Seeing Tiger in person; an experience!

[PThomas]

we must disagree again George!

I'd like to hear others chime in on this one:  is he the best ever alreadY?

[Craig Van Egmond]

He will be as soone as he wins that 19th professional major.  

[Dan Kelly]

is he the best ever alreadY?

He's the best of his time. Anything else is speculation -- reminiscent of the play-by-play announcer who tells you (baselessly) what would have happened if some other, previous thing hadn't happened.

My speculation is that, had they been raised in the same era and played with the same equipment, Nicklaus and Woods (the two immortals I've seen play a considerable amount) would have beaten each other regularly enough that each could claim supremacy.

[A.G._Crockett]

The issue of peak excellence vs. longevity is a difficult one that Bill James used to write a lot about for baseball player comparisons.  Mantle was unquestionably better than Mays at both players' peaks, but Mays was great for much, much longer, and on balance had the better career.  Take your pick.

I think, though, that I agree with Rich Shefchik.  Tiger is doing what he is doing at an amazing rate against vastly superior depth of fields overall.  If he quits now, I think that his peak is significantly better than anybody else ever, hands down.  Not even close.  That doesn't diminish Jack, just like Jack doesn't diminish Arnie in my mind.

By the way, for those who say that nobody steps up against Tiger, remember the crowning moment of Jack's career, the '86 Masters.  It was an incredible, unbelieveable win by an icon of sports, but don't forget that Ballesteros, Norman, and Kite all spit the bit coming down the stretch, or it never would have happened.  Great ones have that impact on lesser players, and Tiger is no different.

[PThomas]

AG - but the only two people that have beaten Tiger down the stretch in maor battles are Campbell and Beem, I think

I find it amazing that Vijay or Phil or Ernie, etc. hasn't stepped up at least one time and beaten him

[George Pazin]

My speculation is that, had they been raised in the same era and played with the same equipment, Nicklaus and Woods (the two immortals I've seen play a considerable amount) would have beaten each other regularly enough that each could claim supremacy.

This is a far more interesting argument, to me. Given their respective drives, I'd give Tiger a very slight edge, but that could simply be because I witnessed his feats first hand, whereas I only read about most of Jack's in his biography. The fact that I rooted for Tom against him every time doesn't help jack, either!

Paul, I'm happy to disagree with you, as I'm sure we'd laughingly share our differences over a beer or three. Differences make the world more interesting.

 

P.S. Obviously if the 70s Steelers were born and raised now, and got together, they'd KILL the Pats.

[Sean Leary]

Is a fair way to catagorize this argument by saying that Tiger is better but Nicklaus was greater? This sort of takes into account the "at his best" vs the "summation of a career" where longevity does matter...Semantics, I suppose.

[Craig Sweet]

Depth of talent is greater? Well, there's certainly greater participation in golf than there was 40 years ago. However, today, just like then, you have 5 or 6 guys that are capable of winning a major everytime they tee it up. And today, just like 40 years ago, you have a field of 10-20 guys that might have a good week and sneak out a win, and maybe 40-50 guys that will put it all together and come from out of nowhere to win a major.

Majors are NOT easy to win. Davis Love said at the PGA that winning one is so hard and after he won his first he thought the second woould be easier, but it is no less difficult. Tiger Woods knows everytime he tees it up in a major that he has a handful of guys to beat. If he beats them, he probably wins the major...barring a Ben Curtis or Todd Hamilton. Jack had to beat Palmer, Player,Watson,Trevino...if he finished ahead of them, chances were good that he'd win the major....

So, rather than compare the depth of field from era to era, I think you have only to look at a handful of players and measure how Jack and Tiger stand up when playing majors against the 5 or 6 best of their eras...

[Craig Sweet]

By the way, lets look at 1960-1986...26 years...104 majors...Jack won or finished second 37 times....Palmer,Player,Watson,Trevino, each won a slug of majors...by the time you're finished one of these guys probably finished 1st or 2nd half the time....If you beat all of them, the odds are pretty good you won the major.

