[Kalen Braley]

Its all good George....on a seriously note though George:

Isn't it the least bit disconcerting that none of these top players from TW's generation have given him a run for his money in a major?  And most of them have pretty much wilted most of the time?

We just didn't see this from Trevino, Watson, Player, Palmer...they all rose to the occasion.

[Sean_A]

George

Incredible comment.  You put a lot of stock into something that I don't see.  Do you honestly believe that Tiger's sidekicks and Joe Bloggs are a match (day in and day out) for Palmer, Player, Watson & Trevino?  If so, why?

Ciao

It's rather simple, actually - I don't think people change that much.

The best 5 golfers of today would compare favorably with the best 5 over any period anyone chooses. There would be individual differences, but on the whole, adjusting for evolution and technological changes, things would be relatively comparable.

The same holds true for baseball, football, tennis, whatever. If Jesse Owens were born 70 years later, he'd be among the 2 or 3 guys who will end up on the Olympic squad in Beijing.

Styles and techniques may change, but the inner composition of athletes/people does not.

George

I actually buy the basis of your explanation, but I think 5 is too high a number of greats from any era and I am not completely sure what your idea of an era is. 

Jeff W

In a word, yes.  If Tiger wins all the majors he enters he is the only great player of that period.  You can't call guys great who don't win lots of majors - not in my book anyway.  The term "great" is over-used and should be reserved for the truly great players who would be considered great by all generations.  That is a terribly small number of golfers - I am talking so small that guys like Trevino, Snead, Faldo, Ballesteros & Hilton are not gimmies so far as I am concerned.  Other guys like Braid, Thompson & Taylor I would definitely keep off the list.   

Ciao

[archie_struthers]

 


If you have to disagree with Matt, which is silly, you can still do so in that he has it half right.

I believe the new equipment narrows the edge of skill and heart...as errors are smoothed out by technology,,,,Tiger's dominance being all the more impressive

I think Matt is right about the rest of the field......in my own order

Trevino
watson
palmer
player
casper
ballesteros

are the top six who Jack played against

now add

Norman
Price
Floyd----you don't want any part of him on sunday
Irwin .... at 60 still a premier player
Miller
Weiskopf

do you guys really think there is as much talent  at the top of tigers. class

remember I think he is the best ever....because he putts better than any one   even Jack       

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

I can fully appreciate what you just said in your last post.

But you make the automatic assumption that Tiger is leaps and bounds beyond what Nicklaus was as a player. I'm not conceding that point as quickly as so many others are doing and I say that with no disrespect to what Tiger has achieved to date.

Compare the nature of their games that Tiger is today and Jack was. Where's the major (no pun intended) difference between them? People bitch and moan (see Jeff W's previous comment) about Jack having so many seconds in majors -- I see that as a big time plus -- the man was always THERE. Tiger has the wins but if he doesn't get off to a good start the usual outcome is fairly predictable -- he'll finish somewhere down the list.

Let's go back to the equipment point -- I simply said that if you took the likes of the Nicklaus era people and had them playing the balls, shafts and clubs that existing players are doing today -- heck, I think they'd play even better -- certainly they would be longer. Remember what I said previously, Jack when he first started was hitting 300+ with ole MacGregor clubs and that famous distance ball of all time -- the TOURNEY !!!

Tim, have a bit of clarity in your thought and concede the obvious. The guys Tiger has as competitors NOW -- are often times gagging and falling over themselves when The Man is in the hunt or most certainly in the lead. My God, the only key names people keep raisin time after time is the likes of a Bob May and company.

If you take Tom Watson in his prime and play him against Tiger I expect ole Tom will fight with no less vigor and results as he did to Jack in the '77 Masters, '77 BO and '82 US Open, to name just three key events. When I see Lefty and Ernie looking at Tiger you know what I see -- two deer with highlights in their face. Geeze, look at Ernie's expression when he won at PGA National a few weeks back -- he's happy to simply return to the winner's circle after how many years ?

Tim, the point I raised several times is something you glossed over. Jack's rivals had mental toughness -- the guys I see today are all gloss and veneer. They can win the lesser events but if they see Tiger anywhere near the lead you can see them coughing up all over the place. You attribute that to Tiger's fine play. No doubt when Tiger does play well he can win with the A+ game. But I've seen Tiger win a number of majors and the cast of characters he's encountered are all over the place with the same sad expression on their faces.

