News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


JWalker

Re: The Gap...................
« Reply #25 on: June 19, 2002, 02:18:30 PM »
Shivas,

      I think the 59 in Vegas and -40 in some tour event served your point(your indifference) well. Those are pretty amazing stats you posted. Check out the Bruceski post"The old stars bash the new". I was willing to challenge some of your thoughts, but I will not challenge the old Masters of the game. Tiger's competition is comprised of a bunch of rich/satisfied candyasses.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Matt_Ward

Re: The Gap...................
« Reply #26 on: June 19, 2002, 06:07:23 PM »
Give Tiger his due -- 8 majors by 26 is an incredible feat -- ditto I believe from 2000 6 of the last 10. So is 8 for 8 in holding down third round leads in a major!

On the flip side the guys Tiger is beating have failed thus to show any zest for the battle. They're hoping for Tiger to lose (doubtful) instead of playing to win.

Can't compare the Nicklaus rivals to those of Tiger's because so many of them have underachieved thus far -- i.e. Phil, Ernie, Duval, Love, Monty, etc, etc.

Lee Trevino was quoted the other day as relishing the battle against Jack -- particularly during his '72 win at Murifield -- I don't see Tiger's rivals saying that.

Last thought -- in 1977 Tom Watson and Nicklaus were locked in their  epic battle at Turnberry. At some point on the back nine as play halted for a few brief moment the two champions looked directly at each other and Watson said to Jack to the effect, "this is what it's all about." Nicklaus nodded and said it was. As we all know Watson withstood everything the Bear threw at him and finished off the round with a 7-iron to kick-in range on the 72nd hole. Can any of Tiger's rivals do that? Thus far -- I'm still waiting!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

CB

Re: The Gap...................
« Reply #27 on: June 19, 2002, 07:48:11 PM »
The argument that Jack was better because his competitors were better is a circular argument, with no real value in my opinion.

"Jack was better because he had to beat better players to win: Palmer, Player, Watson, Trevino, Casper, Floyd, etc."  Why are these players considered great?  Because they won majors.  BECAUSE THEY BEAT JACK.  So Jack is better because he got beat more?

"Tiger is not as good because his competitors are not as good as Jack's:  Els, Mickelson, Duval, Garcia, etc."  Why are these players considered inferior?  Because they haven't won majors, or at least not many.  BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T BEAT TIGER.  Tiger is worse because hardly anyone can beat him?  Or even get close sometimes?

Palmer, Player, Watson, Trevino, Casper, Floyd, etc. were able to make runs at Jack.  Was this because (a) they were better players than Els, Mickelson, Duval, Garcia, etc., or was it that (b) Jack was more easily catchable than Tiger?  Hmmm...

Fewer players today are able to win three or more majors than in Jack's day.  Is that because (a) there are fewer great players today, or (b) because there are so many more great players today that winning one or two majors becomes a pretty good accomplishment.  Hmmm...

The argument goes around and around and around...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

JohnV

Re: The Gap...................
« Reply #28 on: June 19, 2002, 08:04:47 PM »
Tiger Woods is the greatest player ever.  Even Jack has admitted that.  But, Jack is still the greatest champion ever.  Tiger might surpass him at some point, but for now Jack is still number 1.

Everyone talks about Nicklaus and Palmer, but after Jack beat him at Oakmont for Jack's first major, Arnold only won 2 more majors.  The Open championship that year and the Masters 2 years later.  He finished 2nd 8 more times, but he couldn't win the big ones anymore, because he knew he couldn't beat Jack.

Gary Player was the only consistent winner during Jack's best years.  Trevino beat him 3 times in a 5 year period, Watson had his years, Floyd won occasionally, but really Player was the one that took on Jack through the whole period.

Trevino didn't come along until after Jack's initial rush.  Tiger hasn't even reached that point in his career yet.  Also, while Jack had 7 wins in his first 22 and Tiger has 8, Jack didn't win in his next 12.  Anyone want to bet that Tiger will match that streak?

