Is there any real debate about Tiger's standing ? OT

[Matt_Ward]

A number of media people gathered after Tiger's second round play had concluded and just had to wonder if any real debate is left concerning the standing of Tiger as the game's all-time player.

14 majors in just under 13 years -- 67 tour wins -- keep in mind the following ...

*the percentage of wins versus his total starts -- almost 25% if memory serves

*the fact that he has never lost a major final round lead and very few of them when they are PGA Tour events and others

*the Tiger Slam

*the period from 2000 to 2002 a total of 19 pro wins with six of the 12 majors bagged

I used to be a Jack devotee -- given the sheer number of 1st's, 2nd's and 3rd's in the majors stretching from his first pro win in '62 at Oakmont and 24 years later with the '86 Masters.

Tiger's competition is deeper -- the courses have beenmade considerably harder in most instances since Jack's time and while the equipment is on Tiger's side -- I believe he would do as well, if not better, than if their were a rollback in equipment whether the club, ball or both.

I actually believe if Tiger stepped aside today -- his place at the top would be secure even if he didn't pass Jack's 18 major total. Some don't believe that but Tiger has won each of the majors at least three times -- equalling what Jack did. No doubt he will accumulate more and more wins and with a bit of good play / fortune the record Jack set for total majors will fall.

Curious to hear from any Jack supporters who still view the Golden Bear as being ahead now.

[Mark Pearce]

I think you forgot the OT?

[JESII]

Matt,

That flip is the equivalent to you telling us the changes at Augusta have all been for the better...



But...I agree with everything other than if he were to stop now...up to this point he is ahead of Jack, but he needs to run the last lap...

[Tom_Doak]

Jim:

If Tiger quit now (as Jones did), don't you think he would still be ranked ahead of Jack on 98% of people's lists?  [Not that he is the retiring type, I can't see that happening.  It's not exactly like he has to retire so he can make a living in the law, as Jones did.]

It is only if he runs the last lap and runs out of gas that he'll be seen as failing to surpass Jack.  And that's by those of us who still vividly remember Nicklaus.  100 years from now, a neutral observer would pretty much have to favor Tiger.

[Mike Hendren]

Better than Jack?  Perhaps.  Better than Jones?  I dunno.

Jones was no worse than 2nd in the last dozen open champion championships in which he competed.

From 1923 to 1930 he won 62% of the national championships he entered.

In fact, use of the term "Tiger Slam" admits that it is something less than the Grand Slam.

Mike

[Bill_McBride]

Better than Jack?  Perhaps.  Better than Jones?  I dunno.

Jones was no worse than 2nd in the last dozen open champion championships in which he competed.

From 1923 to 1930 he won 62% of the national championships he entered.

Mike

To take Mike's comment one step further, I think it's better to identify the dominant player of each era.  Jones, Hogan, Palmer, Nicklaus, Tiger, that line up sounds about right to me.  This way you can safely ignore the differences in equipment, conditioning, etc.

[George Pazin]

Matt,

That flip is the equivalent to you telling us the changes at Augusta have all been for the better...



But...I agree with everything other than if he were to stop now...up to this point he is ahead of Jack, but he needs to run the last lap...

Naaaaaaaaaaaaaah, a nice smooth walk on the last lap will more than cement any doubts.

I often wonder if Hogan would have been Hogan if Nelson hadn't retired.

[Lou_Duran]

I've seen both, Nicklaus in person much more than Tiger, but even if TW would quit today, he is #1.  He is dominant against 150+ guys, any one which is capable of winning.  In Nicklaus's era, there were a bunch of nice players who could not win.  Jerry McGee once said that he learned to play golf while playing in the Tour.  There were a number of guys like Dick Ryan who were field fillers primarily.  Today if you are not tournament tested off the block, you're off the Tour.  No OJT.

Triplebogey on Bobby Jones.  Strength of competition, longevity.

[Mike Hendren]

Triplebogey on Bobby Jones.  Strength of competition, longevity.

Huh?

Longevity - at 33?

Who has Tiger competed against that compares with Hagen and Sarazen with 18 majors between them? - not to mention Jim Barnes with 4.  By comparison, Tiger has never competed with a single player who has won more than 3 majors.  I don't see Padraig, Phil, Payne, Ernie, or Vijay being in the same camp with Hagen and  Sarazen.

Don't denigrate Jones' amateur wins either, given the inherent difficult of winning at match play consistently.   

Mike

[Peter Pallotta]

If only for for sentimental reasons, I'll suggest that it isn't who they competed against or their wins and losses, or even their major championship totals - it's the great golf shots they are capable of.  The shot Nicklaus hit on the 18th at Baltusrol in 1967 -- 240 yards, uphill, into the wind, with a Macgregor butter knife of a 1 iron that even his fellow touring pros couldn't hit and a Macgregor golf ball that his fellow touring pros WOULDN'T hit...to about 20 feet.  Do all the math to compensate for differing technology etc etc, and, yes, Tiger could hit that shot, and Bobby Jones, and Ben Hogan.  

Peter

[George Pazin]

Triplebogey on Bobby Jones.  Strength of competition, longevity.

Huh?

Longevity - at 33?

Who has Tiger competed against that compares with Hagen and Sarazen with 18 majors between them? - not to mention Jim Barnes with 4.  By comparison, Tiger has never competed with a single player who has won more than 3 majors.  I don't see Padraig, Phil, Payne, Ernie, or Vijay being in the same camp with Hagen and  Sarazen.

Don't denigrate Jones' amateur wins either, given the inherent difficult of winning at match play consistently.   

Mike

Comparisons to Jack are problematic.

Comparisons to Jones are impossible.

There is a reason so few won so many during the early days. You may not like to hear it, but Paddy, Phil, etc are every bit the competition that Sarazen and Hagen were, and more. It's just that there are a lot more of them.

That's not to denigrate or lessen Jones's achievements, but I think you have to put them in perspective.

[Mike_Cirba]

The fact that Sam Snead has not even been mentioned here despite his total number of wins suggests to me that Tiger needs to run the last five miles.

[George Pazin]

Lordy, Mike, Snead is not even in the discussion, and he shouldn't be. Snead was a helluva golfer, helluva guy, but not even remotely close to Tiger's level.

[Mike_Cirba]

George,

Snead also just happens to have won the most professional tournaments of any golfer in history.

My point was only that in the end, it's the Majors that matter.

[George Pazin]

George,

Snead also just happens to have won the most professional tournaments of any golfer in history.

My point was only that in the end, it's the Majors that matter.

Is that really true? Doesn't Player have 150 or some crazy number of total wins?

I'm confused as to how your point was it's the Majors that matter (hey, it's Friday, and we printed about 5,000 t's this week in my nice hot sweatshop, so my brain isn't working so well), but I do agree with that point. The majors are really the best way - in many ways, the only way - to assess quality wins, imho.

[Mike_Cirba]

George,

Good to hear business is ongoing...

My point is only that Tiger's number of total wins won't be a prime factor in determining his historic standing; your mention of Gary Player amplifies the point.

I think Tiger needs to eclipse Jack's total majors wins record and I believe Tiger believes that too.

Ps...Snead is likely just the PGA sanctioned events all-time leader, but I could be wrong. 

[Jason McNamara]

Tiger's competition is deeper -- the courses have been made considerably harder in most instances since Jack's time and while the equipment is on Tiger's side -- I believe he would do as well, if not better, than if their were a rollback in equipment whether the club, ball or both.

Matt, just a couple considerations here.

Deeper competition doesn't mean better, necessarily.  Between them, Palmer, Player, Trevino, and Watson have 30 majors and about 120 other PGA wins.  There's considerable overlap with Billy Casper as well, and he's another 50-event winner, plus Gene Littler's 29 wins and Ray Floyd's 22 and 4.

By comparison, Singh, Mickelson, Els, and Stewart have 3 each for 12 total majors.

So the older generation had more events, and therefore more chances to win.  But that's more weeks you have to psych yourself up for the event.  and they didn't have the luxury of (say) blowing off Kapalua or any event past Labor Day.

Also, and I am not old enough to really appreciate this, but so many 3-footers I see in vintage footage look like a stab and hope, as opposed to today's near-formality.  Surely that disadvantaged the better player 40 years ago, as opposed to the tougher courses you mention, which would benefit the better player.

Obviously comparisons are tough.
I'm still in the "Tiger will pass him sooner rather than later, but not quite yet" camp.


(Edit: removed reference to Jack's schedule.)
(2nd Edit:  Tom, just saw your note.  Yep, I realized that didn't sound right, so I double-checked golfstats and you're right.)

[Tom_Doak]

Jason:

Nicklaus never did play more than 15-20 events a year in the 1970's.  (I wasn't watching in the sixties, so I'm not sure about then.)  Basically he played the same schedule as Tiger does, except he only played the Hope and the Crosby out west.

[Anthony Gray]

  As hard as it is to admit the numbers do not lie. Jack will always be the the number one in the hearts of many just like Arnie, Bobby ones and even young Tom before them. But for the record it is obvious who will go down in history as the greatest. If only they played in the same era. Jack Johnson vs Ali, Marciano vs Tyson only in our dreams.

  Anthony

 

[Sean_A]

A number of media people gathered after Tiger's second round play had concluded and just had to wonder if any real debate is left concerning the standing of Tiger as the game's all-time player.

14 majors in just under 13 years -- 67 tour wins -- keep in mind the following ...

*the percentage of wins versus his total starts -- almost 25% if memory serves

*the fact that he has never lost a major final round lead and very few of them when they are PGA Tour events and others

*the Tiger Slam

*the period from 2000 to 2002 a total of 19 pro wins with six of the 12 majors bagged

I used to be a Jack devotee -- given the sheer number of 1st's, 2nd's and 3rd's in the majors stretching from his first pro win in '62 at Oakmont and 24 years later with the '86 Masters.

Tiger's competition is deeper -- the courses have beenmade considerably harder in most instances since Jack's time and while the equipment is on Tiger's side -- I believe he would do as well, if not better, than if their were a rollback in equipment whether the club, ball or both.

I actually believe if Tiger stepped aside today -- his place at the top would be secure even if he didn't pass Jack's 18 major total. Some don't believe that but Tiger has won each of the majors at least three times -- equalling what Jack did. No doubt he will accumulate more and more wins and with a bit of good play / fortune the record Jack set for total majors will fall.

Curious to hear from any Jack supporters who still view the Golden Bear as being ahead now.

Matt

All your shuffling doesn't amount to anything but a pile of money for Tiger.  When/if Tiger wins two more majors then I reckon he will have earned the best to date title.  I think this is generous since his total count would still be below Jack's (even counting AMs which I do), but I give extra kudos for holding all four major trophies at once.  I reckon Tiger knows he is second right now and probably will think so unless he actually breaks Jack's major record.  All the other tournies don't mean jack in this sort of debate.  And I don't buy the competition argument in the slightest.  I would take Jack's top competitors against Tiger's in a team match any day, anywhere.  

Ciao

[Eric_Terhorst]

If only for for sentimental reasons, I'll suggest that it isn't who they competed against or their wins and losses, or even their major championship totals - it's the great golf shots they are capable of.  The shot Nicklaus hit on the 18th at Baltusrol in 1967 -- 240 yards, uphill, into the wind, with a Macgregor butter knife of a 1 iron that even his fellow touring pros couldn't hit and a Macgregor golf ball that his fellow touring pros WOULDN'T hit...to about 20 feet.  Do all the math to compensate for differing technology etc etc, and, yes, Tiger could hit that shot, and Bobby Jones, and Ben Hogan.  

Peter

Nice job Peter.  Nicklaus also hit a 1-iron into 17 at Pebble in '72 (the 71st hole) that was one of the great tournament shots in history, and all of them could hit that one too I'd guess.  With irons in their hands, it's hard to pick a winner.  

But (if we must pick "the greatest" and maybe we mustn't) he has to win more than Jack's 18 majors first, and then Tiger's clutch chipping (70th hole 2005 Masters + others) and putting (72nd hole 2008 US Open + others) might eventually set him apart.  

[Cliff Hamm]

Jason hits  the nail on the head.  Current field deeper.  The field that Nickalus competed against much, much tougher at the top.  Let's simply look at US open winners of each era.  Woods - Oglivy, Campbell, Glover, Goosen, Furyk, Els. Now the Nicklaus era: Watson, Player, Casper, Trevino, Irwin, Miller.  Just no comparison. 

Golf at the top is the weakest I can recall in 40 years of watching.  Tiger, Phil and who???  I believe Tiger is the best of all time but the competition is simply not what it should be.

[George Pazin]

Jason hits  the nail on the head.  Current field deeper.  The field that Nickalus competed against much, much tougher at the top.  Let's simply look at US open winners of each era.  Woods - Oglivy, Campbell, Glover, Goosen, Furyk, Els. Now the Nicklaus era: Watson, Player, Casper, Trevino, Irwin, Miller.  Just no comparison. 

Golf at the top is the weakest I can recall in 40 years of watching.  Tiger, Phil and who???  I believe Tiger is the best of all time but the competition is simply not what it should be.

It's only much much tougher at the top if you believe Jack was better.

Imho, had Watson, Player, Casper, Trevino, etc, played against Tiger and the many other competitors, their resumes would suffer greatly for it.

[Cliff Hamm]

George... I do believe that Jason listed some stats.  Those at the top against Nicklaus simply won more tournaments - majors and non.  Do you really want to compare Trevino, Watson, Palmer, Player, etc against the current crop? The current field of golfers is talented but those below Tiger/Phil don't seem to be racking up the victories of the Nicklaus generation.  I think this is indisputable.  Again, I do believe that Tiger is the most talented golfer of all time.  I also wish the competition was better at the top.

[Matt_Ward]

Jim S:

Great comment !

However, my feelings on Augusta changes won't be changing anytime soon.

Cliff:

I've heard the argument many times about the top tier guys that Nicklaus played against and what Tiger faces.

Let's examine that shalll we ...

I'll say this again -- check out the percentage of wins versus total starts -- in all events and in majors. There's no one like Tiger in that regard. I salute the names you mentioned -- but in many of their major wins -- save for Trevino and Watson -- was Jack really playing stellar golf during many of the others when they were gaining major wins? The answer is no he wasn't.

Cliff, you say where are the other wins from the others. The answer is simple partner -- Tiger has them -- and whatever else is left goes to Lefty and then to the masses. Tiger is the golf equivalent of the golf vacuum machine.

Eric T:

Help me out with one thing -- have you analyzed or bother to notice the total amount of starts Tiger has made in overall events and in majors and seen his percentages for victories. It's off the charts -- including for Nicklaus. C'mon, here's guy who is winning at a clip of 25% everytime he tees it up - the rest are as far behind as the competition that took on Secretariat in the Belmont in '73.

Sean:

Who said anything about $$ ?

Wake up partner -- smell the coffee because it's been brewing for some time. The issue is continuous winning -- check out the average tour wins per year for someone on tour for just 13 years and with 67 total. Ditto the 14 major count. No one comes close to that kind of dominance and consistency.

Am totals don't count unless you take the view of Dan Jenkins who believes they can only count when you have had at least one professional major thrown into the kitty. Under Jenkins rationale Nicklaus has 20 majors -- most analysts, including Jack himself, view the 18 total as the real final number for him.

Sean, try to get a handle around a few items you either ignored or didn't read thoroughly -- check out Tiger's winning percentage in all events and in the majors at this point. It's off the charts.

One other thing -- you mention Jack's competition -- fair enough because I often took that argument into the discussion. No doubt the likes of Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson, Casper and Miller all are top tier players -- but all of them were not in their peak primes during the long career of Nicklaus. Jack also took his lumps against a few of them -- notably Watson and Miller and even Trevino. In my mind, Tiger would have won just as much -- and trumped them with the same vigor and spread that he does now.

Jason:

The fields are deeper now and have much more talent -- you should read what Lou D posted because it is so true. In Jack's day -- the field was limited to roughly 20-25 players and of that you had only a dozen or so with the wherewithal to handle Jack if he was playing close to his best.

One other thing -- you forgot to remember - Jack had periods of poor golf -- witness the spread between the '67 US Open and the '70 BO. Ditto the late period of the 70's after his BO win in '78 and until his magical turn around at the '80 US Open at Baltusrol and later that summer at Oak Hill in the PGA. Tiger has not had a lull of real length -- only his injury has put him on the shelf.

Let me point out one other thing -- the media circus that Tiger has had to handle since the days of junior golf have only intensified to what you see today with the 24/7 news cycle that is today's world. Much of the time Jack could perform without all the commotion and fanfare that Tiger routinely deals with today. The pressure to always go one step beyond what's been done to date is something Tiger has always matched and then pushed even higher and higher.

I am a big fan of the old timers you mentioned who played against Jack. No doubt they were extremely talented but try to realize what I wrote above to Cliff H on this topics.

One last thing -- the Tiger argument is no different than the Rodger Federer debate. Those who hold back with the designation for Tiger are doing so simply to demonstrate a bit of restraint. I don't see the need because candidly despite the fact that Jack was a clutch putter -- can youi ever recall a clutch putt that Tiger needed to make and that he didn't nail it? I can't.