Jack is now catching up with Tiger

[Matt_Ward]

Dan:

The undercurrent to all this ying and yang back and forth BS is that certain people don't like Tiger -- end of story.

The naysayers have always been there -- no matter when he won three straight US Juniors, three straight US Ams, the first blowout major at the '97 Masters, the wipeout during the win at PB in the US Open, the 70+ PGA tour victories.

Tiger has set a benchmark that even Jack was not able to do.

The divorce and all the related drama shows the guy to be human -- he erred and he paid a heavy price.

I concur with Tiger B -- go through a divorce and see how fast you can rationally become involved again with daily life -- let alone do so on the biggest of stages with media lights shining so brightly.

Tiger has always proven his detractors wrong -- the real issue is that many critics simply don't like him for personal reasons.

[John Kavanaugh]

The divorce and all the related drama shows the guy to be human -- he erred and he paid a heavy price.

Was there ever a Greek tragedy where a God discovered he was human and lost his powers?  How did that work out..perhaps a dead cat bounce at best.

[Phil McDade]

But the thread is about major wins, and there are none in that list, nor on the same list for 2010, so that is 8 more chances to reach Jack's total gone.

Oh yeah, Yang pulled 2 rediculous shots out of his shorts to beat Tiger at the PGA.  Yes he missed 8 chances.  Lets see, he's won 14 majors out of roughly 55 chances.  He's got 64 more majors between now and the age of 50 and you honestly don't think he can win 5 more? He's won better than 1 out of 4 majors he's ever played in as a pro and now suddenly he's going to plunge to less than 1 in 12?  Does he look like David Duval, Johnny Miller or Ian Baker Finch to you?

Jud:

No -- to me, Tiger looks like Tom Watson.

Watson was at the peak of his game -- having won a US Open, a Masters, and three British Opens -- in the course of four seasons ('80-'83) when he suddenly stopped winning majors. Seve pipped him at St. Andrews in '84, and Watson never won another major. He was not quite 34, and had fewer physical ailments/problems than Tiger did at a similar age.

Watson stopped winning majors mainly because he stopped making putts. He challenged several more times in majors after his last win in 1983, but putting for the most part did him in.

Tiger is showing an eerie parallel to Watson's career -- greatness that goes dormant.

[Jud_T]

Phil,

Who knows, you may end up being right.  One tip-don't bet against him....

[Terry Lavin]

BTW, guys, as far major wins as a pro goes, they're tied.  Jack had 14 major wins in his first 14 years as a pro.  So does Tiger.  Tiger went pro earlier than Jack, but in terms of wins/opportunity, it's dead tied.  

And does anybody here believe that Tiger less physical and mental wear and tear on him than Jack had at this point in their respective careers?  Personally, I think the odds of him just flat-out retiring in a year or two are better than him winning another 4 majors.

The first part of your analysis is credible; the last sentence is nonsense.  One hopes that you're not a gambling man, because that sounds like a losing proposition if ever I heard one.  Call Tiger what you will, the word quitter would not be appropriate.

[Terry Lavin]

Neither was MJ.

As to Tiger, I'd take him in The Dead Pool if I knew of any...I could see him completely losing it faster than you can say "OJ".

MJ's father was shot in the head.

The second statement is even more reckless than the first.

[Terry Lavin]

Yeah, his father was killed, and MJ decided he wanted to play baseball.  Tiger's whole life fell apart, so how big a stretch is it to believe he might just say "screw this" and go do something else?

As to the second sentence, Tiger has the prerequisite colossal ego necessary to die young.  Do you deny the size of his ego?

Do I deny the size of his ego?

Do you ever admit to being wrong?  Do you ever admit to making arguments just for the sake of making arguments even if they're devoid of anything other than personal fantasy?  Do you ever just "move on"?

[George Pazin]

No -- to me, Tiger looks like Tom Watson.

Watson was at the peak of his game -- having won a US Open, a Masters, and three British Opens -- in the course of four seasons ('80-'83) when he suddenly stopped winning majors. Seve pipped him at St. Andrews in '84, and Watson never won another major. He was not quite 34, and had fewer physical ailments/problems than Tiger did at a similar age.

Watson stopped winning majors mainly because he stopped making putts. He challenged several more times in majors after his last win in 1983, but putting for the most part did him in.

Tiger is showing an eerie parallel to Watson's career -- greatness that goes dormant.

I love Tom Watson - always have - but there is no way you can compare Tiger to him. Sorry, but Watson's career is nowhere close. He has a small fraction of the number of total wins, he's not remotely in the same ballpark with majors, his best seasons are closer to Tiger's average seasons.