As I said on another group the other day, if Tiger wins the slam for each of the next 8 years, does this mean that he still isn't as good as Jack because nobody else beat him?

As for the original question asked by Bob, it should be remembered that most golfers only shoot to their handicap 25% of the time or so.  That is the nature of handicaps, they show your potential, not your norm.

Plus, given the opportunity to play Pebble and Spanish Bay for a very cheap price I'm sure a number of those players pushed their handicaps lower to make sure they made it into the field.

I've always laughed when people who don't know much about golf ask me why I'm not playing on the tour just because I have a single digit handicap.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: The Gap...................
« Reply #29 on: June 19, 2002, 10:29:47 PM »
Dave Miller:

When it comes to "ball striking" I believe it's something you can do or you just can't do. Consistency is something else. Really good and potential players when they're young and in need of refinement are good ball strikers albeit sometimes very inconsistent!

"Consistency" can be learned in many ways and refined, but if you don't develop into a good ball striker young--forget it--you ain't got a chance, in my opinion! And by a good ball striker all I'm talking about is the ABILITY to hit the ball pure--long and pure--by tour standards--consistency is not essential or even common at that point. Once you have the ball striking ability, all consistency is is dedication, practice, experience, confidence etc. Once you're able to do that--doing it all the time is basically a matter of unsidetracked dedication, confidence and experience.

By way of an example I'll go out on a limb and say from what I saw the other day John Daly is one of the most awesome ball strikers the game of golf has ever seen--obviously long shots but also short shots and he can really putt too.

But tragically, he has the understanding of a tour pro but the discipline and the overall "all tournament" management skills of a mediocre but highly potential 14 year old!

Daly is one of the greatest wastes of absolutely astounding overall talent I've ever seen and the most unfortunate thing is it will never change!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

David Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Gap...................
« Reply #30 on: June 20, 2002, 12:43:39 AM »
To me Tiger is still behind Nicklaus and Jones for the title of greatest golfer ever although I think he has the most ability. As Shivas pointed out with his great research Tiger has a ways to go before he surpasses Jack's record.

That said I think we do Tiger a disservice when we compare the records of his opponents - who are in the beginning or middle stages of their careers - with those of Jack's who are at the end of theirs.

If we are looking at the period of Jack's career when he won  7 of his first 22 majors (1962-1967) here are the number of majors won by the golfers that Shivas mentions:
Player - 2 (62 PGA, 65 US)
Palmer - 3 (62, 64 Masters, 62 Brit)
Trevino - 0 (hadn't started his career)
Casper - 1 (66 US)
Miller - 0 (hadn't started his career)
Boros - 1 (63 US)
Floyd - 0
and no other player won more than 1 major in that period.

In Tiger's first 22 majors O'Meara won 2 (98 Masters and Brit) and Singh won 2 (98 PGA, 00 Masters) and the rest are spread out.

O'Meara seems to be past the time when he will be winning majors but Palmer was done by 1964 as well. As for Singh he is certainly capable of adding more major titles before he is done.

If Tiger wins his last major at the same age that Jack won his last one that means that we have 20 years before we can really evaluate the golfers that Tiger faced.  

Tiger's Trevino and Watson may not have even started their careers yet.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent." - Judge Holden, Blood Meridian.

TEPaul

Re: The Gap...................
« Reply #31 on: June 20, 2002, 08:45:22 AM »
Premises that are true, premises that aren't true? Circular arguments or lack of circular arguments? Hmmmmm!??

You want something that's true about comparing Jack to Tiger and what greatness or relative greatness really means?

Listen to what Jack Nicklaus has to say on that subject! If he doesn't know what's true about that, how in the world could anyone expect any of us to know? The notion that any of us knows or thinks he knows this subject better than Nicklaus is completely ludicrous!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

JakaB

Re: The Gap...................
« Reply #32 on: June 20, 2002, 08:52:43 AM »
Jack was just pulling the ole Lou Holtz psyche job on Tiger hoping he would get over confident and let up the pace...but as long as the sqEarl lives Tiger will get the nut...its a long game in the quest to be the greatest of all time and the final quarters should be a blast.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:06 PM by -1 »

Steve Curry

  • Karma: +0/-0
Good wife and good dog ;) read this...
« Reply #33 on: June 20, 2002, 09:02:15 AM »
Jack's awesome!