All I'm saying is that the guys I mentioned would not be as intimidated as the guys you see today. They would have their moments against Tiger and that includes when he's on his game. It happened to Jack, Hogan and all the rest. And guess what -- it would happen to Tiger too.

Tiger's greatest strength is his mental edge. The rest of the wannebees simply don't have the extra gear as the foursome of rivals Jack encountered. Tim, they are "mental midgets" -- guys like Lefty can talk the talk until the cows come home but when he steps on the same tee with Tiger all I hear is butter burning up on the grill.

Tim, one last thing -- people have a tendency in sports discussions -- to develop amnesia on any number of players from a few years back when measured against the likes of today's players. I'm not holding against Tiger but I thing folks here should really study the most recent past and see what the guys I have mentioned were able to accomplish.

Leave you with one small example -- as  a Yankee fan I saw Mickey Mantle only at the very end of his career -- the late 60's. He was DONE by then and I said he could not lift the cleats of the other key players at that time such as Yaz, Killebrew, etc, etc. My father -- a Giants fan -- said you had to see what Mickey had done in the 50's thru '61 during his prime. I didn't appreciate his take then -- I do now.

Archie:

You must have missed a number of putts that Jack made over his career. I'll give you a draw with Tiger but no more than that. Jack was the consumate master of the must make from 7-8 feet and in.

I salute you in listing all of the key names Jack encountered. It's a who's who is top talent indeed.

 

[JESII]

Matt,

Do you recognize the incredible challenge in trying to use Seve Ballesteros as a competitve peer to Jack Nicklaus?

The guys that much younger than Tiger just got tucked in for nighty night...

This is an unanswerable question.




But, since we're here...Let's try to pick off Jack's contemporaries one by one...

Johnny Miller = David Duval
Arnold Palmer = Nick Faldo
Tom Weiskopf = Davis Love
Nick Price = Reteif Goosen
Greg Norman = Geoff Ogilvy and/or Adam Scott
Billy Casper = Vijay Singh
Hale Irwin = Jim Furyk

Player, Watson, Trevino and Ballesteros are going to be up for Els, Mickelson, and a young guy or two to catch.

Give me an honest shake on the first grouping and I'll give you the last four...

[jeffwarne]

JES
You sold Arnie and Norman horribly short.
Pretty good comparisons otherwise, although Duval was slightly better than Miller (this should get a few going )

Ogilvie?-not yet- Norman led all four majors after 3 rounds in 1986 and won 10 tournaments worldwide that year-he was ranked #1 in the world for a long time.

[Mike Nuzzo]

100 people in Columbus and one of them is a genious - Jack and 5 of them are really, really smart - the rest are the normal distribution.

100 MIT Grad Students - most of them are geniuses - one is smarter - Eldrick - in fact he is so much smarter than the rest he gets all the awards leaving the rest with bread crumbs to compete over.

Who is smarter Jack or Eldrick?

A.  You can't tell.  And I wouldn't ask one of the two. 

How many golfers were there when Jack was in his prime?
How many now?

[JESII]

Are you saying Buckeyes are not exactly rocket scientists?

[Art Roselle]

One other problem here--when ticking off the list of "greats" against whom Nicklaus competed, we're looking at the span of his entire career, including Palmer and Player with the likes of Miller, Weiskopf (was he great? 1 major?) and Floyd.  We don't know who Tiger's competition will be in the next 10-20 years.  Maybe people like Geoff Ogilvy, Adam Scott or even Sergio Garcia will rise to greatness.  Maybe someone even younger will emerge (e.g., Rory McElroy).  

I think this is an important point.  By the time Watson came on the scene, Palmer was well past his prime.  So, Jack was not really out their battling all the "greats" at once.  He wasn't even in his prime any more for some of it.  By the time Watson won his second major, Jack was 37 and had 15 of his 18 majors behind him.  He only won 3 more during Watson's "prime".

In addition, if Jack is right about the quantity of "good" players, then doesn't his skew how we assess the great ones too?  Everyone judges this stuff based on majors and so Trevino is "great" with his 6 majors, but Els is only "good" because he only has 3 (so far).  However, that major count is diluted by all the good players today.  Back in Jack's day, if he didn't win, then there were only a few guys who were likely to hoist the trophy.  The non-Jack majors tended to land disproportionately in the hands of guys like Trevino and Floyd and Watson.  Today, if Tiger doesn't win, Phil and Ernie still have to contend with a huge crop of very good players.  The 70%+ of the time that Tiger doesn't win, it is often someone like Zach Johnson or Michael Campbell or Paul Lawrie.  That happened on occasion in Jack's day, but I think the competition dilutes how many majors it takes to be considered great.  I would put Phil and Ernie up against Trevino and even Player any day.  If Tiger were not around, both of those guys would have 6 or 7 under their belt, despite the depth of talent on tour today.

