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

[Matt_Ward]

Jason:

Hold the phone amigo -- my point about Watson & Trevino is that they outplayed Jack when Jack was playing well. At other times when those other big names were winning majors in many of those instances Jack was nothing more than a competitive bystander who may have finished welll but was never really seriously contending with a legitimate shot to win.

My response to your comment -- was that you would have me and others believe that if not for Watson & Trevino then Jack would have another eight ( majors to tag onto his impressive credentials. I responded by saying you can't simply change a variable to suit your cause and forget the fact that Jack had a ton of situations whereby he won because of a good break or through the failure of those contending to maintain their position through to the end. Just check out how Seve barfed away the '86 Masters title and provided Jack with the needed cushion to grab his 6th coat. If Seve hits the green and two putts for birdie there's likely no final green jacket for the Bear.

No doubt Tiger has had his breaks -- but let's not forget all the key putts that Tiger has made -- I would like anyone to point out a significant putt that Tiger has ever missed. You mention the luck bounce against Bob May on #18 at the PGA a few years back -- how bout Tiger draining that very crucial seven footer to tie May after May had sunk his putt at the final hole to end regulation play. I don't doubt that Jack was clutch -- but you see to shy away from the key stat that I keep on mentioning -- the overall winning percentage for Tiger in major and non-majors is other worldly. In addition, Tiger has achieved nearly all of Jack's win total in half the time -- ditto on the major front he's right on the doorstep as well.

Jason, there's nothing "weak" about my argument -- Tiger's overall totals also need to be factored against the sheer depth of top tier players playing the game world wide. When Jack played the international level of world class players was far, far less. Gary Player was the biggest serious competitor for much of Jack's prime playing days.

You also need to factor the intense media pressure that follows Tiger's every move. The glare is noticeably much deeper with Tiger than Jack ever experienced. Despite all this media 24/7 attention -- Tiger has risen above it all.

Let's talk about the competitors aspect -- no doubt there are some tremendous names who competed against Jack. My argument is one that says Tiger is so good against what he faces that whatever is left over for the others to win is considerably smaller than what Jack provided to those he fared against. In sum, Tiger is the consumate winning machine -- like a vacuum cleaner who leaves nothing behind for anyone else.

At the end of the day -- you are right -- we agree to disagree. But I fully expect the juggernaut that is Tiger to continue and will do what you concluded with -- "will be best ever."

[Carl Rogers]

The REAL debate is how there can be even be a debate with all the multitiude of changes that the game has and is and will continue to have.

I do not understand this thread.

[RSLivingston_III]

So, did this go around bring an new insights to this debate?
To the guys that know how to do the searches, how many times has this come up?

[Phil McDade]

Ralph:

Several times...but I'll add a few thoughts as long as the thread remains on the first page.

Matt:

As one of Jack's defenders, I'm about ready to concede Tiger's superiority. As for your primary argument --that if Tiger quit today, he'd be considered Jack's superior -- I'm not quite there yet. His equal, yes; better -- not quite.

For alot of (good) reasons, accomplishments in major tournaments in individual sports is the primary measuring stick of greatness. As you and I have debated before, I'd argue that Norman doesn't hold up in comparison to Faldo (or Seve) because of his record in majors. Faldo had six, Seve five, and Norman only two, while contending (with winning a real possibility) in perhaps a dozen more. Seriously contending in majors IS a worthy stat, I'd argue (a clear edge that Jack has over Tiger so far), but you also have to close the deal. Faldo and Seve did, and Norman did not.

Comparing great athletes from different eras is a legitimate topic of debate; sports fans have been doing it as long as there has been competition. Federer vs. Sampras, Borg, or Laver, Owens vs. Lewis or Johnson, Ali vs. Louis -- all good and worthy debates.

As for golf, I think the debate about technology, course conditions, media pressure, and whatnot are all red herrings -- each era presents its unique set of circumstances under which great players emerge. Jack was the best of his era, Tiger his, and each faced unique pressures under which they succeeded far better than their peers.