Steve    Golf's elder statesmen say new generation -- Woods excepted -- lack discipline
By STEVE BRISENDINE
Associated Press Writer
June 18, 2002


KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) -- It's the familiar refrain of Grumpy Old Men: Kids these days.

No discipline.

Got things way too easy.

This wasn't a group of retirees lounging around a coffee shop, though. These were five of golf's all-time greats -- Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, Lee Trevino, Gary Player and Tom Watson, who have 212 PGA Tour victories and 51 majors among them.

The targets of their barbed comments: today's PGA players -- except Tiger Woods.

``I think Tiger's the most disciplined player out there,'' Nicklaus said Tuesday at a news conference before the Children's Mercy Hospital Golf Classic at Blue Hills Country Club. ``I don't see any other disciplined players out there.''

Woods has the other players ``buffaloed,'' Nicklaus added.

``Not once did I ever evaluate my chances against these four guys and say, 'I don't have a chance,''' he said.

Player said many golfers today are happy to finish second or third.

``I get so (ticked) off at that,'' he said. ``The only person who remembers if you finish second is your wife and your dog -- and that's if you have a good wife and a good dog.''

And until other players start winning majors on a consistent basis, Palmer said, golf will continue to lack great rivalries.

``Rocco Mediate made the statement that he was not going to play the British Open because the course didn't suit his game,'' Palmer said, drawing a laugh from spectators as he pretended to rub away tears of sympathy. ``He's one of the strongest and best strikers in the game. I helped nurse him along. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.''

Mediate's attitude wouldn't have cut it in the past, Nicklaus said. In his generation, ``Nobody cares what the golf course is -- you take your game and you go play golf.''

Blame the comfortable living that golf can provide even middling pros, the five said.

``Tiger Woods won $1 million for winning the U.S. Open,'' Palmer said. ``The total prize money my first year on the tour (1954) was $750,000. ... If you weren't in the top one or two, in a couple of years you were back home mining coal.''

Now, Player said, on the Super Senior circuit for golfers age 60 and up, ``If you don't fall out of the golf cart you can make 10 grand.''

When golfers of his generation turned pro, Nicklaus said, ``We played the game for the game. We all said the same thing: 'If you play well, the money will take care of itself.'''

One name that came up as a possible rival to Woods was that of Phil Mickelson, who is still trying to win his first major.

``If I could just teach him to putt,'' Trevino said.

Watson, a Kansas City native and five-time British Open winner, has played host the charity event for 23 years.

Woods declined his invitation to play, Watson said, citing a desire to concentrate on his PGA Tour play and his own foundation work in Florida.

``He's doing what he needs to do,'' Watson said. ``I have no problem with that.''

Tuesday afternoon's 18-hole exhibition raised an additional $18,000 for the hospital, besides money raised from sponsorships and ticket sales.

Watson won six holes, Nicklaus four, Player one and the others were halved.


 

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:06 PM by -1 »

Lou Duran

Re: The Gap...................
« Reply #34 on: June 20, 2002, 09:09:48 AM »
Growing up in Ohio in the 60s and 70s, I was fortunate to have witnessed the Goldern Bear's career from up-close.  Admitedly, my perception of Nicklaus is not objective.  
Personally, I enjoy his design work greatly and hold him in the highest regard, not only as a great golfer, but also as a human being.

Having said all this, and despite all of Shivas's "analysis", Tiger is the superior golfer at a comparable stage of their respective careers.  Nicklaus did not dominate like Tiger does, and even though he intimidated the competition, he didn't seem to have the same impact that Tiger has.