I do not know if Tiger is better than Jack or vice versa and there is no way to fairly compare.  However, I do not buy the implication that Tiger's road to 18 majors is somehow easier because there are not as many greats. 

[George Pazin]

100 people in Columbus and one of them is a genious - Jack and 5 of them are really, really smart - the rest are the normal distribution.

100 MIT Grad Students - most of them are geniuses - one is smarter - Eldrick - in fact he is so much smarter than the rest he gets all the awards leaving the rest with bread crumbs to compete over.

Who is smarter Jack or Eldrick?

A.  You can't tell.  And I wouldn't ask one of the two. 

How many golfers were there when Jack was in his prime?
How many now?

I love this analogy.

It reminds me of a theory a friend and I developed in college: you can only notice intelligence differences within your own particular peer group (developed after realizing some of our professors seemed so smart they defied definition).

Under that theory, the only ones that could tell the difference would be Jack, Tiger and their top peers.

Weird, if you think about it.

At any rate, the question to me boils down to this:

What's a more reasonable explanation? That somehow a small indeterminate number of golfers have gotten less mentally tough over the last 30 years, or that Tiger is simply better than Jack - pretty clear what my answer is.

Nice last post, Tim P.

[tlavin]

JES
You sold Arnie and Norman horribly short.
Pretty good comparisons otherwise, although Duval was slightly better than Miller (this should get a few going )

Ogilvie?-not yet- Norman led all four majors after 3 rounds in 1986 and won 10 tournaments worldwide that year-he was ranked #1 in the world for a long time.

I'll take the bait!

I am no Johnny Miller booster either in the booth or as a player, but there is no comparison between him and David Duval.  Duval was a flash in the pan; Miller was a meteor shower.  Miller lost his putting nerves; Duval appears to have lost his mind entirely.  I'm not even going to go to the trouble of comparing their win place and show records.  Miller was a star; Duval was a flashbulb.

[George Pazin]

JES
You sold Arnie and Norman horribly short.
Pretty good comparisons otherwise, although Duval was slightly better than Miller (this should get a few going )

Ogilvie?-not yet- Norman led all four majors after 3 rounds in 1986 and won 10 tournaments worldwide that year-he was ranked #1 in the world for a long time.

I'll take the bait!

I am no Johnny Miller booster either in the booth or as a player, but there is no comparison between him and David Duval.  Duval was a flash in the pan; Miller was a meteor shower.  Miller lost his putting nerves; Duval appears to have lost his mind entirely.  I'm not even going to go to the trouble of comparing their win place and show records.  Miller was a star; Duval was a flashbulb.

Pretty funny - of all of Jim's comparisons, I thought Miller/Duval was the most accurate.

[Kalen Braley]

I don't think Mike Nuzzos analogy works at in this situation....an no offense to the good people of Columbus.

Even if we stipulate that the average player now is better than in Jacks day, it doesn't mean they were chopped liver back then.  Whether back then or now, all of them were/are presumably the worlds best.

A better analogy would be the MIT students of the 60's and 70's vs todays crop. 

[JESII]

Jeff,

Notice I did put Ogilvy AND Adam Scott as an offset for Norman. Admittedly, he is a tough one to match because he was the best in the world for a long stretch but won relatively few majors...and...even having Norman on a list of a peer to Nicklaus is bad...

Johnny Miller and David Duval seem like a good match because they both lost it so quickly. Did Miller ever actually reach the lofty status of World #1?

Also...I think Arnie and Faldo are comparable in this comparison. Most of their work was finished when The Man showed up. Not perfect, but not bad.

[tlavin]

Just for grins:

Miller won twice as many tournaments as Duval and he won the Open at Oakmont with that stirring final round.  More than one-third of Miller's starts resulted in a Top Ten finish; Duval was more like 23%.  Miller missed the cut less than 10% of the time; Duval missed the cut 107 out of 289 times!  Admittedly, both of them flamed out, but Miller's flame shone much brighter, IMHO.

[George Pazin]

Just for grins:

Miller won twice as many tournaments as Duval and he won the Open at Oakmont with that stirring final round.  More than one-third of Miller's starts resulted in a Top Ten finish; Duval was more like 23%.  Miller missed the cut less than 10% of the time; Duval missed the cut 107 out of 289 times!  Admittedly, both of them flamed out, but Miller's flame shone much brighter, IMHO.

