Options
Tiger Woods! five behind makes a bunch of crazy puts! AND WINS AT BAY HILL! WOW!
rbdjr1
Posts: 4,474 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
What can I say? Tiger makes a long put on the 18th hole, ...and wins it!
Well, ...who else could make a bunch of 15 to 20 foot putts in the later holes (think 15, 16 & 18)? Nobody but Tiger!
Plus, Tiger converted 10 for 10 putts on Sunday, under 10 feet!
rd
Quicksilver Messenger Service - Smokestack Lightning (Live) 1968
Quicksilver Messenger Service - The Hat (Live) 1971
0
Comments
JS
<< <i>...and who were these guys playing golf with tiger on the 72nd hole??
JS >>
former Masters Champion Zach Johnson and 54-hole tournament leader Sean O'Hair. I didn't think Tiger was going to sink that putt. Didn't think he was going to do it last year either. Wrong both times.
JS
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
No need to keep posting to confirm it.
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
<< <i>He didn't beat two guys, he beat the whole F'in field. >>
exactly...and his two playing partners have six championships between them. Some people should stick to things that they know at least marginally well. I guess we don't have a forum for them yet.
If Jack and Arnie had this kind of "competition" they would of never lost!
JS
<< <i>Did these guys win a few Nissan opens? Did they win the left bank invite? Where there women golfers in the field?
If Jack and Arnie had this kind of "competition" they would of never lost!
JS >>
Maybe a large part of the reason why he lost a five shot lead was the fact that it was Tiger Woods behind him!!
Jack Nicklaus did the same thing.
It's called 'intimidation'.
and I agree with the other posters, don't sell the other two guys short. You obviously don't know the absolute incredible skill level it takes to even get on the PGA tour, let along lead after 3 rounds.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
Not dissing the Phillies, but the fact that you're dissing Tiger for taking advantage of the same opportunity that the Phillies were given is DUMB.
Edit: Maybe the reason the other guys have so few championships is because Tiger wins them ALL??
Espn Link: "Woods avoids Monday playoff with win"
ESPN ORLANDO, Fla. -- Arnold Palmer couldn't see it, but he knew the ball was going where it always seems to go for Tiger Woods.
Darkness had descended upon the Bay Hill Club & Lodge and a Monday morning playoff loomed if Woods was unable to coax in another 72nd hole birdie putt, this one illuminated by scoreboard lights from across a pond.
Of course it went in. Of course Woods ripped out the heart of Sean O'Hair in the process. Of course the golf world stands by in amazement -- again.
"There wasn't any question about it, was there?" said Palmer, the 79-year-old golf legend who three times now has stood by the 18th green of his tournament and watched a man who has shattered all of his records make a winning birdie putt in dramatic fashion.
"This is the way. It's habit. It's happened every time."
Unless you are O'Hair -- who held a 5-shot lead at the beginning of the round -- or someone who likes to root against Woods, it just doesn't get any better.
In just his third tournament back following knee surgery, Woods buried a 15-foot birdie putt to win the Arnold Palmer Invitational -- a putt that all the eyeballs fixated on the game's No. 1 player had trouble tracking until it disappeared into the hole.
"I'm in serious disbelief. I don't think I've ever seen him make a putt when he had to have one. And that was the epitome of sarcasm right there," said Zach Johnson, who was in the final threesome. "The guy is amazing. I am in awe. I don't want to say shock. I'm in awe.
"It was unbelievable drama. I tried to stay in my own world. ... It's kind of hard when you're seeing what you're seeing. Obviously Tiger, when he needs to step up, he does it. It was impressive to watch."
Woods came to the 18th hole tied with O'Hair after a bogey at the 17th and hit a 7-iron from 160 yards to 15 feet. O'Hair had already knocked his second shot on the green, leaving himself a 40-footer that he lagged to within 3 feet for a par that would have meant a sudden-death playoff if Woods missed.
But when does he ever do that? The last three times he has made a birdie putt on the 72nd hole to win a tournament on the PGA Tour, it was right here at Palmer's tournament -- in 2001 when he denied Phil Mickelson, last year when he stunned Bart Bryant and Sunday when O'Hair was the hard-luck loser.
And of course, there was the 15-footer in June 2008 at Torrey Pines that tied Rocco Mediate in regulation at the U.S. Open.
"I was expecting him to probably make it," O'Hair said. "I was just trying to prepare myself that if he did miss, I have to make that downhill 3-footer to take into later or tomorrow."
For Woods, there wasn't the hat throw-down like a year ago, when he drained a 25-footer, but a euphoric celebration nonetheless, one that included a hug with longtime caddie Steve Williams -- who began working for Woods at this tournament 10 years ago.
If the putt did not go in, darkness caused by a nearly two-hour rain delay would have forced the tournament to a Monday finish.
"It just felt good to be in contention again," Woods said moments after another embrace from Palmer. "It's obviously been since the U.S. Open that I was in contention on Sunday. It felt good to get in the mix, good to get the rush, get myself into the hunt."
Out Of The Woods
Tiger Woods' 5-stroke comeback on Sunday in the Arnold Palmer Invitational tied the largest of his career.
Tournament Strokes
2009 Arnold Palmer 5*
2000 AT&T Pebble Beach 5
1997 Mercedes 4
1996 Las Vegas 4
2006 Deutsche Bank 3
* -- Made birdie on 72nd hole to win.
Note: Woods won the 1998 Johnnie Walker after trailing by 8 strokes entering final round, but it is not a PGA Tour event.
Woods matched the biggest final-round comeback of his career on the PGA Tour -- he came back from 5 down at Pebble Beach in 2000 -- to win for the 66th time, just six behind Jack Nicklaus. It was also his sixth victory at the Arnold Palmer Invitational, the third tournament he has won six times.
O'Hair, 26, was the witness to history for the second straight year, but this one hurt much worse. A year ago, O'Hair began the final round in a five-way tie for the lead with Woods and eventually tied for third.
This time, O'Hair had a 5-shot lead that was whittled to 2 after just three holes. It wasn't until Woods made a birdie putt at the 15th, however, that they were tied. And then Woods went ahead for the first time at the par-4 16th, saving par after a poor drive while O'Hair's second shot came up short in the water.
But Woods gave it back with a bogey at the 17th, setting up the final hole dramatics.
"I just didn't have my game today," said O'Hair, who shot 73. "He played a lot better than I did today. He deserved to win. I played hard, but I just didn't get it done."
Woods seemingly always gets it done, a final-round 3-under-par 67 for his best round of the tournament. His score Sunday gave him a winning total of 275, 5 under par. But there would have been no shame if victory had not come so soon.
After surgery to replace his anterior cruciate ligament in June 2008, Woods went nearly six months without hitting full golf shots. His first tournament back was just a month ago, and lasted only two rounds at the Accenture Match Play Championship.
Two weeks ago at Doral, Woods hit the ball beautifully but couldn't buy a putt.
This week, his ball-striking was not as crisp, but his short game shined and he led the field in putting -- converting 15 of 15 putts within 10 feet on Sunday.
"It's like Stevie was saying out there, this feels like we hadn't left," Woods said. "You just remember how to do it. It hasn't been that long for me, but you just have that feel of what to do and it's a matter of getting it done."
Woods will now take this week to prepare for the first major championship of the year at the Masters, where he will attempt to win his fifth green jacket and 15th major championship.
But those thoughts were far from his mind in the Sunday evening gloaming as hysteria enveloped him around the 18th green.
A reporter deadpanned that it was just another ho-hum day, eliciting a huge grin from the game's best player.
"I can't believe I coaxed that thing into the hole," he said.
credits: Bob Harig covers golf for ESPN.com. He can be reached at BobHarig@gmail.com.
Quicksilver Messenger Service - Smokestack Lightning (Live) 1968
Quicksilver Messenger Service - The Hat (Live) 1971
To indulge your thought process, golf is one of the best sports to compare players across different eras -- starting with Bobby Jones timeframe. The equipment is improved and the courses are in better shape, but the fundamental atheleticism/skill involved is constant.
What separates a Nicklaus and Woods from their peers, is what is between their ears...the mental aspect...
The depth of the competition Tiger faces today is far greater than during the #1 ranking days of Norman/Faldo, let alone to the Watson/Nicklaus/Palmer/Hogan eras.
There's no doubt that Nicklaus & Woods are alone at the top-tier of greatest golfers. If they played against each other in their prime, I'd put my money on Tiger...