In my opinion, the level of play today is much higher than during Nicklaus's time.  Nearly all of the exempt Tour players can win any given week, and even some of the top college players are having an impact almost immediately.  I remember Jerry McGee commenting that when he first got on the Tour he could hardly play a lick, and that he learned to play tournament golf while on the Tour.  Today, if you are not up and running on Day 1, you many never be heard from again (does anyone remember Joe Acosta, Jr. who nearly won the Milwauke Open 4 or 5 years ago in his rookie year?).

That few "stars" have emerged today is not surprising, if winning majors is the criteria for making the distinction.  Competition is that much fiercer and deeper.   Floppy, Montgomery, Hoch, Clark, Garcia, et. al. are certainly outstanding players.  Add Els, Singh, Olazabal, Price, and a resurging Faldo, and the cast of top players is deeper than at any time during Nicklaus's reign.  If these guys are pussies, and there is a widening gap (the subject of this thread), what does this make the rest of us?

Sorry fellas, without taking anything away from Nicklaus, Tiger is the man.  And if he keeps it up for another 10 years, even at a reduced pace, he will be inarguably, THE GREATEST EVER.
  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: The Gap...................
« Reply #35 on: June 20, 2002, 09:44:05 AM »
"Jack was just pulling the old Lou Holtz psyche job on Tiger..."

Yeah, right, Barney--dream on!

Jack is no dumby and he knows the real deal when he sees it and obviously doesn't mind saying so! Jack is quite aware that the old Lou Holtz psyche job Bob Jones tried to pull on him never worked and he knows it doesn't have a hope in hell of working on Tiger either.

Jack also knows that Tiger knows more about Jack Nicklaus than Jack knows about himself! Tiger knows more about Bob than he knew about himself too! It's a fact that Tiger even called Jack and told him that it was just about the right time in his career for Jack to pull the old Lou Holtz psyche job on him that Bob had tried to pull on Jack.

Jack's response was; "Damn you Woods, not only are you better than I ever was you're smarter than I ever was too!"
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

JakaB

Re: The Gap...................
« Reply #36 on: June 20, 2002, 10:02:12 AM »
Tom,

If you are saying that Bobby Jones used the Lou Holtz psyche job on Jack by saying Jack was the greatest but not really meaning it...using your logic I would come to the conclusion that with Jones being wrong...because who should know better than Jones...Jack must be wrong also...thus proving that using the assumption that Jack was not doing a psyche job...he must truly be the greatest player of all time as his buisness investments have already established he is not the smartest.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: The Gap...................
« Reply #37 on: June 20, 2002, 10:20:12 AM »
Barney:

That's some of the best specious reasoning, false premises and circular logic and argumentation I've ever read! I always knew you were a lawyer!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

johnk

Re: The Gap...................
« Reply #38 on: June 20, 2002, 11:14:57 AM »

Shivas

I think you can interpret the scoring average differential
in opposite ways.  You're using them as proof that Tiger isn't more dominant in major victories that Jack was.  I don't remember any 15 stroke, 12, or even 8 stroke victories of Jacks, however.  Clearly, the courses play longer and harder, and yet the field scores better on them by 6 shots.  To me, there's more talent out there.  That's not just technology...

I think it's key that if you listen to the oldsters, and listen
to Jack himself (btw, he doesn't think much of Tiger's competition) and if you read his descriptions of how he won and lost majors, it's obvious that he thinks Tiger is a better
golfer and I believe he thinks Tiger has more intimidation and dominance over the field.

Anyways, maybe we should now shift to Phil Jackson or Red Auerbach? :)


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: The Gap...................
« Reply #39 on: June 20, 2002, 11:59:01 AM »
Shivas:

Wouldn't you agreee that looking at Nicklaus in relation to his primary competitors vs Woods in relation to his primary competitors is one thing entirely (by primary competitors I would think we're talking about maybe five golfers from each era)? When we look at it that way were essentially trying to compare the likes of Watson, Trevino, Miller to the likes of Els, Duval, Mickelson.

That's one thing but analyzing the #25 player in a tournament from each era and their relative scores could be something else altogether.

To explain a divergence in that score, for instance, it seems hard to deny that the depth of the tour today is not much like the depth of the tour even in Nicklaus's era. It seems that almost anyone in and around tour tournament golf recognizes and readily admits that the depth of quality players on the Tour today is superior to the depth of quality of yesteryear--and probably far superior!

