If Tiger Woods wins another Major....................
DoubleEagle59
Posts: 8,315 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
After all he's gone through, the physical injuries to his body, the emotional scars he must be carrying and the great amount of time he's been inactive on the tour, all I have to say is this..............
IF Tiger ever wins another Major tournament there should be absolutely no doubt he is the very best golfer of all time, without any debate.
Agree or disagree?
"Gold is money, and nothing else" (JP Morgan, 1912)
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
0
Comments
Disagree.
Disagree, he needs at least four more majors and probably 10 total wins for him to be an uncontested GOAT.
What he is missing is longevity. Not in years of play, but consistent play. Last Major win was a decade ago.
I agree with Larkin, a single additional major does not close the deal.
Tiger should have stayed away from the wild women.
Then again, maybe he should have done more of it...I'm not sure which?
While he didn't win a major, 2009, 2012 & 2013 were still fantastic years (#1 or 2 on the money list w/14 total wins). He finally looks healthy from all the back issues that have plagued him the last couple years, not one wince that I've seen on the latest return. If he stays healthy, he should pass Snead sometime next year for most career PGA wins, leaving only Jack's major total to tie or beat to be uncontested.
He's rarely been known as an accurate driver.
Disagree
Tiger Woods is truly a great golfer and that point is not in dispute. While I wish him the best and hope that does well, his comeback should he win another Major will never match the comeback of Ben Hogan after his 1949 auto accident. Hogan made one of the most amazing comebacks ever... From near death to nearly winning the Grand Slam in 1953. Hogan won 5 of the six tournaments he entered for the year- three of them were majors.
As great as Woods is, there is just no viable argument to say he is the best ever in view of how technology has essentially changed the game.
I have a difficult time arguing that Woods is the greatest when I recall Sam Snead at the age of 64 in contention at the US Open until a third round collapse
Edited to add... Need to make a correction as to Snead...He was the oldest at age 61 to make the cut at the US Open. And he was in contention into the final day at the PGA with a 68 in the final day at the age of 62. Sorry... Maybe it was a second round collapse and he missed the cut at 64.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Woods also played in an era that has way better competition then that of the, Hogan. Snead or Nicklaus era. Just the shear number of excellent foreign golfers today and the past 20 years is staggering
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Agree. The competition the past golfing greats faced was nothing compared to what Tiger has dealt with since he got on tour. While those past greats accomplishments are impressive they just don't stand up to the modern game and level of competition.
Robb
Take a look at the number of majors won by men over 40. Open (British) is the only real opportunity and he isn't going to win 5 times .
He should have ran away with lindsey vonn and enjoyed life. He was done a long time ago
Don't miss out...get as many as you can...GET AS MANY AS YOU CAN
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Strongly Disagree.......That title goes to Jack and then Arnie and then Tom and then Gary and then some more.
Nicklaus, maybe. The others? You must be kidding.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
No maybe about it.
Disagree. Tiger was absolutely brilliant for what could be considered a brief period of time when you consider how long one can remain competitive. At one time he was in possession of the trophies of all four Major Titles. But for the entire body of work I will take Jack and it is not close. Now if Tiger wins five more Majors I will certainly reconsider.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
I would agree with you there, but you are not giving Woods the credit he deserves with the other part of your post. As mentioned previously, the competition today is way better than it was decades ago. You always talk about how Babe Ruth would not be as dominant in the modern era for that reason but we're supposed to believe the opposite is true for golf? LOL..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I saw all 4 of them play and I have seen Tiger. They are better. And I disagree about the talent. It was better then.
You may have a case for Jack. The others. No way and no maybe about it. They never dominated like Tiger did against MUCH better competition.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I think you are letting better equipment cloud your perspective. You must not have been watching Golf back then. The competition was great. But you know what they say about opinions.......
The fact that you watched golf back then means nothing to me . I saw Watson, Nicklaus, Player, Weiskoff and Arnie on the back half off his career so yes I saw them play.
There wasn't that many good golfers back then. That's just a fact. Competition wasnt as global. Equipment, training, technology and the the athletes themselves have improved dramatically over the decades. Today they are bigger, stronger, faster in all sports . It does make it harder to compare eras for sure.
I will say a I think Tigers number of majors is on par to Jack's because the competition wasn't as fierce. It's also hard to take anyone seriously who thinks Babe Ruth was a a fat hack who couldn't play today or couldn't have dominated in any era
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Dimeman, you are nothing if not consistent~consistently contradictory and wrong, lol..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
This is truly a classic sports forum thread. Rather than merely asking whether Woods will win a major or bread Snead's record in say three years, the question is a hypothetical that can never be reconciled.
Very well done!
Damn - I knew I should have listened to Don West and Kenny Golden, and loaded up on Tiger Woods rookie cards.
I missed out on one helluva tax writeoff.
I just don't see Tigers competition as better than what Jack faced.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Just thinking off the cuff...but this is one of the few sports whereby players of "slightly" different eras could be compared.
I used to golf a bit, maybe 50 times in my whole life, but haven't in many years so i'm not up to speed on the various new equipment. However, I don't think the equipment has dramatically changed when comparing the Jack Nicklaus era and Tiger Woods era when each were in their prime. I don't think the golf courses or pin placements have significantly changed. The golf balls i don't think have changed, I don't think the PGA would allow that to any extreme?
I may be wrong on any or all of those points...but my overall point is just compare the golf scores of the players, for the same tournaments, played at the same golf courses, and see who did better. Wouldn't that be a fair comparison?
Logically, the competition is better now for two reasons. Say anything negative about Tiger Woods that ya want, and personally he may deserve it...but it's not debatable that in his prime he created a lot of new interest in the sport, and caused a lot of young folks out there to take up golfing, hence many new golfers competing. Also, more international competitors in the PGA tournaments when Tiger played versus when Jack played.