[George Pazin]

'97 to '05 -

36 majors. You beat JUST TIGER by one stroke at every event and you win 10 outright and are in a playoff with Beem and O'Meara and Watts in 2 others.

Yeah, I'm biased, I'm a Tiger fan, but, come on, virtually every statistical analysis favors him, except longevity and the related totals.

[Rick Shefchik]

One of the best arguments for the improvement of baseball over the past century is the much greater participation levels of foreign players; minorities also greatly improved the game once Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier, but the percentage of African-American players in the major leagues is in significant decline these days. somewhat offsetting the huge increase of Latin and Asian players. The point, however, is that when you expand the pool of potential players, the talent level increases.

That has to be true for golf. We've never had an era in which International players were such an integral part of the PGA Tour, and the major championships. Players from Europe and the far east have, in my opinion, created a notably tougher field of competitors than we used to see in the '60s. There are dozens of terrific foreign players now for every Gary Player, Bob Charles and Roberto De Vicenzo.

[Tim Taylor]

Plus four at Bay Hill, three at The Memorial and three Western Opens. Arguably three of the biggest of the "next tier" TOUR events.

Seems to me that the only "great" TOUR stops that Tiger hasn't won are Riveria and Harbour Town. I don't think he's ever played Harbour Town.

TimT

Part of the reason Tiger is so great is because he wins against the best, over and over.

Bob Harig wrote today:
"Of his 45 PGA Tour victories, 10 have come in the major championships, nine in the world events. He also has won one Players Championship, one Tour Championship and two Mercedes Championships. That is 23 titles, more than half of his victories, coming in tournaments where elite fields are assembled."

At this point in his career, he doesn't finish second as much as Jack did primarily because he wins more...

[Dan Kelly]

I don't think he's ever played Harbour Town.

For the record:

He's played there once, in 1999, and finished tied for 18th -- six shots behind the amazing Glen "All" Day.

[Shane Gurnett]

By the way, lets look at 1960-1986...26 years...104 majors...Jack won or finished second 37 times....Palmer,Player,Watson,Trevino, each won a slug of majors...by the time you're finished one of these guys probably finished 1st or 2nd half the time....If you beat all of them, the odds are pretty good you won the major.

Craig, Jack didn't turn pro until 1962 so you cannot include 60 or 61 in any comparison.

[Craig Sweet]

Shane, so if we drop out a couple of years, Jack still has his wins and 2nd place finishes, but in 8 fewer events. All the more impressive.  

Like I said, if you beat the handful of guys that can win a major everytime they tee it up...regardless of era...you will probably win the tournament. Jack had his 5-6 guys to beat and so does Tiger.

When the media starts hyping a major by claiming the guy that is 125th on the money list is amongst the favorites to win...or Tiger tells the media that he sees Fred Funk as his best opponent that week, let me know. In the meantime...come April...it will be Tiger, Vijay, Ernie, Retief, and Phil that are the overwhelming favorites and the ones you MUST beat to win the Masters.

[hick]

George, time will tell about Tiger, but to say those steelers would  kill the Pats is crazy. What the pats have done in the modern era  is amazing. Thats like saying jack would beat tiger head to head today if they were the same age..

[Jim Nugent]

In those 8 years...62-70...there were 32 majors and 22 players won majors...hmmm....that is indeed interesting.

Craig, itīs actually nine years.  Includes 62 and 70.  So there were 36 majors.  

[Jim Nugent]

The quality of competition in virtually every sport and depth of competition in virtually every sport are always getting better (can't speak to things like cricket or rugby or Aussie rules football, but I'd bet money it's the same with them). Period. You don't go backwards over the long haul, unless you have a sport that is completely dying. I love the old guys (I'm still rooting for Watson to complete the Slam, he's my first choice every PGA, even if he's not playing ), but there is simply no way the quality of competition was better in the 50s, 70s, whatever. In general, they won more because the competition was less, not better.

All the old time nostalgia stuff is nice, but it bucks every trend in sports, even in life.