Even commonsensically why would anyone assume otherwise?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

David Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Gap...................
« Reply #40 on: June 20, 2002, 01:24:09 PM »
Again I just don't think you can judge their careers until both are finished.  We know how good Jack's main competitors were because they are all finished and their final records are established but we have a long time to go before Garcia (only 22!), Mickelson, Els, Singh, Duval, and others yet unknown are retired.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent." - Judge Holden, Blood Meridian.

David Wigler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Gap...................
« Reply #41 on: June 20, 2002, 01:46:50 PM »
Shivas,

The guy who blew up at the Honda a few years back was Eric Booker.  Before going on tour, he was the Ast. Pro at Warwick Hills in Michigan.  He also was the single best player I have ever played with.  He was absolutely amazing to watch.  If he had asked, I would have definitely invested in his career.  He flat out dominated the Michigan circuit.  Then he went on the Nike Tour and dominated it.  After getting his card by finishing in the top five in Nike Tour standings (With a bunch of victories) he was having a very good year on tour.  Then came the Honda.  Two shanks and a 44 (I think) later on the back nine when a simple 41 wins the event, he curled up inside his head and has not been heard from since.  At least Mickelson is still able to go out the next week after missing those short putts.  Golf can be cruel.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
And I took full blame then, and retain such now.  My utter ignorance in not trumpeting a course I have never seen remains inexcusable.
Tom Huckaby 2/24/04

JWalker

Re: The Gap...................
« Reply #42 on: June 20, 2002, 03:04:44 PM »
shivas,
Let's not forget to factor in other stats like Jack being saddled down with wife and kids or does the sqEarl factor cancel that out. Seriously, I admire your passion for this subject and your wonderful research to try to account for the different eras these guys played in. Here are some more stats : Nicklaus won 1 in 5 tournaments he played in from 1962 to 1978 and finished in the top 3 41.8 percent of the time, seven years without missing a cut (153 tournaments) from 1962-1968, finished third or better in 41 of 76 (54%) majors from 1962- 1980. David Kelly says we have to watch it all play out and he is correct, time will tell. If and when Tiger beats Jack's records I hope Jack's greatness doesn't get lost. I still think Tiger is a more complete player. Probably the best thing I have heard on this subject came from Jack himself. In an interview Jack started to I wouldn't have wanted to have to play against him in my career but then stopped himself and said yes I would have. How many of todays players would say that and truly believe themselves.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

David Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Gap...................
« Reply #43 on: June 20, 2002, 03:22:25 PM »
Shivas,
As for flukes and legits you have Brooks as a quasi-fluke and he has 7 Tour wins and a major (and tied for low score in another) and Jerry Barber as legit and he has 7 Tour wins and a major.

You have Daly as a fluke with 2 majors and 3 total wins while Dave Marr is legit with 1 major and less than 5 wins (only info I could find)

But both Brooks and Daly are still playing and may better their records.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent." - Judge Holden, Blood Meridian.

johnk

Re: The Gap...................
« Reply #44 on: June 20, 2002, 03:44:20 PM »
The list of fluke winners reminds of the fact that
Jack had a few contemporaries hand him majors.

Doug Sanders, for one.

Overall, one key part of the argument is that Tiger's
challengers don't match up to Nicklaus'.  The fact
that most of them aren't even halfway through their
careers is salient.  But what about Jack's challengers
who we don't remember...  Who are they?

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Bruceski

Re: The Gap...................
« Reply #45 on: June 20, 2002, 04:06:37 PM »
Tiger's Trevino, Ballesteros, and Watson: Howell III, Molder, Donald (just wait)

If David Toms wins one more major (and he might) and Vijay Singh wins another (and he might), and David Duval wins another (and he will) will that convince people that Tiger had enough competition? Throw in Floppy's likelihood of winning a major (pretty good likelihood) and when all is said and done Tiger will be noted as having won 22 majors (a probable number) against some great competition over his career. How one can compare the ENTIRE career of Jack's competition against Tiger's competition TO DATE is beyond me. Seems a tad premature.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

David Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Gap...................
« Reply #46 on: June 20, 2002, 06:58:09 PM »
I have said that I think Nicklaus is the great golfer of all-time but it is not like he was invincible.