Specific arguments for Tiger:

-- Tiger's overall winning percentage in all tournaments is clearly an edge he has over Jack.

-- Tiger holds the record-low score in each of the four majors. In my book, that's an even greater edge over Jack than his overall winning percentage. As good as Jack's '65 win was at Augusta (-17, win by nine strokes), Tiger in '97 was better (-18, 12 strokes). Jack's very solid US Opens win at Pebble and Baltusrol ('80) were trumped by Tiger's '00 win at Pebble (-12, win by 15, the single best performance by any golfer anywhere). Tiger also won four majors in a row, something Jack never did (and never really came close).

-- Tiger's never lost a major he's led going into the final round. That's an impressive feat -- sustained greatness under great pressure.

Specific arguments against Tiger:

-- He's not there yet, as far as majors. He's at 14, compared to 18 for Jack, and although I think Tiger will get at least five more, he hasn't yet. He's got a lot of courses coming up where he's won or done well (Pebble, TOC at least twice, Pinehurst, Hazeltine, plus Augusta), so I'd argue the odds are in his favor. But winning a major is hard, and as the US Open at BBlack showed, sometimes circumstances don't go Tiger's way.

-- His competition wasn't as great as Jack's. An argument with no end, but I'll continue to argue that the top tier of players that Jack faced during his major-winning years was better than what Tiger has faced -- so far. Els (2), O'Meara (2 in one great six-month stretch), Goosen (2), Cabrera (2) Singh (3), and Mickelson (3) have won multiple majors since Tiger's '97 win at Augusta. Player (7 majors post-Oakmont '62), Trevino (6), Watson (at least 4, maybe as many as 8, depending on how long you define Jack's major-winning career), Palmer (2), Casper (2), Floyd (at least 2, maybe all 4), Seve (2, maybe 3 or even 4), Boros (2), Irwin (2), Jacklin (2), Miller (2), Stockton (2) -- all won multiple majors during Jack's prime, or twice as many as Tiger's peer group. That number may increase to 12 by the time Tiger is done winning majors -- Olgivy, Curtis, Furyk and Johnson have the games to win another major certainly (Harrington's a big asterisk to me, because two of his three majors came with Tiger on the DL). Certainly Player, Trevino and Watson -- as the very top-tier players competing against Jack -- had much better records in majors than anyone Tiger has faced, so far. And I doubt that Els, Singh and Mickelson will catch any of those three -- all are at an age where major wins are rare, rather than a real possibility.

-- He could stop winning majors. It happened to Watson, who had eight when he was 33, and then stopped winning in his prime when he stopped making putts. Tiger's 33, with two kids. He attributed his loss at BBlack exclusively to putting, and admitted to Michael Wilbon in a recent PTI interview that he finds it harder to put in as much time at golf with the growing demands of his family. He probably won't, but we have to at least consider the possibility that he might stop winning majors.

-- Tiger has never come from behind to win a major. If Tiger's record in winning majors while in the lead going into the last round is a factor on his side, not winning while behind has to be a detriment. He's had his chances, but never done it. Jack did it multiple times -- Oakmont in '62, notably (two behind entering the last round), '63 PGA, '66 BOpen, '67 US Open, '70 BOpen, '75 Masters, '86 Masters. Jack never once lost a major in which he held the third-round lead alone (he twice finished 2nd when tied for the 3rd round lead -- '71 Masters tied w/ Coody, lost by two; famously at Turnberry in '77, when his closing 65-66 was trumped by Watson's 65-65, and Jack at 2nd finished 10 strokes clear of 3rd).

In the end, I'd argue the difference between Tiger and Jack is paper-thin -- a tie, really. Tiger has at least six, perhaps as many as 10 or 12, solid years to catch and exceed Jack. I think he'll do it, because he's shown himself to be the most determined athlete of his generation, perhaps ever. In my book, he's the equal of Jack right now -- but not yet better.

[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

Let me review each of your points ...