Flipside - both won Opens, the TPC is a much bigger prize now.

One could argue that Miller lost his game (putting, really), while Duval lost his interest. (I don't know that I personally would make that argument... )

[JESII]

Did Miller ever reach #1 in the world...in the hearts and minds of people other than Miller himself?

By the way, using top tens and cuts made is hardly a sign of greatness...maybe just a hint of goodness...

[Matt_Ward]

JES II:

Norman can more than handle Ogilvy and Scott. Frankly, Ogilby received a gift from Lefty / re: '06 US Open at WF. Scott is still working on his supposed "can't miss" tag that I keep hearing from so many people.

The Shark gets hammered for throwing plenty of tournaments away but let's not forget his total time as #1 and the fact that he was always THERE on center stage.

In regards to Miller -- there was no "official" tag as world's number one player but he clearly pushed Jack into getting his next ascension to the top started.

In terms of AP and Faldo - take a 10-year period of their best and AP is the better of the two. No question in my mind.

Your best mention -- Weiskopf and Love. Both are big time underachievers but Weiskopf could have attained even greater heights IMHO than Love.


Terry Lavin:

Amen for your last post -- re: Miller v. Duval.

Johnny won three (3) majors and his epic final round at Oakmont is still one of the finest feats in all of golf history.

Duval was a fine player but there's no comparison to JM. Anyone suggesting otherwise is truly misguided in their thinking. One can size it up on any criteria and JM comes out ahead -- and it's really not that close.

Miller flamed out -- but the burn he provided was much brighter.


Art Roselle:

I love the idea that if somehow Tiger isn't on the scene then ipso facto the majors then automatically go to Phil and Ernie. Really?

You also state that back in Jack's day there were only a few players capable of competing. Do yourself a favor and check out the cumulative reach of the people by the last name of Palmer, Player, Trevino and Watson. Others on this thread have posted other quality names as well.

If you seriously think Ernie Els is the equivalent of Lee Trevino please send me the kool-aid you've been drinking. Lee beat Jack in a number of settings and venues (check out the tape from the '72 BO if you can) -- Ernie is now fortunate to have won again in the States after how many years? Ernie has had his moments when Tiger wasn't the force -- see the tape on Els when he melted down at the '95 PGA, and the loss to Todd Hamilton at the BO, to name just two instances.

Lee has six majors but his standing in golf goes far beyond that. He is often listed as one of the 2-3 best shotmakers of all time.

One other thing -- this silly idea that Phil and Ernie would have their way with Player and Trevino. Go to the '78 tape of the final round at Augusta -- watch Player in motion on that glorious final round. When has Ernie EVER demonstrated that kind of excitement? Help me out with another thing -- do you remember the classic meltdowns of Phil - re: '04 (DB 3-putt ont he 71st hole) and '06 (wonderful handling of the 72nd hole!) US Opens.

Art, go back and REALLY examine the records of the folks you so quickly dismiss. Player & Trevino have earned considerable respect -- your quick to the throw under the bus analysis is really OB in my book.

[Kalen Braley]

Matt,

I think many people forget just how good Player was.  He won 9 majors total including 3 masters.

If you take Phil, Vijay, Goosen, and Furyk combined they have less majors than Player alone.

[JESII]

OK...clearly this is now a factual analysis...so tell me exactly what has to happen for the pendulum to swing into favor of the current guys. Not hyperbole, what exact numbers are required throughout the rest of the careers of the top players in Tigers era for them to surpass those of Nucklaus' era.

[tlavin]

Matt,

I have the same take on Geoff Ogilvy.  I have been impressed by his swing and his temperament this year and if he's going to break out, now is the time.

[Art Roselle]

Art Roselle:

I love the idea that if somehow Tiger isn't on the scene then ipso facto the majors then automatically go to Phil and Ernie. Really?

I don't believe that and don't think I said that.  My main point was the opposite.  If Tiger doesn't win, then there is more competition for the other guys to accumulate majors against.  I do believe there are more "good" players now and Jack apparently agrees with that too.  That may dilute the number of times someone like Mickelson is going to win, even without Tiger on the scene.  So, I think it is tough to drop Mickelson or Els into the merely "good" category just because they did not win as many majors.