I'm probably one of the few that believe this (I think I saw Jim Nugent agree with this recently and list a convincing argument), but I think Tiger is already the best ever. He's doing it better than Jack against far deeper competition. If he gets tired of playing/dominating soon and prefers to spend the rest of his days fishing and with Elin, I'll still believe he's the best, even if he doesn't win any more majors. Jack was simply better in terms of longevity, but to me, that is one of the least important criteria (criterion?) for greatness.

George, I did make that argument before.  And I started out this thread with the same idea.  Figured I would find the stats to back up the theory that competition has gotten better now.  If so, more guys should win now than before...and fewer players should win more than one.  Wins should be spread out more.

Didnīt work out that way.  The stats I found show the same number of guys won majors during Tigerīs time as during Jackīs first nine years.  (Actually one more during Jackīs first nine.)  Same number won multiples.  No one won more than three other than Jack and Tiger, who really dominated.  

During the 70īs things tightened up a bit.  A few more players won more than one major, and a few won more than three.  But even then the difference was not huge.  Come the 1980īs, and trend went back to normal.

I also looked at how many players averaged within one, two and three strokes of the season scoring leader.  Figured that with todayīs supposed better competition, there would be more players today closer to the leader.  And so it seemed at first.  

Could only find stats back to 1980.  And sure enough, both 2004 and 2005 had lots more players bunched near the leader.  But that turned out to be an aberration, because in some other years in the early 1980īs the opposite was true.  Back then there were MORE players within 1 and 2 strokes than now.  

Maybe I made some mistakes in counting or analysis.  Until someone can point out the eorros, the numbers have forced me to change my opinion.    

[George Pazin]

George, time will tell about Tiger, but to say those steelers would  kill the Pats is crazy. What the pats have done in the modern era  is amazing. Thats like saying jack would beat tiger head to head today if they were the same age..

That's why I put the smiley on there, Mat. With the dramatic changes in player size, football is one of the toughest sports to compare across eras.

[PThomas]

Mat -- I'm not so sure Jack wouldn't beat Tiger head to head quite a few times if they played 10 matches while the same age..

for one, the equipment Jack used was just horseshit compared to Tiger's

of course Tiger has a better short game, but Jack probably/may have hit more greens in reg

[johnk]

Random snippet from a Chris Lewis golf "article" at SI.com

• Odds that when players arrive at Augusta in April, more than one player is happy about the course adding 155 yards for the 2006 Masters: 1000-1

That the one player's name is something other than Tiger Woods: 10,000-1

 

[Sean_A]

I think guys like Jack, Arnie, Gary, Lee and Tom are winners PERIOD.  If they could beat each other (probably half the top 10 of all-time best players), they could find a way to beat the guys on tour now.  I don't have a clue how much they would have won, maybe more, maybe less.  I will say this, you line these five guys up to take on the best of the world today, I know who I would be betting on!

Ciao

Sean

[rgkeller]

I think guys like Jack, Arnie, Gary, Lee and Tom are winners PERIOD.  If they could beat each other (probably half the top 10 of all-time best players), they could find a way to beat the guys on tour now.  I don't have a clue how much they would have won, maybe more, maybe less.  I will say this, you line these five guys up to take on the best of the world today, I know who I would be betting on!

Ciao

Sean

I agree. All those named proved that they could seal the deal under the gun.

The only current high level pro who has demonstrated the ability to consistently finish off a tournament is Tiger Woods.

[Craig Sweet]

RGKELLER...

"I agree. All those named proved that they could seal the deal under the gun.

The only current high level pro who has demonstrated the ability to consistently finish off a tournament is Tiger Woods."

That has been MY point all along...the top 5 guys in that era are the guys that could "seal the deal"...and they would do it again today.  Tiger is the only bankable deal sealer playing today...Phil, Vijay, Ernie, Retief...are all top 5...will they win the majors like Player, Palmer,Watson,Trevino? Time will tell...

[Voytek Wilczak]

By the way, lets look at 1960-1986...26 years...104 majors...Jack won or finished second 37 times....Palmer,Player,Watson,Trevino, each won a slug of majors...

Doesn't that suggest that the overall level of competition was weaker then, allowing the few to dominate?

Or else that period was particularly abundant in the very talented golfers.

I'll take the former.