But to imply that Woods is beating up on chumps due to their lack of victories is an ignorant observation...
Erik
<< <i>tiger woods is a beast >>
I agree,
you know, 4 or 5 years ago, you could still debate who was better - Nicklaus or Tiger.
I'm a huge Nicklaus fan, but in my mind there is not doubt that Tiger Woods is the best golfer to have played the game.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
You think Faldo or Norman would would fold on the last day up 5? No way, if you wanted to beat them down by 5 you better shoot a 64 and pray. These chumps Sunday
were packing the tent up before they even reached the back 9. Back in the 80's it was the same 9 or 10 guys always on the leaderboard. Today its Tiger
with whomever just happen to get hot for the week. No one can put together a run. Sick, I would love to see some competition instead of the same
tent packers who show up every Sunday!
..and as far as the equipment, that is an advantage to the players of today NOT yesterday!
JS
Anyone who knows Golf knows that Greg Norman is one of the BIGGEST choke artists in the games history
He's blown more leads than Armando Benitez
Ya, he wouldn't fold up 5, only 6 Heimlich
Oh yeah, he IS the greatest golfer of all time.
Erik
<< <i>So Tiger was battling two guys who had one championship between them? wow
JS >>
No. Date Tournament Winning Score Margin of Victory Runner(s)-up
1 Apr. 4, 2004 BellSouth Classic -13 (69-66-68-72=275) 1 stroke Mark Hensby
2 Apr. 8, 2007 The Masters +1 (71-73-76-69=289) 2 strokes Tiger Woods , Rory Sabbatini, Retief Goosen
3 May 20, 2007 AT&T Classic -15 (71-66-69-67=273) Playoff1 Ryuji Imada
4 Oct. 12, 2008 Valero Texas Open -19 (69-66-62-64=261) 2 strokes Charlie Wi, Mark Wilson, Tim Wilkinson
5 Jan. 18, 2009 Sony Open in Hawaii -15 (69-65-66-65=265) 2 strokes Adam Scott, David Toms
Zach Johnson is good, and has beat Tiger before.
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/
<< <i>In their primes...Tiger Woods would beat Nicklaus at least 3 outa 5 times heads up, maybe higher, and its not even debatable. I think Woods would beat Palmer 4 outa 5 times heads up. >>
You have absolutely zero basis for that statement. That may be your opinion, but many many golf writers would disagree with you. If Woods had to play against Trevino, Watson, Miller, Player, Palmer etc all in their primes, he wouldn't have as many tour victories or majors. He's playing against the sisters of the poor, and they all fold like a house of cards when he's anywhere near the lead. Sean O'Hair and Zach Johnson are nice players, but they're not killers like Watson and Trevino. In Nicklaus' prime he finished 1st in 18 majors and second in 19. I think Woods has 2 runner up's if I'm not mistaken. No one has come after him. It remeins to be seen if the young crop of guys like Kim and McIlroy have that kind of mental game.
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
<< <i>
<< <i>In their primes...Tiger Woods would beat Nicklaus at least 3 outa 5 times heads up, maybe higher, and its not even debatable. I think Woods would beat Palmer 4 outa 5 times heads up. >>
You have absolutely zero basis for that statement. That may be your opinion, but many many golf writers would disagree with you. If Woods had to play against Trevino, Watson, Miller, Player, Palmer etc all in their primes, he wouldn't have as many tour victories or majors. He's playing against the sisters of the poor, and they all fold like a house of cards when he's anywhere near the lead. Sean O'Hair and Zach Johnson are nice players, but they're not killers like Watson and Trevino. In Nicklaus' prime he finished 1st in 18 majors and second in 19. I think Woods has 2 runner up's if I'm not mistaken. No one has come after him. It remeins to be seen if the young crop of guys like Kim and McIlroy have that kind of mental game. >>
I think the stats for Tiger, including Majors entered as an amateur, are:
Majors entered: 52
Majors won: 14 (at least three of each!)
