Tiger Woods in the sweep of golf's history

[Craig Sweet]

Once Tiger has surpassed Jack's record for major wins, I doubt he'll play anymore....in other words, I seriously doubt he'll hang around playing in to his 40's and 50's....no Capra moment....just break the record, raise the bar to 20 major wins or something and then gone...done.

[A.G._Crockett]

Once Tiger has surpassed Jack's record for major wins, I doubt he'll play anymore....in other words, I seriously doubt he'll hang around playing in to his 40's and 50's....no Capra moment....just break the record, raise the bar to 20 major wins or something and then gone...done.

Craig,
That will be interesting to see; of course, I don't think he'll have to hang around until he's 40.  On his current pace, he's going to pass 18 at around age 35.  With that much of his prime left, if he really is like Jordan, he might have a very hard time walking away.  It might then be about things like winning EACH major more than anybody else, or who knows what.  Or it may be just to keep competing.  The number of those guys who just walk away in their prime is very, very small.  It makes a better movie than a reality for an athlete.

[Tim_Cronin]

Numbers, numbers, numbers...
Somewhere in the PGA coverage, it was written that Woods had matched Jones' 13 major titles.
Not so, if the same titles are being considered. Woods is at 16, three ahead of Jones, and four behind Nicklaus' 20, because you've got to count Jones' five U.S. Amateur titles in his 13 (plus his one British Am), and when you do, you have to count Woods' three and Nicklaus' two to make the comparison valid.
Otherwise, Jones is at seven majors (four U.S. Opens, three British Opens).
The numbers now aside, Woods is piling up majors at an astounding rate. If he wins three every two years for the next decade, which is reasonable given his health, that's 31 in all (28 pro, three am).
Then there is no argument. There is only awe. And when he wins a 12th Masters at age 46, it'll be 1986 in Augusta all over again.

[ed_getka]

For those older than me, when it comes to the mental aspect of sport I would think that Steve Prefontaine would have to be up there, but I never saw him compete in person. I grew up running and know what it takes and in the tapes I've seen of Prefontaine he did things that were sheer willpower.
   How did it appear to those who may have seen it? I suppose very little of what I've seen on tape was seen by many.

   Ever since Woods holed a putt across the green in his 3rd Amateur on the final nine that he had no business making, I have watched his dominance with fascination. There are many out there in the sports world that are extraordinarily talented, but few who possess the mental focus/intensity of Woods. Jordan and Armstrong for example are two of the best ever, and you almost have to believe that these guys would climb out of a hospital bed and beat you.

[Tim Bert]

I think what Tiger is doing is incredible and I've seen just about every one of his major victories , but it doesn't mean one can't root for others to step up, compete, and beat him.  I think it would be even more entertaining to watch if he had a consistent rival that was trading jabs with him.

The one thing I'd like to see him do is step up and win a couple majors from behind on Sunday.  He is undeniably the best at getting prepared, jumping on the field on Friday and Saturday, and running away from the field.  He's also great at holing on to the lead when it is close on Sunday.  To date, he's done no better from behind on Sunday than any of the other guys that have been paired with him when he's in the lead.  Maybe he's saving the come from behind feat for #19.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Older men typically give up their boyhood heroes hard and I'm sure I'm no different.

I remember Hogan well, and Snead. I remember the electricity of Arnold Palmer so well, and I was a huge fan of Jack Nicklaus all through his hayday. During his time the likes of Watson was there in the second half to challenge him for dominance, and he did challenge him successfully. I guess maybe Trevino too. People seem to forget that.

But Tiger Woods? I've watched him like a hawk ever since he sunk that putt at TPC in his first US Amateur victory. All could see he was physically super talented, and clearly a young man with immense strength of mind and pure personal confidence of the type one might label "a quiet and determined killer".

The thing I never expected to continue, though, was that odd fate of how he just kept getting things done with remarkable shots at the perfect times. Maybe a few times I could rationalize but not the amount he's had. And I also never thought he would work constantly to continue to improve himself quite as hard as he has and continues to.

It looks like he has in sight now what seems to be the ultimate goal to most fans---eg Nicklaus's 18 majors.

In my opinion, that's not important to me anymore. To accomplish that I don't think he has any more to prove about himself and where he really is in the sweep of golf's history.

In my opinion, he's on a whole different level from anyone who's come before him and I think even those greats admit that now or would if they were around---and that includes Jack Nicklaus. Bobby Jones said about Nicklaus, "He plays a game with which I am not familiar", and Nicklaus has virtually said the same about Woods.

It goes back a ways but a few I know who got to know Woods well have said his goal is to be considered the greatest golfer who ever lived.

They even said he feels he might be there or will be soon in the perception of most.

But they have also said there is just one he basically knows he may never be able to compete with in the minds of some and I believe I can see why. What Bob Jones did so remarkably he also did so quickly and then he was gone from competitive golf so young.