Tiger has completely warped all standards, and people forget that. Few if anyone thought we'd ever have another dominant player. When Tiger first burst onto the season, my best friend (we'll call him friend J) had two standing bets with another friend (call him friend E): 1) J had the under and E had the over with wins per season, the line set at 3 1/2 and 2) Tiger finishing in the top 5 on the money list; the stakes of each bet were a dinner at the NYC restaurant of the winner's choice. J explained to me that nowadays, no one consistently wins more than 3 events a year, and no one consistently finishes in the top 5 on the money list.

They ended up calling off the bet after 3 or 4 years, it was apparent that it wasn't a remotely fair wager.

I will gladly accept the wager that Tiger retires in the next year or two - heck, I'll give it 5 years - before winning 4 more majors. We can set the terms lightly - a case of Dos Equis for the world's most interesting man, a case of Guinness for yours truly.

MJ won 3 more titles after coming back from his baseball diversion, btw.

[Terry Lavin]

Well, that's enough auditing sophistry for me today.  Online, anyway, it's back to the cases up for oral argument tomorrow!

Cheers!

[Phil McDade]

George:

My argument isn't that Watson had a career equal to Tiger's; no one would really suggest that.

My argument is that Watson was, from 1977-1983 (a sustained time, not some short stretch like Duval or Price), the best golfer on the planet (better even than Jack), had no physical ailments, and appeared to still have the drive to win majors. But he didn't, quite suddenly, and I'd argue it was mainly because he couldn't make putts when he absolutely had to, in majors.

Tiger will still win golf tournaments, and I'd even suggest he's likely to win more majors (particularly at Augusta). But, whether he catches and surpasses Jack -- the relevant question here -- is open for debate. I have my doubts.

[Terry Lavin]

Well, that's enough auditing sophistry for me today.  
Cheers!

Well if that ain't black calling the kettle pot... 

Was it Twain, Confuscious or Maslow who said that if someone is good with a hammer, all he sees is nails?

Can't remember, but it's a good one.  I heard a good one out of the Rahm Emanuel hearing yesterday: The man was smiling like a butcher's dog.

[George Pazin]

George:

My argument isn't that Watson had a career equal to Tiger's; no one would really suggest that.

My argument is that Watson was, from 1977-1983 (a sustained time, not some short stretch like Duval or Price), the best golfer on the planet (better even than Jack), had no physical ailments, and appeared to still have the drive to win majors. But he didn't, quite suddenly, and I'd argue it was mainly because he couldn't make putts when he absolutely had to, in majors.

Tiger will still win golf tournaments, and I'd even suggest he's likely to win more majors (particularly at Augusta). But, whether he catches and surpasses Jack -- the relevant question here -- is open for debate. I have my doubts.

Sure it's open for debate, and sure even a firm supporter like me has doubts - but I just don't think the comparison to Watson is meaningful. Tiger has won in far different fashion than Tom, and in a far more convincing manner, at least to me.

[Jon Wiggett]

Well, that's enough auditing sophistry for me today.  
Cheers!

Well if that ain't black calling the kettle pot... 

Was it Twain, Confuscious or Maslow who said that if someone is good with a hammer, all he sees is nails?

Can't remember, but it's a good one.  I heard a good one out of the Rahm Emanuel hearing yesterday: The man was smiling like a butcher's dog.

Terry,

I thought it was 'fit as a butcher's dog' and 'smiling or grinning like a cheshire cat'

Jon

[Phil McDade]

George:

My argument isn't that Watson had a career equal to Tiger's; no one would really suggest that.

My argument is that Watson was, from 1977-1983 (a sustained time, not some short stretch like Duval or Price), the best golfer on the planet (better even than Jack), had no physical ailments, and appeared to still have the drive to win majors. But he didn't, quite suddenly, and I'd argue it was mainly because he couldn't make putts when he absolutely had to, in majors.

Tiger will still win golf tournaments, and I'd even suggest he's likely to win more majors (particularly at Augusta). But, whether he catches and surpasses Jack -- the relevant question here -- is open for debate. I have my doubts.

Sure it's open for debate, and sure even a firm supporter like me has doubts - but I just don't think the comparison to Watson is meaningful. Tiger has won in far different fashion than Tom, and in a far more convincing manner, at least to me.

George:

Tiger's Secretariet-like wins in some of his majors doesn't necessarily lead one to conclude he is certain to break Jack's record.

Watson won a lot of majors in a relatively short period of time -- 8 from '75-'83, with nearly all of those in the seven years from '77-'83, and five of those in a span of five years. Not Tiger or Jack, but you'd be hard-pressed to find another player in the modern record who won so often in majors in such a short amount of time.

Then he stopped winning majors, at a relatively young age (34).

Tiger's had two similar streaks -- '99 through '02 (seven majors), and '05 through '08 US Open (six majors).

Since he turned 34, and had major knee surgery, he's stopped winning majors.

[Jud_T]

I will bet anyone who wants to that Tiger will win a major in 2011, in pretty much whatever size you want...

[George Pazin]

Since he turned 34, and had major knee surgery, he's stopped winning majors.

I'd call it more of a pause than a stop.

[archie_struthers]

 

Jud I'll bet you a vintage Ping Putter , losers choice but has to be a nice one !

[Peter Pallotta]

Tiger will surpass Jack's record, and he should - he is the better golfer.  But what Tiger won't do is win majors in 4 different decades...and as I get older that particular accomplishment of Jack's seems ever more amazing to me.

Peter

[Sean Leary]

Tiger will surpass Jack's record, and he should - he is the better golfer.  But what Tiger won't do is win majors in 4 different decades...and as I get older that particular accomplishment of Jack's seems ever more amazing to me.

Peter

Peter,

Are you counting US Am's or Senior Majors? 

[Martin Toal]

But the thread is about major wins, and there are none in that list, nor on the same list for 2010, so that is 8 more chances to reach Jack's total gone.

Oh yeah, Yang pulled 2 rediculous shots out of his shorts to beat Tiger at the PGA.  Yes he missed 8 chances.  Lets see, he's won 14 majors out of roughly 55 chances.  He's got 64 more majors between now and the age of 50 and you honestly don't think he can win 5 more? He's won better than 1 out of 4 majors he's ever played in as a pro and now suddenly he's going to plunge to less than 1 in 12?  Does he look like David Duval, Johnny Miller or Ian Baker Finch to you?

It doesn't matter who hit what shot to beat him on any given occasion. You can't dismiss one of Tiger's losses because of a remarkable shot or two against him without at the same dismissing major wins when he makes a remarkable shot or two? All that matters is that he did not win.

There is an effect in statistics in which all statistically extreme outcomes rates start to revert to less extreme rates. Tiger's winning rate may be doing the same. His margins of victory, another extreme statistic, has already reverted to more normal margins.

He doesn't look like IBF, Duval or Miller to me, but he might look a bit more like Seve in 1988 at Lytham. 

Anyway, by 50, wasn't he planning to be a Republican Senator for California?

[Jud_T]

Jud I'll bet you a vintage Ping Putter , losers choice but has to be a nice one !

Archie,

You're on! although it might not be fair as I'm a lefty!

[Jud_T]

There is an effect in statistics in which all statistically extreme outcomes rates start to revert to less extreme rates. Tiger's winning rate may be doing the same. His margins of victory, another extreme statistic, has already reverted to more normal margins.

Martin,

That's all well and good except for the fact that his success wasn't a statistical anomaly, it was based on superior talent and a superhuman work ethic, neither of which are likely to change much....

[Martin Toal]

There is an effect in statistics in which all statistically extreme outcomes rates start to revert to less extreme rates. Tiger's winning rate may be doing the same. His margins of victory, another extreme statistic, has already reverted to more normal margins.

Martin,

That's all well and good except for the fact that his success wasn't a statistical anomaly, it was based on superior talent and a superhuman work ethic, neither of which are likely to change much....

It was also based on other players fearing him, and him not faltering in the last round, bith of which have already changed.

Like I said before, I think he wil win some more majors, but his previous certain momentum towards beating Jacks' total is much less certain now.

[Matthew Petersen]

How about the real 800 lb. gorilla in the room:  the fact that there are young guys who have come up that appear to be just flat out better than him?

Tiger raised the bar.  And a few of them simply look like they're able to clear it.

This is one of two major factors, in my mind.

As others have said, winning 4 majors in one's entire career is a great accomplishment and worthy of the hall of fame. We expect huge numbers from Tiger because he was formerly able to provide them--but he was playing in an era in which he was both far better than his competitors and had such a force of intimidation that very few were even able to mount a serious challenge. Those days are clearly over. The amount of young talent in the game is stunning and the players more in Tiger's age range (Mickelson, Westwood, etc) have closed the talent gap on him.

The other big issue for me really is his health. His swing has always been so full of torque that you had to wonder how his body could stand it. Well, turns out that his body really can't these days. He's had serious knee surgeries twice now and his swing is still built in a way that it's putting pressure there, so he will have further issues with his lower body.

Five years ago it seemed inevitable that he would break jack's record at least in part because there was little doubt he would be able to remain a top flight player all the way to 50. Sports medicine and conditioning is so much better these days that guys in their late 40s are having career years right and left. But Jack stayed healthy, largely thanks to a very fluid swing, and none of the guys in the 45-55 range who still have so much game are doing it with swings like Tiger's. He's going to have to find a new way to swing the club if he wants to be competitive for years to come.

[Jud_T]

Uh, the offer still stands.... Tiger will win a major in 2011....