Second place in a Major: 5
As for Jack, through his first 52 Majors entered:
Majors won: 11
Second place in a Major: 9
I'm pretty sure neither golfer would state that coming in second is a good judge of anything other than losing. Those guys like to win and anything short of it is failure
<< <i>
<< <i>In their primes...Tiger Woods would beat Nicklaus at least 3 outa 5 times heads up, maybe higher, and its not even debatable. I think Woods would beat Palmer 4 outa 5 times heads up. >>
You have absolutely zero basis for that statement. That may be your opinion, but many many golf writers would disagree with you. If Woods had to play against Trevino, Watson, Miller, Player, Palmer etc all in their primes, he wouldn't have as many tour victories or majors. He's playing against the sisters of the poor, and they all fold like a house of cards when he's anywhere near the lead. Sean O'Hair and Zach Johnson are nice players, but they're not killers like Watson and Trevino. In Nicklaus' prime he finished 1st in 18 majors and second in 19. I think Woods has 2 runner up's if I'm not mistaken. No one has come after him. It remeins to be seen if the young crop of guys like Kim and McIlroy have that kind of mental game. >>
And you must have no clue or understanding of class distinctions in competition. Ever watch a horse race? Those $5,000 claimers compete against each other fine, but they try to step up to allowance company and they usually lose by many lengths. Arena football players can be stars in their league, and can't even make a NFL roster. I could go on and on with examples.
Today's golfers on the tour, especially because there is now an international flavor, are definitely much better than the golfers of say 20 years ago, and it's not even debatable. Sure Watson and Trevino were "killers" like you said, but for their time and their class of competition which was mostly elite white boys with Trevino of course being an exception.
I've watched Nicklaus and Palmer play on TV, many times, and if they made one remarkable shot every now and then, it was memorable. Woods seems to make "remarkable shots" seemingly often during each round, and his competition does the same thing only not quite as often because Woods clearly is the best golfer of all time - again, not even debatable except to somebody who is naive about the game.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>In their primes...Tiger Woods would beat Nicklaus at least 3 outa 5 times heads up, maybe higher, and its not even debatable. I think Woods would beat Palmer 4 outa 5 times heads up. >>
You have absolutely zero basis for that statement. That may be your opinion, but many many golf writers would disagree with you. If Woods had to play against Trevino, Watson, Miller, Player, Palmer etc all in their primes, he wouldn't have as many tour victories or majors. He's playing against the sisters of the poor, and they all fold like a house of cards when he's anywhere near the lead. Sean O'Hair and Zach Johnson are nice players, but they're not killers like Watson and Trevino. In Nicklaus' prime he finished 1st in 18 majors and second in 19. I think Woods has 2 runner up's if I'm not mistaken. No one has come after him. It remeins to be seen if the young crop of guys like Kim and McIlroy have that kind of mental game. >>
And you must have no clue or understanding of class distinctions in competition. Ever watch a horse race? Those $5,000 claimers compete against each other fine, but they try to step up to allowance company and they usually lose by many lengths. Arena football players can be stars in their league, and can't even make a NFL roster. I could go on and on with examples.
Today's golfers on the tour, especially because there is now an international flavor, are definitely much better than the golfers of say 20 years ago, and it's not even debatable. Sure Watson and Trevino were "killers" like you said, but for their time and their class of competition which was mostly elite white boys with Trevino of course being an exception.
I've watched Nicklaus and Palmer play on TV, many times, and if they made one remarkable shot every now and then, it was memorable. Woods seems to make "remarkable shots" seemingly often during each round, and his competition does the same thing only not quite as often because Woods clearly is the best golfer of all time - again, not even debatable except to somebody who is naive about the game. >>
And I never stated Nicklaus wasn't a great golfer, of course he was, but clearly not as good as Woods if you've watched both of them play a number of times.
<< <i>
<< <i>So Tiger was battling two guys who had one championship between them? wow
JS >>
No. Date Tournament Winning Score Margin of Victory Runner(s)-up
1 Apr. 4, 2004 BellSouth Classic -13 (69-66-68-72=275) 1 stroke Mark Hensby
2 Apr. 8, 2007 The Masters +1 (71-73-76-69=289) 2 strokes Tiger Woods , Rory Sabbatini, Retief Goosen
3 May 20, 2007 AT&T Classic -15 (71-66-69-67=273) Playoff1 Ryuji Imada
4 Oct. 12, 2008 Valero Texas Open -19 (69-66-62-64=261) 2 strokes Charlie Wi, Mark Wilson, Tim Wilkinson
5 Jan. 18, 2009 Sony Open in Hawaii -15 (69-65-66-65=265) 2 strokes Adam Scott, David Toms
Zach Johnson is good, and has beat Tiger before. >>
LMAO, was that supposed to prove your point? I actually think it proved mine! LOL Valero Texas Open...did you make that up?
I watch a LOT of golf. I attend 8-10 golf tournaments a year, and of the 40+ events on the PGA Tour schedule, I watch at least 35. I've spoken personally with pretty much every member of the Champions Tour and 70-80% of the guys on the PGA Tour. As far as actual facts...
- You say that you see bunches of guys hit amazing shots and play amazing golf now..
1 - TV Coverage is so much more expansive than even 10 years ago, much less 23 years ago when Nicklaus won his last Masters. You're seeing more great shots for one reason - because there is just that much more golf on TV, not to mention sports recap shows etc. When Nicklaus was in his prime from 65-80, you were seeing MAYBE the last 6-7 holes of the tournament on the weekend, and almost every shot of the major stars. Now, you can follow Mark Turnesa or Ryuji Imada's full 18 hole round if you want.
2 - Equipment is so much better today than it was 23+ years ago it's insane. You're seeing more great shots because the equipment allows that. If Seve Ballesteros had error-correcting drivers, he would have won 15 majors. He just couldn't ever keep the ball in the fairway.
3 - The money is so much greater than it is today...and that leads to a comfort-level for MANY guys on tour. Basically if you're a guy ranked 20-80th on the money list, it's very easy to get comfortable and make millions without ever winning a big golf tournament. I see guys like Will MacKenzie out there..nice guys.nice players...but I feel like if he were playing in the 70's when if you finished 75th on the money list, it would be hard to make your travel expenses for the year...a fire would be lit under him mentally that isn't today.
The other thing is this...in this era of swing coaches and short game coaches it's very easy to not be mentally toughened by the time you get on your. Tiger's modest beginnings (not poor, but average) led to him having a mental edge over these guys before most of them took the silver spoon out of their mouths. Trevino, Watson, Player, Miller...these were all self made guys (not necessarily poor, many weren't, but they needed to win to stay afloat) that had a hunger for winning that was born into their amateur days when it was almost foolhardy to want to play professional golf.
Look at the top 10 guys in the world right now...
1 Tiger Woods, USA 10.09 403.79 40 -149.87 74.95
2 Phil Mickelson, USA 8.51 400.14 47 -94.43 150.19
3 Sergio Garcia, Esp 7.40 370.07 50 -82.72 31.46
4 Geoff Ogilvy, Aus 6.28 295.28 47 -48.89 131.03
5 Padraig Harrington, Irl 5.92 301.70 51 -78.21 25.46
6 Vijay Singh, Fji 5.64 287.39 51 -86.26 8.14
7 Robert Karlsson, Swe 4.91 240.36 49 -49.36 20.11
8 Camilo Villegas, Col 4.87 243.71 50 -47.32 46.28
9 Kenny Perry, USA 4.85 256.96 53 -38.29 96.98
10 Henrik Stenson, Swe
A projected top 10 from 1976 would be (this is my guess)
FYI (Nicklaus led the money list with 266K)
1 - Jack Nicklaus
2 - Johnny Miller
3 - Lee Trevino
4 - Tom Weiskopf
5 - Gary Player
6 - Dave Stockton
7 - Raymond Foyd
8 - Tom Watson
9 - Hale Irwin
10 - David Graham
Aside from Tiger and MAYBE Mickelson, would you take any of the top 10 guys today in a match against ANY of the top 10 from 1976? Of course not. And I'd take 7-8 of those 10 over Mickelson (who is my favorite player)
The good thing about golf is that similar to baseball, it's easy to argue era against era. Would the guys ranked 30th-60th today beat the guys ranked 30th-60's in 76? I would certainly think so, but the guys 30th-60th in 76 weren't winning many majors then either. Occasionally you get a Tommy Aaron or a Rich Beem who beat big stars, but that's a one time thing.
Tiger is great. I'm not saying he's not. He's phenomenal. What I'm saying is the other guys are just not as big a threat to him as Nicklaus' foes were to him. I find it hard to believe you could disagree with that.
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
<< <i>Steve, I promise I'm not trying to be a jerk here or anything. I like the discussion. I appreciate your viewpoint, but let me tell you of my personal experience here:
I watch a LOT of golf. I attend 8-10 golf tournaments a year, and of the 40+ events on the PGA Tour schedule, I watch at least 35. I've spoken personally with pretty much every member of the Champions Tour and 70-80% of the guys on the PGA Tour. As far as actual facts...
- You say that you see bunches of guys hit amazing shots and play amazing golf now..
1 - TV Coverage is so much more expansive than even 10 years ago, much less 23 years ago when Nicklaus won his last Masters. You're seeing more great shots for one reason - because there is just that much more golf on TV, not to mention sports recap shows etc. When Nicklaus was in his prime from 65-80, you were seeing MAYBE the last 6-7 holes of the tournament on the weekend, and almost every shot of the major stars. Now, you can follow Mark Turnesa or Ryuji Imada's full 18 hole round if you want.
2 - Equipment is so much better today than it was 23+ years ago it's insane. You're seeing more great shots because the equipment allows that. If Seve Ballesteros had error-correcting drivers, he would have won 15 majors. He just couldn't ever keep the ball in the fairway.
3 - The money is so much greater than it is today...and that leads to a comfort-level for MANY guys on tour. Basically if you're a guy ranked 20-80th on the money list, it's very easy to get comfortable and make millions without ever winning a big golf tournament. I see guys like Will MacKenzie out there..nice guys.nice players...but I feel like if he were playing in the 70's when if you finished 75th on the money list, it would be hard to make your travel expenses for the year...a fire would be lit under him mentally that isn't today.
The other thing is this...in this era of swing coaches and short game coaches it's very easy to not be mentally toughened by the time you get on your. Tiger's modest beginnings (not poor, but average) led to him having a mental edge over these guys before most of them took the silver spoon out of their mouths. Trevino, Watson, Player, Miller...these were all self made guys (not necessarily poor, many weren't, but they needed to win to stay afloat) that had a hunger for winning that was born into their amateur days when it was almost foolhardy to want to play professional golf.
Look at the top 10 guys in the world right now...
1 Tiger Woods, USA 10.09 403.79 40 -149.87 74.95
2 Phil Mickelson, USA 8.51 400.14 47 -94.43 150.19
3 Sergio Garcia, Esp 7.40 370.07 50 -82.72 31.46
4 Geoff Ogilvy, Aus 6.28 295.28 47 -48.89 131.03
5 Padraig Harrington, Irl 5.92 301.70 51 -78.21 25.46
6 Vijay Singh, Fji 5.64 287.39 51 -86.26 8.14
7 Robert Karlsson, Swe 4.91 240.36 49 -49.36 20.11
8 Camilo Villegas, Col 4.87 243.71 50 -47.32 46.28
9 Kenny Perry, USA 4.85 256.96 53 -38.29 96.98
10 Henrik Stenson, Swe
A projected top 10 from 1976 would be (this is my guess)
FYI (Nicklaus led the money list with 266K)
1 - Jack Nicklaus
2 - Johnny Miller
3 - Lee Trevino
4 - Tom Weiskopf
5 - Gary Player
6 - Dave Stockton
7 - Raymond Foyd
8 - Tom Watson
9 - Hale Irwin
10 - David Graham
Aside from Tiger and MAYBE Mickelson, would you take any of the top 10 guys today in a match against ANY of the top 10 from 1976? Of course not. And I'd take 7-8 of those 10 over Mickelson (who is my favorite player)
The good thing about golf is that similar to baseball, it's easy to argue era against era. Would the guys ranked 30th-60th today beat the guys ranked 30th-60's in 76? I would certainly think so, but the guys 30th-60th in 76 weren't winning many majors then either. Occasionally you get a Tommy Aaron or a Rich Beem who beat big stars, but that's a one time thing.
Tiger is great. I'm not saying he's not. He's phenomenal. What I'm saying is the other guys are just not as big a threat to him as Nicklaus' foes were to him. I find it hard to believe you could disagree with that. >>
You know I'm just havin' fun with ya, bustin' chops - I'll read and absorb your post later when I've got more time - it does seem quite interesting.