If you are going to give the Bear some points for contending in majors and the edge over Tiger at this point -- then you need to rethink your same point as it applies to the Shark. You have forgotten the length of time Norman was #1 -- a streak that stood till Tiger topped it. Unfortunatelty, people sometimes have narrow laser beam attention to the majors alone -- I think they are the dominant ingredient but one needs to factor in all other elements as well. The Shark was the more consistent player when held against the likes of Faldo and Seve.

Phil, media attention and being able to deal with the goldfish bowl is no "red herring." We live in a nonstop 24/7 world and Tiger has had to deal with so much more than Nicklaus ever had to handle. Tiger brought golf into a broader wide audience and the attention he generates -- which means unbelievable pressure to perform -- and has done so above and beyond anyone's imagination.

Phil, I concur with you on record for scoring in majors -- but I still believe his overall winning percentage is off the charts because the events Tiger plays are usually the toughest in terms of pure fields and usually the facilities too. Tiger doesn't bag wins in second tier events -- his win total is dominated by key sites against top shelf fields.

Phil, you fall into the trap of the so-called better players from Jack's days. Try to keep this in mind Tiger has played roughly half the time on tour that Jack did in comparable terms and has almost equalled hin in total wins. When Tiger plays the reality is that he has so dominated the overall wins available so that even less are there for others to claim. Look at the wins Tiger has achieved -- there are very few second tier events on his plate -- Jack had a number of them -- especially early on when he became a pro.

In regards to your argument that Tiger might stop winning -- majors or other tournaments -- well, that's a stretch don't you think. Sure, anything is possible -- but the record thus far shows a machine like player who is knocking aside all the record doors and putting his own name on such new marks.

One red herring argument is the "come from behind" excuse wrapped around Tiger. Flip that around OK -- Tiger has NEVER lost a major when leading or tied for the lead going into the final round. Tiger has made it a point to use the early rounds to establish his dominance -- and the field knows that should he get to the lead with 36 holes left to go -- it's likely he will be there in the end. That's a major psychological hurdle to handle when competing against him.

Keep this in mind - Tiger has the lowest (to par) total for a major ... -19 at The Open at TOC. He also won by 15 strokes -- count'em, 15 strokes at the US Open. Jack never so dominated an event -- the closest major I can remember if memory serves is when Jack won in '65 at Augusta with his 271 four-round total.

Phil, just realize this -- you mention the other players of Jack's era. Many of them won majors when Jack was not really in the heat of battle to contend. Oh, Jack may have finished in the top ten or even top five -- but not really a factor in determining who would win. The main two competitors for Jack when he was playing well and still got beat at critical times were Trevino and Watson. Palmer was past his prime shortly after the Oakmont loss (only two more majors after Oakmont in '62) and Player was a sporadic factor -- save for the most important item you missed -- international golf and the stars from it were especially limited for much of Jack's career -- only towards the very end of Jack's career did the foreign influence really begin to shine. Tiger has had to handle all comers from all lands since the time he has arrived.

Also to repeat what's been mentioned by Tony ... "Has played in 46 Majors as a pro with 31 top-10s and 23 top-3s. So, he's in the top-3 in half of the Majors he's played as a pro. Not bad, I guess."

You also have the Tiger Slam -- something you acknowledge that Jack was never able to do -- the closes coming in '72 and in the '75 seasons.

No doubt Jack deserves all the applause he gets -- but Tiger is THAT dominant -- it's not the players who compete against him who are inferior or less so -- but it's the sustained and dogged nature within Tiger that sets him apart from all others -- including the Bear IMHO.

Thanks for your detailed comments ...

[Bob_Huntley]

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.

Mike,

Not true, both Player and de Vicenzo won more "professional'  titles than Snead.


Bob

[Bob_Huntley]

Matt,

Back in 1960, two members of the Nchanga G.C. in Northern Rhodesia were half of the Rhodesian contingent to play in the World Amateur at Merion. When they returned to home they both said they had seen the geatest golfer ever and he was just twenty years old. His name?  Jack Nicklaus.