Despite the fact that was such a different time certainly in the world of quantitative if not also perhaps qualitative  competition, he is the only one Woods seems to realize he may never deal with in a comparative sense easily, if ever.

Nevertheless, in my opinion, Woods is there now---even with five to go in this Nicklaus 18 major comparison. From here on all he needs is health and endurance and it looks like he has that too, or will unless some really weird fate takes him out.

For those who seem annoyed by his dominance, I'd say get over it and just enjoy watching the greatest golfer who ever lived from here on out.

The world may never again see a golfer as great and as dominant as he is.

TEPaul,

Both Tiger Woods and I disagree with you.

Your perspective is subjective.

19 Majors would make it irrefutable, and he knows that.

Just ask Bob Ford the next time you see him.

[Steve Kline]

Tiger needs to win a major where he makes his audience cry instead of himself.

He already did that with the '97 Masters. Seeing the embrace with his father after and incredible four days was simply magical. In fact, Tiger has seemingly come up with so many magical moments in his career that the only way to describe it is that the hand of God is upon him.

I think the competition for greatest golfer ever is between Jones and Woods (I'm the same as Tiger by the way). Until this summer I thought it was Woods hands down but then I read a book about Jones winning the Grand Slam. I believe three years prior to winning the slam Jones set 1930 as the year he would win the slam and retire. Other players realized he had come up with this goal and still couldn't stop him. Un-freaking-believable. I'm not sure what the equivalent for Tiger would be.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Both Tiger Woods and I disagree with you.
Your perspective is subjective.
19 Majors would make it irrefutable, and he knows that."

Patrick:

Prey tell how you know that Tiger Woods would disagree? Have you spoken to him about any of this recently or ever? If you're going to cite the time you met him in Long Island, I guess I should remind you his professional career had hardly begun at that time. Furthermore, I can't exactly see what you're citing Bob Ford for.  

Are you saying if for whatever reason Woods was gone tomorrow history would never consider him to be the greatest golfer who ever lived simply because he didn't reach Nicklaus's record number of 18 majors? I think I can tell you  that would certainly not be the case. Not to mention the fact that Woods' major victory pace is considerably ahead of Nicklaus at a comparable age. If you think that doesn't matter at all then you're delusional and a double dunce on the way history presents itself.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
Tiger has said he's chasing Nicklaus' records, I wouldn't doubt that chase also includes Sam Snead's total career victories. He may even have an easier time of doing it just because he has a visible target, whereas after passing Jones, every record Nicklaus was setting was his own.

I have no trouble saying that Tiger is the 'greatest player' but until he crosses the threshold of 18 professional wins I think the title of 'greatest competitor' still belongs to Jack.  

[George_Bahto]

I saw Jack play at the U S Open at Winged Foot in 1959 as an amateur. I was the first time I had gone to a pro golf tournament.

He was invited as a result of his wining the 1959 U S Amateur at Broadmoor beating Charlie Coe 1 up.

I went to Winged Foot to see Arnie who was at his peak at the time and also to get a peek at Sam Snead and Ben Hogan (after watching him hit 6-irons for a while - got bored (?) a bit because they all looked exactly alike. It a site to behold)

Anyhow, the day I was there Fat-Jack was paired with Snead and he often out drove Sam. You could see Snead thinking: like, “who is this darn kid??”

As I said I went to see AP but the crowds were huge so I ended up following JN most of the day.

When I got back everyone was asking me about Arnie and I told them about Jack being the up coming phenom.

The rest is history.

In Jack’s 3rd professional tournament (if memory serves me right) the tour was at the Upper Montclair CC - the original Thunderbird Tournament. He had not won a tournament yet as to many was still a virtual unknown. To very small crowds with him until the last day, I followed home thru 2 practice rounds and 3 days of the tournament (the last day it became too crowded and I left after about 15 holes).

A friend of mine had been caddying for JN for the week and he was queuing me in on the irons he was hitting ..... most of the time it was a t least 2 clubs less than the norm I would say). There was a 210-yard par-3 and he was thinking 5 or 6 iron.

The 18 at UMCC was set up at 605 or 610. One on of the days he hit driver into the right (shortish) rough and proceeded to hit driver to the back of the green - the place went crazy .... a John Daley moment!

Jack blew a right-side, greenside sand shot on 18 on the last day or he would have tied

When Tiger came on the scene it was obvious we had another great one but my question, at the time, was, could he maintain the focus Jack had for so many years.

He has and I am sure he will continue to have this incredible focus.

We are fortunate to see this player nearly week after week playing at such an incredible high level.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"TEPaul,
Both Tiger Woods and I disagree with you.
Your perspective is subjective.
19 Majors would make it irrefutable, and he knows that."

Patrick:

Prey tell how you know that Tiger Woods would disagree?

From what you and I would consider to be reliable sources[/color]

Have you spoken to him about any of this recently or ever?

