No love for Tiger???

clydecoolidge

Wow, what a golf tourney this years US Open was. I'm almost as exhausted as Tiger and Rocco. Probably not though, lol. I can't believe what Rocco Mediate must be feeling after finally getting that close to winning a major, after 42 tries, and not getting the win. The guy lead pretty much the whole tourney but couldn't seal the deal. Destiny I guess.

VitoCo1972

I think "couldn't seal the deal" is a little harsh, no? The guy was tied twice by birdies on the 18th hole. I've played Torrey and that 18th hole is no gimmie birdie. Rocco played a helluva round and no one will talk about this because he won, but Tiger choked on 3-4 shots. Rocco played about as well as he could...no shame in that.

ziggy29

Yep. Rocco certainly didn't choke. To the contrary, I think in this situation -- one on one, 18 holes against the the guy who may be the greatest golfer *ever*, being +3 against Tiger today after 10 and gaining four strokes to be -1 after 17, that's hardly a "couldn't seal it" kind of choke job.

Maybe Tiger wasn't 100% on that knee, but he's still Tiger and he was still making the huge shots with his back to the wall as he always does. And I doubt Tiger would have blamed the knee if he fell short. Bottom line is, Tiger at 90% is still apparently better than anyone else, including a rather jolly, likable old veteran ranked number 150-something going after one last shot at glory after playing the tournament of his life.

ymarea

I'll throw some love Tiger's way. I thought he played one heckuva match. He clearly wasn't at his best, but he made every crucial shot that he had to, as evidenced by the squeaker win. One can look back at Mediates performance, which was very impressive, and say, "If he had only sank this putt..." or, "If he had just hit the fairway on this hole..." We can point to many such flaws in Woods' game today, but none ended up costing him the championship. They may have prolonged the suspense and given many of us a way to spend our day, but he still won.

As an old guy (relatively speaking) who has long been an admirer of Jack Nicklaus, I'm reluctantly starting to realize that Tiger Woods may just be the best ever.

1420sports

Mediate played the best golf of his career (his words) and did everything he could do shake Tiger. No one can shake Tiger. It was only a matter of time. He is the best of the best.

Hats off to Rocco, and I hope he gets his first soon. Seems like a pretty decent chap.

otwcards

Tiger doesn't need any of our love . . .

He's got more money than God and a wife so gorgeous that most of us would cut off our right arm . . . er . . . well, keep the right arm . . . you get my point.

JackWESQ

I can almost guarantee that somewhere, between two (2) people, at least, in some chat room, in some bar, somewhere, there is some debate about the greatest baseball player, greatest football player, greatest basketball player or even the greatest ... say golfer. And now, we have, right before our eyes, someone who is doing a pretty good job to show us that he is, indeed, without argument, the greatest golfer ever. And now, we don't root for him? Because we're tired of seeing him win? Or we feel like rooting for the underdog who has never won?

I'm sorry, but I prefer bright lines, especially in areas of debate. Assuming you can craft a rational argument that Tiger Woods ISN"T already the greatest golfer of all-time, every major accomplishment he reaches (no pun intended), simply eliminates another basis by which to challenge Woods' greatness.

But even with today's victory, Woods' greatness and debates about greatness will still seemingly come down to matters of faith, i.e., that no matter how many majors Woods win, e.g. he could win one hundred (100), there will still be people who believe that Golfer X is the greatest. And for those people, there is nothing that Woods can do to convince him that Woods is greater than Golfer X. Is that nothing more than irrationalism?

/s/ JackWESQ

VitoCo1972

Look, he may be the best ever someday, but Nicklaus won 18 and he has 14. But, more than that, Nicklaus also finished 2nd 19 times in majors. Tiger will never sniff 37 top 2's in majors...thus, there will always be an argument.