Jack himself said much later that it was the best golf he had played in a long career. However, the largest winning margin in a PGA event was something like fourteen strokes by Bobby Locke back in 1947. When you think that Tiger was fifteen shots in front of second place Ernie Els in the 2000 US Open at Pebble Beach, Jack was never that dominant, then one wonders how there can be any doubt that Tiger Woods is simply the best ever. 


http://merion.memberstatements.com/tour/tours.cfm?tourid=16093


Bob

[mike_malone]

 The putt on #16 says it all for me. He continues to do things that are outstanding over and over again.

[archie_struthers]

 


Pretty hard to argue with the greatness of Eldrick Woods ,

 yet it continues ...... which means there might be more tohtis than meets the eye   ... I'd like to think if the two of them ever played at their peak it would be one of the great match-ups of all time .....and the final result might be closer than most think....

It's such an interesting debate because both are such fabulous clutch players,.....just as with Tiger, can you ever remember Nicklaus missing a putt that mattered late in the day....come to think of it,  did he ever three putt   

Trevino , who I contend is much better than anyone Tiger beats , as was Watson ,  has a famous line about Jack.... " he's better than us.....he knows he's better than us .....and he know's we know he's better than us "   pretty telling

I do believe tha easy money of today's tour has made the competition softer at the very top of the heap.... it's pretty hard to argue
my previous statement about Trevino and Watson  ...not to mention al the other great players that  Nicklaus put away , one gunslinger at a time 

If indeed the courses are harder than in Jack's day , it would bolster the NIcklaus camp argument , as the harder the venue the more he would have had an edge on the field....as Woods does ?

The counterbalance to that is the equipment argument....strongly favoring Woods achievements .....no doubt if he was swinging less forgiving clubs his talent would shine thru even more  ....

Don't sell Jack Nicklaus short.....his concentration was otherwordly (like Tiger's)  He hit it further than Tiger relative to the competition, he was freaky long  , his short game wasn't as great as  "the kid"  but he almost never hit it in trouble ....he is arguably the greatest long driver ever .....he hit it in play all the time ...

this is an argument that remains unfinished in my mind ......despite the fabulous accomplishments of Tiger....I just can't pick a winner in this one .....yet !
 

[Matt_Ward]

Archie:

In rewinding the tapes of missed putts ... Jack missed a six-foot putt at the 71st hole against Watson -- at of all places Turnberry !

Needed that putt to keep them tied.

No doubt Jack's ability to not three-putt is something to ponder. What many people don't realize is that the Bear had only one three-putt in 90 holes of golf at Oakmont when he best Palmer. That difference on the greens between what Jack did and Arnie failed to do was the key separation between the two.

Archie, you make a point about Jack's driving ability -- arguably the greatest combo of length and accuracy ever. However, Tiger excels in the short game area -- including putting. Just check out yesterday's performance with a tied situation and having seven holes to play. Tiger did what many could not -- play against a posted score and come out ahead.

Tiger has won more tournaments against stellar fields in such a compressed time frame. Truly remarkable and while Jack deserves all the praise for what he achieved -- Tiger always pushes the envelope more and more.

Yesterday's final seven holes from Tiger were simply textbook golf.

As Faldo said so correctly -- a clinic if there was ever one. Anthony Kim will long remember the upfront and personal lesson he received yesterday from The Man.

[JSlonis]

The putt on #16 says it all for me. He continues to do things that are outstanding over and over again.

You are spot on.  Dranied it after being distracted and backing off.  Instead of expecting a bogey along the way like I would from everyone else, I fully expected Tiger to find a birdie somewhere and win by a shot...he delivered again.  The approach shot he hit into #18 was so good it's scary.  That approach shot is really tough anytime, but with a one shot lead on the 72nd hole, I just can't imagine, and he just pured it exactly where he had to hit it.

You have to think that if Jack had a short game like Tiger's, there would have been a lot more than 18 majors on his resume.