More important, though, is that it is tough to declare these answers in mid-stream.  If Mickelson wins 5 more majors in the next 10 years and Ernie wins 4 and Adam Scott wins 8 and some new kid wins 7, then the conversation is totally different.  If they all fade and we end up with 20 guys with 2 majors each, then maybe Jack's point will really gain validity.  Tiger is not even to the halfway point in his career.  At the same point for Jack, it was not at all clear that he would face a lot of "greats".  From his first major in 1962 until his 32nd birthday (about where Tiger is) here is how many majors the "great" players won
Trevino 3
Palmer 2
Player 3
Watson 0
Miller 0
Weiskopf 0

It looks a lot like the list of 2s and 3s we have today.  I bet in 1972, people were bemoaning the loss of all the "great" players like Nelson and Hogan and wondering who would ever challenge Jack.  Palmer was long gone by then and Nicklaus was still young and sitting on 11 majors, while the closest active player had 3.  Sound familiar?

Finally, I think it is tough to penalize some of the modern players too much for choking away an occasional major.  Those are fresh in our mind and we tend to only remember the victories of older players.  Palmer gagged away several tournaments that were firmly in hand.  We do not drop him out of the "great" category on that basis, though.

All of these comparisons are a pretty tough, however.  The game has changed too much and the qualities that make a player "great" are not even the same any more.  The number of great shot-makers of average length that can actually win is much lower.  There are a few Furyks out there, but most of the guys who consistently contend are huge bombers.  Back in Jack's day, there was more room for different styles to compete.  Does that make his accomplishment better?  Who knows.  On the one hand, it made his length more of an anomaly and he was generally playing from far ahead of his competition.  Lots of guys hit it as far as Tiger now, and yet he still beats them.  On the other hand, it did allow for a type of depth that the tour now lacks.  Sure there are more good players, but there are no Calvin Peetes.  He could not get a Nationwide card today, which is a shame.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Styles and techniques may change, but the inner composition of athletes/people does not.

A fine argument against Tiger being that exceptional.

[Garland Bayley]

Tim P:
...
Tim, you erroneously conclude Tiger is better than Nicklaus. Help me with something -- he's still five (5) majors short thus far. One other thing Jack is the greatest driver of the ball -- both length and accuracy combined. Because of club technology you get guys today who can routinely bomb and gouge the ball with little attention to mishits. Sometimes one should send Tiger mapquest to find where his tee ball finishes.
...

This reminded me of an interesting way to compare Tiger and Jack. How may lost balls have they suffered during tournaments? Jack - 1, Tiger still counting.

[George Pazin]

It's funny how people's memories selectively conform to their own opinions (yours truly included, obviously).

When Phil won his second Masters in 2006, Tiger finished T3. Steve Williams said he's never seen Tiger try so hard to win a major, as he knew it would likely be the last one his dad witnessed. And this is the same Tiger who would go on to win the 06 Open Champ. and 06 PGA.

When Phil lost out on his best shot at a US Open to Payne Stewart, Tiger finished T3 (with Veej). That's the same Tiger that had won the next PGA in 99 and would go on to win 4 consecutive majors shortly thereafter.

When Vijay won his Masters in 2000, Tiger finished 5th (Els and Duval finished 2nd and T3, respectively). If memory serves, Tiger had 2 water balls on #12 that year, in windy conditions. Once again, that's the same Tiger that had won the previous PGA in 99 and would go on to win the next 4 consecutive majors.

About the only thing you can say regarding Tiger and his competition versus Jack and his is that 1) Tiger is far more dominant over his and 2) Tiger hasn't had a Tom Watson yet, who battled Jack successfully at Turnberry and Pebble - i.e. an acknowledged great golfer who peaked at the same moment (though if you look at Tiger's Masters wins in 2001 and 2002, the leaderboards are quite stellar 2001 Duval 2nd, Mickelson 3rd, 2002 Goosen 2nd, Mickelson 3rd, Olazabal 4th).

Terry Lavin:

Amen for your last post -- re: Miller v. Duval.

Johnny won three (3) majors and his epic final round at Oakmont is still one of the finest feats in all of golf history.

FYI -

Hate to break it to you, Matt, but  the vaunted Johnny Miller won 2 majors, the same number as a bunch of guys Tiger plays (or played) against like O'Meara, Olazabal, Janzen, Stewart, etc.

Check that - Stewart won 3!

Kalen -

No one forgets Player's 9 majors - how could they, with his endless self-promotion? (That's a joke, I have the utmost respect for Mr. Player's fabulous career).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()