Jack is now catching up with Tiger

[George Pazin]

George, yes it has always been stellar. 

I saw Tiger when he was 13 and I walked the course with the beat writer for the Chicago Tribune who was a professor of mine at Medill and he asked me what I thought about "that skinny black kid" (he was an old guy, he didn't know any better) and I flat out told him that Tiger had the best short game I'd ever seen and that his short game was tour-ready in its 98 lb. state.  He hit about 3 greens that day and shot 70.   He got up and down from garbage cans.

He's the best I've ever seen, bar none, and in a short game contest between Tiger and Seve, I love Seve, but my money would have been on Tiger every fricking time.

You didn't complete my sentence - "and then he had 5 bad years". He had one off year, for reasons that are understandable in my book. I think he'll bounce back to a good enough level, you don't. I think it's waaaaaaaaaaaaay too premature to say he's done (sorry to go all Mattspeak on you, but sometimes it works so well ).

[Phil McDade]

OK, I'll chime in again.

To me, Tiger at his best has always played the game backward. He knew he could get away with all manner of poor play from tee to green, because he could always count on his putter and short game to bail him out. No one (maybe Mickelson on his good days) can hit the kind of all-world recovery shots Tiger can, and he hit them because I think he always thought either: "I got this shot," or "I don't care if I miss this, because I can get it up and down from anywhere."

On occasion, he showed the kind of course discipline and management that Jack was well known for, notably at Hoylake in '06 when he sort of bunted his way around the fairways, hit a ton of great approach shots, and sank a bunch of putts to go low there (-18). But even that approach was predicated on his belief that he didn't have to bang his way around the course, because he figured if he hit greens, he'd make enough putts to win. And he did.

I've never really thought Tiger was a streaky putter; he sank pretty much anything he wanted to from '99-'07, and was great in the clutch in '08 at the US Open against Rocco (Mickelson to me is the definition of a streaky putter). But he hasn't putted nearly as well in the past two years, and what's really been his downfall is his magical short game -- that to me has been his chief culprit, and why he hasn't won any majors since June of 2008. He'll always be wild with his driver, he remains probably the single best iron player in the game, but his margin for error is alot thinner than it used to be, because he's not consistently as good of a putter as he once was, and his ability to get up-and-down for par/birdie has really gone south. No one -- ever -- has had the short recovery game of Tiger in modern-day golf; now he seems pretty average, or slightly better than the field.

[Tom_Doak]

I remember an article maybe 12-15 years ago when Tiger was just starting out ... I am pretty sure it was after Tiger came on the scene because before that nobody would speak of Jack's record as being approachable.  Anyway, the writer made the case that the hardest thing for any challenger was that they were unlikely to find such a stable relationship as Jack or Arnie or Hogan had, and that the distractions of modern athletes would compromise chasing an individual career record like Jack's.  It was hardly politically correct to say so, but certainly true ... in the modern era it would almost be politically incorrect even to have a wife like that who would be so devoted to her husband's career.

I don't have any doubt that Tiger has the talent to come back and win more major championships, or that he will probably win a few more.  But, being great requires a great support system, and it will be hard for him to get back to that level if he hasn't repaired the support system.

[jeffwarne]

I remember an article maybe 12-15 years ago when Tiger was just starting out ... I am pretty sure it was after Tiger came on the scene because before that nobody would speak of Jack's record as being approachable.  Anyway, the writer made the case that the hardest thing for any challenger was that they were unlikely to find such a stable relationship as Jack or Arnie or Hogan had, and that the distractions of modern athletes would compromise chasing an individual career record like Jack's.  It was hardly politically correct to say so, but certainly true ... in the modern era it would almost be politically incorrect even to have a wife like that who would be so devoted to her husband's career.

I don't have any doubt that Tiger has the talent to come back and win more major championships, or that he will probably win a few more.  But, being great requires a great support system, and it will be hard for him to get back to that level if he hasn't repaired the support system.

There are some great arguements here why Tiger won't break Jack's record-all logical.
When Tiger first came out it was perfectly logical to assume, as good as his junior and amateur record was, that he would follow in the footsteps of all the "next Nicklaus's", and therefore fail.
As he continued to win, it was logical to assume he was merely on a hot streak,a la Watson etc.
Every year, every win seemed so unbelieveable-it always seemed to defy logic.
Just the wins required from here to break Jack's record would be enough for hall-of-fame superstar status.
All along Tiger defied all odds and kept winning.
Now, fresh off an injury, surgery, another swing change, a bizarre lifestyle ultimately leading to a divorce, make such continued great play seem illogical-particularly after a year that was awful by Tiger's standards.
Which is why of course he will defy those odds and go back to his winning ways.

[Jim Nugent]

And despite that, he finished 4th at The Masters and 4th at the US Open, and top 25-30 at the other two majors.

To prognosticate that he's done is little more than wishful thinking, imho. A very slight improvement could yield tremendous rewards, and I can't see where it's unreasonable to assume he can improve just a little over his worst year ever, following a major injury and major personal problems. It's not like he needs to get back to running sub 10 100s to compete with Bolt, he just needs to play a little better. Heck, I think he just needs to play a little more, he's mostly just rusty from lack of playing for 2 years.

For anyone to simplify that he only wins 1 of 2 ways is just downright silly. Back in '99, a friend posited that Tiger wouldn't even win all 4 majors in his career, his game wasn't suited to the US Open grind or the Open Championship creativity. Somehow, he was able to see those shortcomings and end up winning a few...

Can't deny anything you wrote above.  My sense is that he is damaged goods now.  Maybe irreparably so.  Especially temperamentally.  Add that to all the other problems he faces, and it's going to be real tough on him IMO.   

In a game where a 59 year old can come within an inch of winning the most prestigious event in the world, anything is possible. 

[Martin Toal]

You'll not convince me that Tiger's won so many majors because other golfers were intimidated by him. Rather, I think plenty of golfers are simply intimidated by winning ANY major. Examples: I thought Kenny Perry's stars were aligned at Augusta a few years back, but he simply chunked a chip on 17. Monty made a mess of things at WF on 18. Jean V at the Open Championship. The list could go on. I seem to see more finishing hole chokes at majors than any other tournaments.

Yet that isn't always how it plays out. I read a European Tour player a year or so ago saying that Paddy H's wins have shown players in Europe that they can win majors through hard work and sticking it out. Graeme Mc Dowell also acknowledged this influence. He showed exactly the sort of dogged play needed to win, as did Martin Kaymer. If Dustin Johnson had not been penalised and instead won, he could have been credited with the same. Some of these younger players have looked Tiger in the eye and seen just another human, albeit one capable of great play.

I don't think Tiger is done, but I would not be surprised if he added no more than another 1 or 2 majors to his tally.

I am happy to stake a modest wager, say $50, proceeds to charity, on Tiger not winning a major in 2011, if anyone wants to take the other side. Tiger would start about 4-1 (or worse) for each major, so I will take evens that he will not win any. Winner nominates the charity. 

[Jud_T]

Martin, Done....

[Martin Toal]

Martin, Done....

It's a deal!

[jeffwarne]

You'll not convince me that Tiger's won so many majors because other golfers were intimidated by him. Rather, I think plenty of golfers are simply intimidated by winning ANY major. Examples: I thought Kenny Perry's stars were aligned at Augusta a few years back, but he simply chunked a chip on 17. Monty made a mess of things at WF on 18. Jean V at the Open Championship. The list could go on. I seem to see more finishing hole chokes at majors than any other tournaments.

Yet that isn't always how it plays out. I read a European Tour player a year or so ago saying that Paddy H's wins have shown players in Europe that they can win majors through hard work and sticking it out. Graeme Mc Dowell also acknowledged this influence. He showed exactly the sort of dogged play needed to win, as did Martin Kaymer. If Dustin Johnson had not been penalised and instead won, he could have been credited with the same. Some of these younger players have looked Tiger in the eye and seen just another human, albeit one capable of great play.

I don't think Tiger is done, but I would not be surprised if he added no more than another 1 or 2 majors to his tally.

I am happy to stake a modest wager, say $50, proceeds to charity, on Tiger not winning a major in 2011, if anyone wants to take the other side. Tiger would start about 4-1 (or worse) for each major, so I will take evens that he will not win any. Winner nominates the charity. 

If Tiger's so done, or only gonna win 1-2 majors in his career from here out, why would he go off at 4:1 odds in each event next year?

Put another way, is there any player you guys can pick (and back) at even odds to win a major next year?
Doesn't the #1 player in the world have no majors right now?
anyone want even odds on him vs. Tiger for a major win next year?

[Martin Toal]

If Tiger's so done, or only gonna win 1-2 majors in his career from here out, why would he go off at 4:1 odds in each event next year?

Put another way, is there any player you guys can pick (and back) at even odds to win a major next year?
Doesn't the #1 player in the world have no majors right now?
anyone want even odds on him vs. Tiger for a major win next year?

I am guessing that is what the bookies will still set, at least for now.

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

Great point.

Check out the money lines and you see what the real "experts" have to say.

Tiger went through a major upheaval last year -- check out his game from Firestone to the latest at Sherwood.

For all the people who talk up the Westwood case -- the reality is that the guy has not won one yet and frankly it'sentirely possible he may borrow a page from Monty's book on that one.

No doubt five (5) majors is a tough haul -- but everytime Tiger was told it's not possible -- throughout his entire career -- he's proven all the detractors wrong. Nuff said.

[Martin Toal]

Jeff:

Great point.

Check out the money lines and you see what the real "experts" have to say.

Tiger went through a major upheaval last year -- check out his game from Firestone to the latest at Sherwood.

For all the people who talk up the Westwood case -- the reality is that the guy has not won one yet and frankly it'sentirely possible he may borrow a page from Monty's book on that one.

No doubt five (5) majors is a tough haul -- but everytime Tiger was told it's not possible -- throughout his entire career -- he's proven all the detractors wrong. Nuff said.

Matt

I am sure you know that the odds set by bookies also reflect the amount of bets placed, regardless whether the bookies think the punters are wise or not. I think Tiger wil start as favourite for The Masters next year if he has a decent start to the season, at about 4-1. This, of course is equivalent to a 20% probability of winning.

The one thing that you can sure of is that eventually the detractors will be right.

[Doug Siebert]

Tiger has the strongest mental game of anyone since Jack (and arguably ever). I just don't see him not being able to adapt to whatever he is confronted with.

His mental game is clearly no longer strong on the greens.  He's got all the signs of someone putting with a damaged psyche.  Signs that will be familiar to all of us here because we all play the game, and we are all merely human and thus have had slumps and at times been afraid of putts.  Until recently, Tiger was never afraid on the greens.  He made everything in sight, and when he did have a bad day and "missed everything" he was still making all the short ones and his misses on the medium distance putts would be lip outs or misses by an inch.  Good reads, good strokes, just one of those days where luck isn't on your side.

Beginning in 2007 or so, the first cracks became evident.  He would occasionally miss a short one (remember 5+ years ago when the announcers would talk about how he's made 257 straight 3 footers or something insane like that, that is gone forever)  He'd sometimes miss a relatively flat medium distance putt by a couple of cups and he'd get this perplexed look on his face like he was thinking he'd misread it because he couldn't fathom stroking it that far offline.

It has become worse and worse over the next few years culminating in this year, where he is now putting like someone who is very afraid.  The once unthinkable has become commonplace - it is no longer unusual for him to miss several short putts in a single round, and even repeat that on more than one day during a tournament.  On medium and long distance putts he leaves it short as often as he leaves it long, and when he misses it is often only a few inches past the hole.  He's terrified of the short putts, and is playing defensively on anything longer than 15 feet to avoid risking a three putt.  We've all been there.  Tiger NEVER has.

He will never be able to putt like he used to putt, what he did took the confidence of never having undergone a slump before in your life. I'm not saying he's always going to putt like this, we recover from our slumps and he can too, but it won't be a full recovery, at best he'll still be putting like a mortal, and going forward will now be subject to the same streakiness as other mortals.

[Jud_T]

I think if you look at his putting stats they've been pretty consistent up to this year.  There's been no obvious slow decline.  Yes he was worse around the greens this year, but aside from taking 6 months out of his usual schedule HE HIMSELF said that once he came back he wasn't able to put as much time in as usual on his short game as he was working on swing changes.  In fact, I don't expect him to be 100% this year either as we all know how long it takes for major swing changes to become second nature even with his work ethic.  So yes there's an argument that he missed a prime opportunity to make some hay particularly at last year's venues which historically set up quite well for him.  But beyond that you're all extrapolating from one off season for which he had obvious glaring excuses.  I can't wait to hear the deadly silence in the room when he gets back on form.  Do you guys actually want him to fail? Heck, in another year he'll be the feel-good born-again come back story....

[archie_struthers]

 


It's all about the putting  , isn't it .....and isn't thirty five the magic number for many great players fall ....does the vision change , or is there a limit as to how many one person can make in a lifetime.

My thinkiing is that Jack hit it way way better than Tiger,  and  although Tiger's short game is the best ever., Jack is right up there in putting...

  Doesn't it stand to reason that if Tiger putting deteriorates just a little given hs iball striking he could stop winning...even Jack struggled after 35 , yet he still hit it better than almost anyone on tour..won't Tiger's ball striking finally slow him down  

It happened to Arnie,  Watson,  and Miller , all in their mid -thirties.


If it's an ocular deal, you might not be able to fix it with hard work...it appears that it starts with vison and then the stroke eventually goes....why no one knows for sure .   If Tiger doesn't putt the best , he will really struggle to catch Jack.    

[George Pazin]

It's all about the putting  , isn't it .....and isn't thirty five the magic number for many great players fall ....does the vision change , or is there a limit as to how many one person can make in a lifetime.

