted by Butcho22

+

Jack said it himself: he was never as good as a putter as Tiger is.

Quote

06-17-2008 , 09:29 PM

#54

thisnamedoesntfi

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,433

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtf13

Great post. Imo the only reason Tiger doesn't have the great rivals that Jack had is that he broke their spirits in 2000. It could easily be argued that Phil, Vijay, Ernie and Goosen are at least as good a supporting cast as Jack had. Arnie was before Jacks time a little and Watson hit his prime when Nicklaus was well past his.

Younger potential rivals just haven't fully emerged yet, although Trevor Immelmen, Anthony Kim, Brandt Snedeker and others are on the improve. The fact is that Tiger is so good and continuing to improve, that a true rival will not likely ever come up.

Quote

06-17-2008 , 09:58 PM

#55

loK2thabrain

Tiger > Jack

Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 23,203

Pretty good list dtf...I'd put Tiger ahead of Jack for mental toughness but that's hard to gauge so I can understand how some may give them a draw.

tndf, also good points.

anyone know what Jack's biggest margin of victory was both in a major and in a regular tour event?

Quote

06-17-2008 , 10:07 PM

#56

Spenda

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 15,314

That's the biggest difference I see Butcho

Jack never beat fields by 15, but I think he's said a few times that wasn't his style. He just wanted to win, but didn't feel it necessary to blow everyone out.

Quote

06-17-2008 , 10:43 PM

#57

sylar

Ivan Drago's homeslice

Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 20,307

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spenda

sooo, tiger should start giving laying up in round 4 if he is up by 6? or maybe he should make the most aggressive shot possible and try to make birdies to keep the rest of us entretained and glued to our tvs?

actually i would prefer to watch a tiger round that's full of birdies and bogeys rather than a tiger round full of pars.

better yet, maybe he should just intentionally start spotting everyone 2 strokes on each hole #1. oh wait...

Quote

06-17-2008 , 11:38 PM

#58

Al Mirpuri

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 5,485

If one could break down the age profiles of those suggesting Nicklaus was better than Woods you would find that they came of age when Nicklaus was the greatest golfer in the world. The Woods supporters will generally be younger with some greybeards willing to tell it as they see it. Champions come and go. Records get broken. Someday, the greybeards will argue that Woods was the greatest golfer ever and the youngbloods will argue for however comes along next to stake a claim to that title.

You see this dynamic in every sport.

Quote

06-18-2008 , 12:40 AM

#59

blah_blah

old hand

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,659

Quote:

Originally Posted by Butcho22

You're obviously a smart guy and I'm genuinely interested in your response.

sorry if it wasn't clear. i think that tiger IS better than jack. i'm just trying to outline why the theory that 'tiger's success compared to nicklaus is mainly because he didn't play against great golfers like arnie, palmer, etc' is fundamentally flawed by assuming that it is correct (i.e., that nicklaus IS the greatest, which is something i don't agree with) and arriving at an absurd conclusion. it's an argument that i've heard a lot and that i think is pretty intellectually lazy.

Quote

06-18-2008 , 01:22 PM

#60

NegativeZero

veteran

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 3,358

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Mirpuri

You may recall in the late 70s and 80s the press were clamoring to identify the "next Nicklaus." First it was Watson, then young players like Ballesteros, Hal Sutton (that sounds just dumb now), then Greg Norman. Finally, in the early 90s everybody gave up and pretty much agreed that there would never be another Nicklaus, with his achievements unattainable with the increased level of competition.

I imagine the same thing happening again after Tiger falls from the top. Whether another Tiger comes around again in our lifetimes is certainly something to look forward to.

Quote

06-18-2008 , 04:07 PM

#61

gusmahler

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 29,443

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spenda

The thing that holds him back is having no true great challengers.

Like look at who Jack had to beat throughout his career, starts against Arnie. Has to be Lee and Player, then Watson and Seve, then at the end Faldo/Norman.

You list 7 players. Yet 5 of them have fewer career wins than Vijay (31) or Phil (34).

Do you realize that the greatest money earning season in the history of the PGA is held by Vijay? Or that his 9 wins in 2004 is better than any season that Watson, Arnie, or Jack ever had?

I think people greatly underestimate the level of competition today.

Quote

06-18-2008 , 08:02 PM

#62

BigSoonerFan

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 11,214

Here's something sick, that I didn't realize because Tiger's consistency seems so normal now.

In the last 8 tournaments: 4 wins, 3 2nds, one 12th
In the last 14 tournaments: 6 wins, 4 2nds, one 3rd, one 4th, one 12th (one MC after his dad died)

As strong of a streak that Jack's ever had.

Quote

06-18-2008 , 10:05 PM

#63

andyfox

2+2 urban legend

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 21,553

Quote:

Originally Posted by gusmahler

I think people have the impression, wrongly or rightly, that Jack's competition was tougher because of the major wins and, in Palmer and Watson's cases, the frequency with which they won them in their prime:

Player 9
Watson 8 (in 9 years)
Palmer 7 (in 7 years)
Trevino 6

Ernie 3
Vijay 3
Phil 3

Quote

06-18-2008 , 10:11 PM

#64

shemp

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 7,624

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyfox

If you look at who finished second to Tiger and who Tiger finished second to and compare the same list with Jack, I think it appears that Jack was mixing it up against the cream of his era(s)-- while the present elite often seem AWOL when Tiger is on his game.

ETA: I just looked over the runners up to Tiger and I couldn't be more wrong on that point. Although it is interesting that the three guys who seemed to provided the sternest test were Mediate, DiMarco, and May.

Quote

Page 3 of 3

First

1 2 3

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 3 of 3

First

1 2 3

Last