I posted this on another thread and it is Herbert Warren Wind on Nicklaus' propensity for making errors to lose majors.

"Though Nicklaus has won more major championships than any other golfer since Jones, he has never quite attained the same stature as Hogan, largely because of his strange susceptibility to giant-size, irremediable errors in critical passages."



« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent." - Judge Holden, Blood Meridian.

TEPaul

Re: The Gap...................
« Reply #47 on: June 20, 2002, 07:58:49 PM »
Whose comparing Woods's career to Nicklaus's career? Woods is only 26 years old, for goodness sakes--his career has just begun. We're talking about comparing Woods as a golfer to Nicklaus as a golfer.

Even Nicklaus himself has talked seriously about the comparison of Woods to himself. He didn't really get into comparing his career against Woods obviously since Woods has just begun. But on that subject Nicklaus has said more than a few times that he considers Woods so good at this point that if he continues this way he has little doubt that he will exclipse his own awesome major career record!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

John_Conley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Gap...................
« Reply #48 on: June 20, 2002, 08:25:39 PM »
Only just begun?  Says who?

Bobby Jones accomplished about what Tiger Woods has and retired at 27 or 28.  Who's to say Tiger won't get bored?  As mentioned, Nicklaus's record is so impressive because he started businesses, got married, raised a family, and played championship golf while maintaining a balance in his life.

Tiger is - to his credit - solely focused on golf.  Athletes come from other sports to study his singular focus and are amazed.  Even Michael Jordan had off-seasons and took a segue to pursue a quixotic hobby.  Borrowing from another sport, both Mats Wilander (THREE majors in 1987) and Jim Courier (#1 in the World when he made his self-deprecating commercial about the Washington Redskins sweatsocks) had incredible struggles staying on top once there.  Some could say the same about Borg, but I think he was caught in a sea-change with equipment advances.  Sound familiar?!?

The other reason I am not willing to concede all foreseeable future Major Championships to Mr. Woods is based on a two-prong argument.  1)  (An argument I heard first espoused by Tom Marzlof from the Fazio Group) Players will have shorter careers in the future because of the incredible strain they put on their bodies by swinging so hard with today's equipment.  It is happening in baseball, so why not golf?  2) Tiger's principal competition is not just Robert Allenby, Paul Lawrie, and Phil Mickelson.  There are incredible players in all corners of the world gunning for him.  A story about a young player doing well in a big event doesn't even raise an eyebrow.  There was the kid from Korea who lost to Gossett.  The kid from Australia who made the cut in NZ this year at 15 or 16.  Tolan, Tryon - and for all I know - Tanakagawa and Tattosori.  I already know Tiger can beat Kirk Triplett.

There is just as much precedence to assume Tiger pulls out of the game like Jodie Mudd or Bill Rogers.  Only two players before him in golf (male) had similar achievements at his age.  Nicklaus and Jones.  One quit and the other didn't.  There is no way the monetary factor will continue to hold the same zest it once did.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

CB

Re: The Gap...................
« Reply #49 on: June 20, 2002, 08:43:27 PM »
I don't think Jodie Mudd or Bill Rogers ever wanted to be the best who ever played the game.  Tiger had Jack's records on his mirror growing up so he could look at them every day, and he won't stop until he gets them.  True, his body might suffer from the strain of his swing eventually, but he's got the best build you can have and I'll bet Tiger continues to evolve as his career progresses.  I can imagine a 45-year-old smooth-swinging Tiger stealing majors from people who are just out of diapers now through creative shotmaking, finesse, his mind, and his aura rather than sheer power (although he'll still have power when he needs it :)).  He's got the best mind in the game now...yikes, how much better will he be with 20 years more experience??
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »