Article on ESPN.com

[Anthony Butler]

Here's what I got out of the article.  First, a kind of "It's a wonderful life" story of what golf would be like without the terminator, Tiger Woods.  

Second, pointing out how unprecedentedly fantastic Woods really is.  Look what happens in the story without him.  Micheel wins the PGA at Medinah, shooting the lowest score (13 under) any player could hope to achieve.  Sergio becomes the youngest major winner since Tom Morris.  Ernie has five majors, Phil has four.. ..

The interesting thing to me is that even the most dominant player of all time "only" wins 25% of the time or so.  I can't think of any other sport that has so much parity.  Though I do think Tiger will win more than 25% of all majors for the next several years.  

The one thing the article didn't touch on (because it would have undermined the narrative) was the fact that once Tiger was removed from the field in certain events the pressure of trying to win would have been a factor... perhaps Micheel could have survived the pressure to win a second PGA, we'll never know.

P.S. Talking of things that never were, the English humorist Stephen Fry once wrote a book about Hitler never being born. I beleive it was called Hippopotamus... I won't spoil the surprise, but the 60s never happened in this alternate reality.

[Glenn Spencer]

Federer is more dominant on the Tennis court than Tiger is on the golf course.  

however, they are different events.  Federer only needs to beat 7 blokes to win a major.  Tiger needs to beat everyone.  Tennis is man against man, Golf is Man versus the field.

Regarding people being good at alternative sports.  There are plenty of blokes in Australia who when they come to the end of their schooling are faced with a choice between 1 of 3 football codes (depending where they live) and cricket.  There are countless cricketers who could have been great footballers, and vice-versa.  Michael Kasperwicz was selected ahead of Toutai Kefu in the Australian Schoolboys Rugby side for example.  Some of the Top AFL players were extremely good cricketers - only 20 years ago when the sports weren't full-time professional, many of the more talented gents played league football in the winter and shield cricket in the summer.

Good Point, Andrew. Lets say that all the majors were match play and had 128 players in the field, like tennis. How many majors would Tiger have then? He is 12 for 40 now, right? What would he be?

[Anthony Butler]

Federer is more dominant on the Tennis court than Tiger is on the golf course.  

however, they are different events.  Federer only needs to beat 7 blokes to win a major.  Tiger needs to beat everyone.  Tennis is man against man, Golf is Man versus the field.

Regarding people being good at alternative sports.  There are plenty of blokes in Australia who when they come to the end of their schooling are faced with a choice between 1 of 3 football codes (depending where they live) and cricket.  There are countless cricketers who could have been great footballers, and vice-versa.  Michael Kasperwicz was selected ahead of Toutai Kefu in the Australian Schoolboys Rugby side for example.  Some of the Top AFL players were extremely good cricketers - only 20 years ago when the sports weren't full-time professional, many of the more talented gents played league football in the winter and shield cricket in the summer.

Good Point, Andrew. Lets say that all the majors were match play and had 128 players in the field, like tennis. How many majors would Tiger have then? He is 12 for 40 now, right? What would he be?

He has won 30% of the majors since turning pro, and he has won the matchplay what... twice in about 7 tries, so that's about 29%. Federer has won 8 majors in what has been about 20-22 grandslams about 36% so far... so the one-on-one format of tennis is slightly easier to dominate at the top level.

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

In the '90s, my old group at Pumpkin Ridge occasionally argued about who was the greatest two-sport athlete of all time over the years.  John Kirk usually picked Deion Sanders, I went with Bo Jackson and one of the others in our group said that if Jack Nicklaus could get a ball over the net in tennis it was him (a little bias there.)  I forget who our fourth usually picked.

In reality it was probably either Jim Thorpe or Babe D.

Could Tiger have been successful in a different sport?  Probably, given he had the motivation and training.  His physical gifts and his mental ability would have gotten him a long way.  Could he have been the best ever in that sport?   I don't know, but maybe.

NO, it was Bo Jackson!!!! You were right and always will be!!!!

Wilt Chamberlain was the best two sport athlete of our times, and I'm not talking about vollyball as his second sport  

FWIW, In the 1970's, Gordon's Gin offered a $1,000,000 bounty, which they knew that they would never have to pay, to anyone who could win the U.S. Open's in Golf and Tennis in same year.

JWK

[Doug Siebert]

however, they are different events.  Federer only needs to beat 7 blokes to win a major.  Tiger needs to beat everyone.  Tennis is man against man, Golf is Man versus the field.

Wait a minute -- isn't everyone always saying it was harder to win tournaments at match play because a single bad day can do you in?

Tiger only had to beat 7 guys to win his US Amateurs, after all.  Imagine if the Masters was match play.  In 1997 when he started out with a 40 on the front nine of his opening round, he might have been 5 or 6 down and there's no way he couldn't have come back from that in an 18 hole match.

[Andrew Thomson]

Good Point, Andrew. Lets say that all the majors were match play and had 128 players in the field, like tennis. How many majors would Tiger have then? He is 12 for 40 now, right? What would he be?

I'd suggest he may have won less, but I'm probably wrong.

The above post is why I think he would have won less, but then when playing matchplay you play your opponent not the course.  It often results in very different shots etc etc

[Anthony Butler]

Good Point, Andrew. Lets say that all the majors were match play and had 128 players in the field, like tennis. How many majors would Tiger have then? He is 12 for 40 now, right? What would he be?

I'd suggest he may have won less, but I'm probably wrong.

The above post is why I think he would have won less, but then when playing matchplay you play your opponent not the course.  It often results in very different shots etc etc

I think we are straying back towards a thread from earlier in the year that compared Federer and Woods and the likelihood of either breaking their respective majors record. They are completely different sports, no matter what form you play. Even in Matchplay an opponent can not physically influence the the playing and results of a golf shot. An important distinction.

I just find that this constant shining of Tiger's butt by everyone from Wadkins to Baker Finch to the TGC guys to newspaper and internet journalists sometime loses perspective. To assume that Federer would be the world's Number 2 if Earl had placed a tennis racquet instead of  a golf club in young Tiger's hand is an insult to the talents of the world's top tennis players... no one has suggested Federer would even be a world class athlete at any sport other than tennis. Sure Tiger is an impressive physical specimen, but Golf is not as athletically demanding as tennis, otherwise guys like Sampras and Agassi would still be in the prime of their careers.

We have no true measure of Tiger's reaction time or foot speed. He's been to major league batting practice and has "warning track' power according to those who know. If you have seen David Ortiz or Albert Pujols take batting practice, you see the relative upper body strength of baseball players versus golfers. These guys are clearing the fences by 50-75 feet during batting practice.

[Kevin_Reilly]

To assume that Federer would be the world's Number 2 if Earl had placed a tennis racquet instead of  a golf club in young Tiger's hand  

I don't think anyone assumed that...the author of the article surely didn't.

[Jim Nugent]

How about this for a slight twist to the alternate history...

Earl Woods puts a tennis racket in the hands of his young son Eldrick.

Meanwhile, Richard Williams senses great potential in his two young daughters and has Serena and Venus out on the Long Beach muni's before they are 3 years old.  They grow up to dominate the LPGA while still in their teens, and then set their sights on bigger game, becoming the first women to qualify for the PGA tour.  Five years later, young phenom Michelle Wie pays tribute to the Williams sisters, "They led the way and showed girls like me that anything is possible."  

Actually, guys, maybe I'm wrong but I don't think the tennis has much of anything to do with the story.  

[Phil Benedict]

I love this sort of discussion - kind of like being a kid and speculating on who wouild win a fight between a tiger (no pun intended) and a grizzly bear.  The observation that Tiger has warning track power in baseball, which I have heard before, is pretty interesting, because he is really strong and powerful in golf, and the physics of the golf swing are so similar to the physics of a baseball swing.  And it wouldn't surprise me at all if he can bench press more than David Ortiz.  

The comparison to Federer in terms of domination of their respective sports is valid, but it's pretty tough to determine who would be better at the other's sport - tennis is a sport that requires motion and reaction and golf is not.  There is no way of gauging whether Tiger could be world class if Earl had stuck a tennis racket in his hands at age 3 (or whenever).