Tiger's winning percentage and closing percentage is incredible.  

I've always thought about the jack Tiger debate in two ways.  One...Were the top players Jack faced better at his time and therefore contributed to his many 2nd place finishes?  Or, Two...Is Tiger just that much better, that when he's on his game, he just doesn't even let anyone beat him regardless of how good they are playing?

[JohnV]

Attempting to compare apples to apples in the majors, I took the first 12.5 years of each player's careers.

1962 through the US Open in 1974, number of majors:  Nicklaus - 12, Player - 5, Trevino - 4, Palmer - 3, Boros -2, Casper -2, Jacklin -2

1997 through the US Open in 2009, number of majors: Woods - 14, Singh - 3, Mickelson - 3, Harrington - 3, Els - 2, Goosen - 2, O'Meara - 2, Cabrera -2

While Player and Trevino are ahead of Singh and Mickelson, there is one more player with multiple majors in the Woods era than the Nicklaus era so far.

By the end of 1974, Player and Trevino each will have one more.

Everyone keeps comparing the competition and including the likes of Watson.  Watson didn't even win his first one until 1975 and doesn't make the multiple win list until 1977.  Who knows, maybe Kim or McIlroy or some other hotshot young gun will suddenly starting winning them like Watson did.  Others like Floyd and Miller only have one major at the this point.  Then there are guys like Furyk and Ogilvy who have one each and could get into the multiple winners at any time.

So, other than Player and Trevino who can be said to have had more success against Jack at the comparable point in their careers?

[JSlonis]

Here is the one stat I find astounding with Tiger...142 Consecutive Cuts Made.  Just think of the everyday difficulties of playing golf, let alone golf at the very highest level and Tiger made every single cut for over 6 years.  In this current era there hasn't been one player anywhere close.

This is the list of top cuts made consecutively:

142 - Tiger Woods

First in streak: Buick Invitational, February 5-8, 1998
Last in streak: Wachovia Championship, May 8, 2005
Streak ended: Missed the cut at 2005 EDS Byron Nelson Championship

113 - Byron Nelson

First in streak: Bing Crosby National Pro-Am, January 26, 1941
Last in streak: Colonial National Invitation, May 27-30, 1948
Streak ended: Withdrew after two rounds of 1949 Bing Crosby National Pro-Am

105 - Jack Nicklaus

First in streak: Sahara Open, October 29-November 1, 1970
Last in streak: World Series of Golf, September 2-5, 1976
Streak ended: Missed the cut at 1976 World Open

86 - Hale Irwin

First in streak: Bing Crosby National Pro-Am, January 23-26, 1975
Last in streak: End of 1978 season
Streak ended: Missed the cut in first start of 1979 season at Bing Crosby National Pro-Am

72 - Dow Finsterwald

First in streak: Carling Golf Classic, September 22-25, 1955
Last in streak: Houston Invitational, February 21-24, 1958
Streak ended: Missed the cut at 1958 Baton Rouge Open Invitational

[JSlonis]

You have to think that if Jack had a short game like Tiger's, there would have been a lot more than 18 majors on his resume.

This works both ways:  if Tiger had a short game like Jack's, he'd have about 4 majors on his resume, not 14. 

I have to say this:  I'm starting to see cracks in Tiger's short game that didn't used to be there.  Given how much he relies on that to make up for his wayward driving sometimes, it'll be interesting to see how he finishes his career.  Watson looked other-worldly until he started missing 6-footers.  If Tiger can't get up and down the way he has for the first 12 years of his career, well....things get interesting....

I didn't see any cracks yesterday down the stretch.  5 footer for bogey on #11, Sand save on #12, Chip and a 6 footer drained on #13 and then solid play to the final tap in.

I suppose, but if you are looking at the weaker parts of their games and comparing them, you could also say that if Jack drove the ball like Tiger he'd have a lot less victories as well.

I was looking at it from the perspective of improving upon each others game.  I'm a huge Jack fan, but what I've seen out of Tiger is truly astounding.  It's remarkable that he wins nearly every single time when he has a lead or is tied going into Sunday. i think i heard the stat this morning, 46 out of 49 tournaments.

[mike_malone]

 Jamie,

    I find his scoring average to be a key to his success. I just looked and now he is almost one stroke better than the number two guy. So, over four rounds that is a huge advantage. The #37 guy on the list is 2 STROKES HIGHER. Obviously, that means 8 strokes during the 4 rounds. This means that Tiger's lows are near others highs on a consistent basis.  He is only competing against a few guys each week. The field exists only to allow different people to be among that few each week.

   Maybe Tiger also knows that the style of play that leads to a 62 in one round leads to the inability to replicate that level of play.

[Phil McDade]

John:

"Other than Player and Trevino" is a pretty big exception; Player is T-4 all-time in majors won, while only 11 players won more majors than Trevino's six (one of those, Vardon, in one tournament exclusively with 7 BOpen titles). And Harrington's 3 has to come with some acknowledgement that he wasn't playing against Tiger in two of those.

As for Watson, he won all 8 of his majors between 1975-1983 (BOpens both). During the same time period, Nicklaus won four majors, finished runner-up in a major six times (seven if you count his 2nd-place at the '83 PGA), finished third in a major three times, and had 10 other top-10 finishes in majors. Only a small handful of players in their entire careers have been as successful in majors as Jack was during that time period.

I think it's fair to argue Tiger could have a comparable record in majors to Jack between the ages of 35-43. Do you see any player currently playing who will match Watson's major championship record during the same time period? I don't -- especially from the guys (Mickelson, Singh, Els) who have a head-start on it.

[Dale Jackson]

Herbert Warren Wind wrote an article many years ago that asked who was the best ever.  He concluded that Harry Vardon, Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan, Jack Nicklaus were clearly the best of their time but with the changes in equipment, conditioning and coaching that it was not possible to say there was a best ever.  Clearly, if writing today he would add Tiger to that list.  And that if you took any of those players and put them in another era they would still dominate because they would adapt to the conditions of the day.  It was their physical and mental talent and will to win that led them to dominate.  I believe that is true. 

What is at the heart of this discussion is this - will Tiger win so many majors, so many other tournaments, continue to dominate other statistical categories that we will be forced to say he is the best ever.  If he stays on his current pace for another 8 years he will.  Roughly, he will have around 22 majors and over 100 tour wins. 

A factor that may play out going forward is the marked improvement in driving accuracy Tiger has shown in the last few months.  The frequent wayward drives of the past few years are gone and he seems to have found the missing ingredient to repetitive accuracy.  If his rebuilt knee is responsible for allowing that accuracy, watch out!

A couple of years ago someone put the Jack/Tiger debate this way.  Tiger is the best golfer ever.  Jack has the best record.  Pretty good summary.

I have lost track of who questioned Bobby Jones' status as one of the best ever but I hope that was a bad attempt at humour.

[Phil McDade]

Dale:

Tiger's driving accuracy has no doubt improved.

But ask Watson if he'd rather have improved driving accuracy or maintained his wonderful putting stroke when he approached his mid-30s. Putting is what separates the truly great players from the merely good (and occasionally great). Diminished putting is often what turns otherwise great players into ones (Palmer, Hogan, Watson) who don't win majors anymore.

I'm surprised everyone's getting caught up with Tiger's putting in a run-of-the-mill tour stop, and seemingly giving him a pass for his poor display of putting under major championship pressure at the recently concluded US Open at BBlack.

[JohnV]

John:

"Other than Player and Trevino" is a pretty big exception; Player is T-4 all-time in majors won, while only 11 players won more majors than Trevino's six (one of those, Vardon, in one tournament exclusively with 7 BOpen titles). And Harrington's 3 has to come with some acknowledgement that he wasn't playing against Tiger in two of those.