Barndog

<< <i>Look, he may be the best ever someday, but Nicklaus won 18 and he has 14. But, more than that, Nicklaus also finished 2nd 19 times in majors. Tiger will never sniff 37 top 2's in majors...thus, there will always be an argument. >>



if you're not first, you're last.

stevek

I think in this situation it was more rooting for Rocco than it was rooting against Tiger. Tiger is still very much liked, respected and admired out there by the public.

bigfische

I root for Tiger. Rocco was a joy to watch out there and grew on you every round. I was also rooting for that Jiminez guy.

Michigan

He will most likely pass Nicklaus in the next 2-3 years maybe sooner, at that point his star may start to fade as far as public attention and interest is concerned. Once you reach the top what else is there to get excited about?

VitoCo1972

<< <i> <<Look, he may be the best ever someday, but Nicklaus won 18 and he has 14. But, more than that, Nicklaus also finished 2nd 19 times in majors. Tiger will never sniff 37 top 2's in majors...thus, there will always be an argument. >>


Tiger already has 19 "Top 2" finishes in the majors. 14 of them are outright wins which I believe most golfers would rather have one win rather than 5 second place finishes but I digress. At a mere age 32, he's already past the halfway point of 37 so I'm not sure why you would be so confident in your statement. Assuming he's healthy, he'll play 40-50 more majors in his prime or at a close level.

Not only do I think he likely pass it, I believe that barring injury, it's probable that at least 25 of his final "Top 2" finishes will be victories thus leaving absolutely no doubt about who the best all time is. Based on the accounts of almost every golfer and analyst today, it seems that he's already earned the titled of "best all time golfer". >>



It's precisely because he usually closes the deal, that's why I don't think he'll be near 37 top 2's in majors. I think he'll win 25 or so and finish 2nd 4-5 other times (in a backdoor way) That would put him at 35.

RonBurgundy

You won't see any love from me. He sucks all the fun out of watching golf and I could do without the constant club throwing and F-bombs (F$#! yeah! on the 18th green within earshot of every woman and kid in the gallery).

The guy is immensely talented and I have all the respect in the world for him. He's certainly the best, by far, in his generation. But he'll have to win 25 majors before I consider him better than Jack. Jack had Palmer, Trevino, Player, and Watson among others that tested him. Tiger's biggest rival (if you can call him that) is a nice guy with moobs who is a certifiable headcase.

I posted the list of guys that have won multiple majors in each of their eras in another thread.....go look at it, it's pretty bare for Tiger. Yeah, he's miles better than everyone else but it's not exactly a HOF field he's lining up against each week.

You can actually extrapolate the top 2 argument even further to Top 10's. Jack has 73 Top 10's in majors. Tiger has 28. He'll have to finish in the top 10 of EVERY major from now through 2019 to surpass that. Good luck.




Ron

jlbsquared

Tiger is the best golfer ever. Awesome to watch guys who have that Jordan gene that kicks in whenever fame and glory are on the line....

Goot

Tiger is 14 for 51 in Majors for wins..... that's a 27% winning pct.
Tiger is 29 for 51 in Majors for finishing in the top 10.....about 57%


For Nicklaus, I'm going through just the last year in which he won a major, which was 1986 (masters), even though he competed until a few years ago.

Nicklaus was 18 for 116 in Majors for wins.... about 15%
In that same span Nicklaus was 70 for 116 in top 10 finishes.... about 60%


My numbers may be off by one or two, but I think they are fairly accurate. I'm not really giving an opinion, just sharing information so others can form their own.

RonBurgundy

What was Jack's winning percentage through his first 51 majors?



Ron

estang

1. Tiger Woods
2. Jack Nicklaus
3. Bobby Jones
4. Sam Sneed
5. Byron Nelson

Majors: Nicklaus 18 --- Woods 14
Majors (inlcuding U.S. Amateur): Nicklaus 20 --- Woods 17
PGA Victories: Snead 82, Nicklaus 73, Woods 65
Most consecutive PGA wins: Nelson 11, Woods 7
Most PGA wins before age 25: Woods 25, Horton Smith 17, Nicklaus 12
Most PGA victories between ages 20 to 29: Woods 46, Nicklaus 30, Sarazen/Smith/Snead 27
Lowest 72 Hole Scoring record (in relation to par):
Tiger Woods holds them all (Masters 18under, US Open 12under, British 19under, PGA 18under)
Most Consecutive Cuts Made: Tiger Woods 142
Won 12 of 17 World Golf Championships Stroke events (super strong fields)

He's done this in 12.5 years on tour.

Fields are considerbly deeper with talent as the game has evolved, but likely with not as many "great" players as when Nicklaus played. OR is it just that Tiger doesn't allow for a Weiskopf, Miller, Watson, Trevino to emerge because he is so dominant.

We'll never see this again...and if he plays only 45 or 46...he's halfway done in his career. I would equate it to baseball in getting 250 hits with 45 or 50 dingers a year for 12 years, or 3000 hits and 600 home runs.

Tiger's biggest weakness is his lack of consistent accuracy with his driver.

dallasactuary

<< <i>You won't see any love from me. He sucks all the fun out of watching golf >>


That about sums it up for me, too. He may be better than Nicklaus, although there is no way that can ever be proven one way or the other, but the answer to that question has nothing to do with who I root for. I rooted for Nicklaus (his last Masters win may be my all-time favorite sports memory) not beause he was great but because he earned it. Debate talent on the one hand, but be sure to keep it separate from the debate on class - not that there is really any debate on that count.

Goot

<< <i>What was Jack's winning percentage through his first 51 majors?



Ron >>



Here are Nicklaus' stats through his first 51 majors (1972 British Open)

11 wins in 51 attempts........ win pct. = 21.5%
33 top 10 finishes in 51 tournaments........65%


dallasactuary: How is Wood's lacking class?

coinkat

Tiger is a great golfer... no question about that.

I guess I was not paying close enough attention on the 18th hole. I am not impressed with the way he handles himself or his clubs after making a bad shot. While I admire his intensity and determination, there is more to golf that needs to be considered.

I do not think comparing him to Jack, Sam Snead or even Ben Hogan is a fair comparison. It goes beyond numbers.

estang

Bobby Jones had a terrible temper. Ben Hogan was frigid & shunned Arnold Palmer. So Tiger is intense & gets angry when he doesn't execute. So what. Perhaps when his daughter is old enough to ask him why, he'll settle down.

As for comparing golfers from other eras, I would argue that as a sport, golf crosses eras better than just about any sport. The big difference is the technology. You still have to make the quality, repetitive swings and have the mental toughness to hold up. You could easily put Bobby Jones, Walter Hagen, Gene Sarazen or Sam Snead in today's field and they would hold their own and far exceed Mickelson or Singh over a period of a season.

RonBurgundy

There's no disputing his greatness. But when the field you compete against features only one lock Hall of Famer (Phil), there are just as many questions about his competition as there is about the alleged thinness of the fields that Jack played against. Just because a field is deeper does not mean it is better. It could be argued that today's fields feature a bunch of millionaires who don't need to win to succeed, whereas players in the old days scrapped for everything they could get. This is especially persuasive when you consider today's technology that eliminates many mistakes and tends to make mediocre players much better than their actual talent.




Ron

Goot

Just kidding, didn't see the other thread.

VitoCo1972

<< <i>There's no disputing his greatness. But when the field you compete against features only one lock Hall of Famer (Phil), there are just as many questions about his competition as there is about the alleged thinness of the fields that Jack played against. Just because a field is deeper does not mean it is better. It could be argued that today's fields feature a bunch of millionaires who don't need to win to succeed, whereas players in the old days scrapped for everything they could get. This is especially persuasive when you consider today's technology that eliminates many mistakes and tends to make mediocre players much better than their actual talent.




Ron >>



Sorry, Vijay and Ernie are both locks for the Hall of fame - Jim Furyk is also 90% of the way in.