Just my two cents - probably not worth that.
Thank you very much.
I didn't say Ruth could not play today.........he would not dominate and keep up with the players today.
Tiger in his prime was totally dominant, and the greatest during his prime run. Ever, or with another single major win? No he's not the greatest. Would need another stretch of a run to make a claim toward GOAT, and then some senior action wins to supplement it.
I've said it for years, his game went to crap when he got nailed with the ladies. Wants his game mojo back....he needs to get back to the women.
Oh, I don't think he's got a chance at even tying Jack's major record now, just stating what it would take for him to be the uncontested GOAT. Snead's is attainable. He could also move up to #2 in European Tour wins before he's done, without ever being a member.
Women - they can motivate you or unmotivate you, depending on the situation and the circumstances. Took me many years to finally figure that out. LOL
Maybe Tiger needs to be a judge at a beauty pageant, perhaps partake in a cheerleaders photo session, start a modeling agency for young, beautiful, untalented models....something to that effect to get him motivated again. LOL
In 8 years he will be dominating the senior circuit, until then don't expect much.
With all due respect.
If you don't think the clubs have changed DRASTICALLY from the wooden shafts and tiny heads on the drivers, you should not be chiming in on golf.
The club head on the newest "Big Bertha" drivers are slightly smaller than the first Volkswagon Beetle.
Arnie, Lee, Tom, Chi-Chi and Gary were all better than the guys who chased Tiger. Ernie is the only one who comes to mind.
I must be the only sports fan on here who can make it through a day without comparing some current star to some moldy old geezer from the 1920's. Its pretty simple for me I choose to watch the guy that is still alive . The guy that is still playing golf is better than the guy wearing the depends or the other guy pushing up daisies .
I would not be so quick to dismiss the talent that Snead and Hogan faced. It was a smaller pool but there were several great and highly competitive players that have not even been mentioned here yet. Golf is just a different game today. And Players have the benefit of hindsight as well as innovation which has moved at a rapid pace in terms of the continuous reinventing of clubs.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
You are right about "drastically" - I remember the PGA not allowing certain types of golf clubs and golf balls, but I guess at least some of that, perhaps much of that, went out the window years ago.
Here's an interesting article about what Jack thinks:
https://www.golfdigest.com/story/diaz_nicklaus
Jun 29, 2008 - I've been thinking on a variety of the topics and issues in today's game. The Modern Professional Game. The best golfers should be better today than the best golfers of yesterday. At the moment, I'm not sure that's the case. I realize I'm an old fuddy-duddy, and that previous generations always say that their ...
I don't watch a lot of golf but I enjoyed reading that link
of course the equipment has changed the game. No one is arguing that and it can't be disputed. Because the prize money is SO huge today there are more talented players chasing it then ever before. The global talent pool is SO much deeper then yesterday. It's so much harder to win an event today then yesterday. I don't think that can be disputed with a straight face either. If someone does I'll just roll my eyes
Just to make the cut today is a chore.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Better argument might be the skill of the modern surgeon who reassembled his leg in 2008. Same injury might have ended the career of a pro golfer a half century earlier. Multiple back surgeries as well
If allegations are correct, modern era PED development should be considered as well.
It's difficult to determine the best. Be it a steak,woman,sports figure. It's an individual choice type of thing. For me I determine that by who I "like" the "best".
That's why for me Arnie will always be the "King".
If you're starting from a position where Tiger isn't currently a top-5 golfer of all time, you're too biased to be taken seriously. It's as ridiculous a position as one more major win making him the greatest ever. While many great golfers have been mentioned, can anyone with a straight face try to make the argument that Chi-Chi (entertaining, but more the 25-50 range) or Tom Watson (fringe top-10) were better than Tiger?
Nicklaus, Hagen, Jones, Snead round out the rest of the top 5 and other than Nicklaus on top, a reasonable debate could be had on 2-5. Heck, even replace Jones with Hogan, Palmer, or Player if his never being a pro bothers you, but they don't get higher than 5th.
i love me some golf jibber-jabber, but every time i attempt to chime in here, i get sucked back into the don west chasm. damn you, stevek.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=zIn0GchsGo8
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Don West is certainly a better actor than i could ever be. I would have broken out in laughter saying that script. LOL
the forum is surrounded by a reality distortion field. It causes posters to ramble endlessly about utter nonsense that has no factual basis. It is why the place is so entertaining though so hopefully nothing changes
Chi-Chi and Tom were certainly not better than Tiger. If you're referring to my post I was saying those guys were better than the guys Tiger played against. Chi-Chi may have been a reach ;-)
I would say Tiger is top 10, maybe top 5, maybe top 3.
Not yours specifically, DIMEMAN had Tom at #3
Chi Chi just jumped out as someone who shouldn't even be mentioned in a conversation of top golfer ever, as much as I loved his play. Daly is still one of my favorite golfers to watch, but that doesn't make him an all time great.
I'd probably do a bit of shuffling and there's several other players you could replace for Vardon without any pushback from me, but this top-15 is a pretty solid assessment IMHO: https://www.pga.com/news/golf-buzz/10-greatest-golfers-all-time Casper is the one that jumps out as the most overlooked talent, so was happy to see him included.
This top 100 doesn't even include Chi Chi: https://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/best-golfers-of-all-time Though there's tons of apparent recency bias since it's crowd voting.
I can't find a single list of 'Best Golfers of All Time' that has Tiger outside of #2, though I tend to discount any that have him as #1 unless they're highly valuing peak over totality.
I think Faldo and Norman are under rated
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Norman maybe the best golfer ever from Thursday to Saturday.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)