As for Watson, he won all 8 of his majors between 1975-1983 (BOpens both). During the same time period, Nicklaus won four majors, finished runner-up in a major six times (seven if you count his 2nd-place at the '83 PGA), finished third in a major three times, and had 10 other top-10 finishes in majors. Only a small handful of players in their entire careers have been as successful in majors as Jack was during that time period.

I think it's fair to argue Tiger could have a comparable record in majors to Jack between the ages of 35-43. Do you see any player currently playing who will match Watson's major championship record during the same time period? I don't -- especially from the guys (Mickelson, Singh, Els) who have a head-start on it.

Phil, I agree that is a big exception. The reason I said it is that everyone keeps talking about all these players with great major records that Nicklaus was beating as if he was beating all of them throughout the 25 years he won majors.  The only two who really covered most of that span are Player and Trevino.  Others came and went over time.  I have no idea if any player will match Watson's record.  In 1974, Watson was primarily looked at as someone who choked away the 1974 US Open at Winged Foot.  I'm sure we could come up with a number of candidates who match that record at this time.

If we exclude Harrington's last 2 wins just because he wasn't playing against Tiger, then you are assuming that Tiger would have won them, which makes Tiger's case stronger for best player ever.

[Phil McDade]

John:

My argument about Watson vs. Jack, I'd suggest, complements my central belief that Jack played against much tougher competition than Tiger while in his prime. And it's hard to argue, given the stats I cited, that Jack wasn't in his prime between the ages of 35-43. Maybe not the white-hot period of mid-1970 through 1973, but awfully good.

Yes, lots of very good players came and went, and won majors, during Jack's major-winning career. Tiger has faced fewer, very good players, during his major-winning career, and I'm highly skeptical someone among the current crop will emerge to win multiple majors during the rest of Tiger's career.

I don't know how one can make the argument that Harrington is roughly the equivalent of, say, Seve or Floyd, when those players won multiple majors in which Jack competed and Harrington won two of his in majors in which Tiger did not.



 

[Matt_Ward]

JSlonis:

Just a bit of a adjustment and perspective needs to be made / re: Tiger and consecutive cuts made -- a number of those events had no cut and were included in his overall streak.

I'm still in Tiger's camp mind you -- but a bit more info needed to be included in the cut argument you made.

[David Stamm]

I think Mary, Queen of Scots, is the greatest ever. To be able to tee it up a week after her husbands death shows that she had the mind and heart of the ultimate champion.....

[Brent Hutto]

Imagine for a moment there were 40 players, each 99% as good as Tiger, playing right now. Then logically you would expect none of them to have won more than one or two majors. Too much competition.

Now imagine for a moment there were zero players even 50% as good as Tiger. Then logically you would expect none of them to have won more than one or two majors. None of them were good enough.

Finally imagine somewhere in between those two extremes. Reality falls somewhere in there but we don't know where. You can't really evaluate the overall talent level by looking at the concentration of major championships in a small number of non-Tiger hands over the course of Tiger's career. It doesn't parse.

Tiger has beaten the best players in the world in the most important championships in the world fewer times than Nicklaus beat the best players in his world in the most important championships in that world. There is no Satchel Paige argument to bring to bear so there is no way to evaluate the question other than "Who Won The Most Majors". Which by the way is the metric Jack himself insisted on and the metric Tiger himself insists upon.

[Dan Boerger]

Brent - Do you know if Jack referring to both Professional and Amateur majors? -Dan

[Wayne_Kozun]

I have to say this:  I'm starting to see cracks in Tiger's short game that didn't used to be there.  Given how much he relies on that to make up for his wayward driving sometimes, it'll be interesting to see how he finishes his career. 

But this season Tiger's driving hasn't been wayward.  He is now 73rd in Driving Accuracy, up from 152nd in 2007, 139th in 2006 , and 188th in 2005.  You used to hear comments like - "If he gets his driving accuracy up he will run away with every tournament" which hasn't happened this year, perhaps due to his short game not being quite up to the level that it was a couple of years ago.