A reliable source has[/color]

If you're going to cite the time you met him in Long Island, I guess I should remind you his professional career had hardly begun at that time.

I'm not referencing our conversations at golf and dinner that day, but, he was imbued with this quest long before that.[/color]

Furthermore, I can't exactly see what you're citing Bob Ford for.  

Where did they play the U.S. Open this year ?[/color]

Are you saying if for whatever reason Woods was gone tomorrow history would never consider him to be the greatest golfer who ever lived simply because he didn't reach Nicklaus's record number of 18 majors?

Yes, I'm saying that.
I think he's possibly the greatest golfer that ever lived, but Jack's record remains as the gold standard, the benchmark by which he will be judged.  And, until he breaks that record, which he is intensely focused on, he remains as "potentially" the greatest golfer that ever lived.[/color]

I think I can tell you  that would certainly not be the case.

That's your opinion, one that's not universally accepted.[/color]

Not to mention the fact that Woods' major victory pace is considerably ahead of Nicklaus at a comparable age.

Perhaps for two reasons.
1
Nicklaus came onto the PGA Tour essentially broke
Tiger came onto the PGA Tour a multi-millionairre.
2
Nicklaus came onto the tour married and had children
Tiger came onto the tour single and without children and remained so for about 10 years

Anyone who's been married and has kids can tell you that your home life and family responsibilities can dramatically affect your avocational pursuits.[/color]

If you think that doesn't matter at all then you're delusional and a double dunce on the way history presents itself.

ALWAYS REMEMBER:
THE VICTORS WRITE THE HISTORY BOOKS.

Time will tell.[/color]

[Steve Kline]

AG - I believe Jones' win percentage was as good as if not better than Tiger's if memory serves correct.

[Mike Hendren]

I believe Bobby Jones and Tiger will settle this in heaven with Jones winning by default when Tiger is dq'd by a gd.

[A.G._Crockett]

I believe Bobby Jones and Tiger will settle this in heaven with Jones winning by default when Tiger is dq'd by a gd.

I think Jones had his own issues with language; he just wasn't on TV all the time and his accent was very cool.

[A.G._Crockett]

AG - I believe Jones' win percentage was as good as if not better than Tiger's if memory serves correct.

Certainly might have been; I don't know.  It is hard to compare Jones with either Jack or Tiger because of the changes in what was considered to be a major.  

I do think, though, that deciding that a career total is THE standard is a bit limiting to serious analysis.  That is ONE way to measure an athlete, but it is not the only way, and if you are trying to determine "the best of all-time" instead of "the best for a long time", it probably isn't the best way.

As an example, Hank Aaron beat Willie Mays in HR's, RBI's, total bases, and so on.  I don't think, however, that a single GM would have taken Aaron over Mays in their primes, which were roughly contemperaneous.  Mays dominated in a way that Aaron, as great as he was, never did.  Mantle, in turn, was even better at his peak than Mays; his peak just didn't last very long.  Longevity and dominance are NOT the same.

The media loves the number 18 because it is easy, and the public generally loves it for the same reason.  I'm just saying there is more to a career than that one standard, and by every other possible measure Tiger has already eclipsed everybody else in the history of golf.  If he didn't play another tournament, ONLY the record for majors would be left outside his grasp, and that would be a matter only of longevity, NOT dominance.

Isn't going to matter, though.  Tiger will have 19 majors before he is 40, and he may have them before he is 35.  That'll take care of the remaining doubters, I should think.

[Kevin Pallier]

AG - I believe Jones' win percentage was as good as if not better than Tiger's if memory serves correct.

Steve

What win % are you referring to ? Tournaments entered v Tournaments won ?

Comparing their Win v R/Up % in regards to Top2 placings ...Tiger is currently at 76% (13/4) - Jones finished at 68% (13/6) - not much between them there.

In the Tiger v Jack record comparisons many often forget that Jack split his 59 and 61 Amateur victories with a 2nd place finish to Palmer's final round heroics in the 1960 US Open. OK it wasn't 3 US Amateur wins in a row ala Tiger but a damn fine three year stretch as an Amateur in anyone's terms.

[Steve Kline]

majors entered vs majors won

Forget the ams for Nicklaus and Woods. We count them for Jones because they were bigger tournaments back then than the opens - or so I've read. For Jones you would count the two Opens and two Ams and for Woods and Nicklaus the four majors we know today. I just recall that Jones' pct was very high (I thought over 50) and I'm pretty sure Tiger's is around 30.

[Steve Kline]

I am the biggest Tiger fan there is. I love watching him just obliterate the field and the record books. When he's not playing I hardly watch at all. But, if you haven't, you really should read the book "Grand Slam" to see how much Jones dominated. Many times he would hardly even touch a club between majors. Many times the majors were the only tournaments he played in all year. His schedule made Tiger's seem like Vijay's.