My thinkiing is that Jack hit it way way better than Tiger,  and  although Tiger's short game is the best ever., Jack is right up there in putting...

  Doesn't it stand to reason that if Tiger putting deteriorates just a little given hs iball striking he could stop winning...even Jack struggled after 35 , yet he still hit it better than almost anyone on tour..won't Tiger's ball striking finally slow him down  

It happened to Arnie,  Watson,  and Miller , all in their mid -thirties.


If it's an ocular deal, you might not be able to fix it with hard work...it appears that it starts with vison and then the stroke eventually goes....why no one knows for sure .   If Tiger doesn't putt the best , he will really struggle to catch Jack.    

Maybe he's just due for a Lasiks tune-up.

Seriously, you can't even begin to compare Arnie, Watson and Miller to Tiger. He's won more majors than almost any combination of 2 of the 3 (save Arnie + Watson, and he's close there). He's made more clutch putts than all 3 combined.

After Langer missed the 6 footer at Kiawah, someone remarked that nobody could have made that putt. Yet Tiger made one twice as long on a bumpy green to send the '08 US Open to a playoff. I don't see anyone else making that putt and that is what makes Tiger special. I really don't think you can compare him to anyone else.

Has he slipped? Certainly, a lot. I just don't buy any of the reasons why it's permanent; frankly, they strike me as rationalizations by people that don't like Tiger. And that's fine, I know I rationalize plenty of reasons why the Patriots will get killed every week! Yet somehow those rationalizations haven't stopped them from winning.

[Brent Hutto]

I'll venture a guess this time next year. He quite likely returns to form in 2011 and wins a major or two, finishing top ten in the others, in which case he becomes almost a mortal lock to surpass Jack's career numbers. But if he does get shut out yet again in 2011 without any "explanations" due to his personal life...these past couple years start looking like some of the other great player's career watershed.

[Phil McDade]

Has he slipped? Certainly, a lot. I just don't buy any of the reasons why it's permanent; frankly, they strike me as rationalizations by people that don't like Tiger. And that's fine, I know I rationalize plenty of reasons why the Patriots will get killed every week! Yet somehow those rationalizations haven't stopped them from winning.

George:

Few things bother me more than generalizations, and I hope you're not slipping into the Matt Ward  camp of characterizing those who question whether Tiger can continue his long record of success as Tiger-haters.

I don't hate Tiger. Those looking for detailed analysis and opinions of his off-course antics should look elsewhere.

I have stated, on threads here, that I don't like his on-course demeanor -- throwing clubs, cursing, his stand-offish attitude toward others (media included) when things don't go his way.

I also don't think his recent performances on the course bode well for the one goal Tiger himself has said truly motivates him -- being recognized as the greatest golfer ever, which mainly means breaking Jack's all-time record of major wins.

I spent many years of my youth rationalizing why the Steelers always beat my beloved Browns during the 1970s; it mainly centered on their dirty play. Years of wisdom have led me to conclude the Steelers had better players and were better coached.

[George Pazin]

Has he slipped? Certainly, a lot. I just don't buy any of the reasons why it's permanent; frankly, they strike me as rationalizations by people that don't like Tiger. And that's fine, I know I rationalize plenty of reasons why the Patriots will get killed every week! Yet somehow those rationalizations haven't stopped them from winning.

George:

Few things bother me more than generalizations, and I hope you're not slipping into the Matt Ward  camp of characterizing those who question whether Tiger can continue his long record of success as Tiger-haters.

Certainly not everyone is - maybe even most aren't, that's just a hypothesis on my part as to why I think some are mistaken in their analogies and analysis.

And, upon further review, I shouldn't characterize it as Tiger-hating, more as Jack-loving.

Seriously, I know I have been annoyed with each record of Danny's that fell to Farrrrrrrrrrrrv. I found myself rooting against Favre, not because I dislike him - don't really care much one way or the other - but Danny is one of my all-time favorite athletes in any sport, so I didn't want to see him knocked off the books so soon after it looked like his records were untouchable. I think there is a lot of fully-justified admiration and affection for Jack, and I think it's clouding the judgment of some.

[archie_struthers]

 

George I wasn't comparing those guys to Tiger ...it's pretty ovbvious that there is Jack and Tiger ,        maybe Bobby Jones
 

then Hogan . Snead , Arnie , Watson, Trevino , Byron Nelson ...and a few others

my point is that to a man ...Jack included that their putting started to disintegrate at some poiint....Byron said his nerves just started to get the best of him ....and Watson and Arnie really struggled as they got in their mid thirties ...Hogan Snead Miller  arghh   they looked like a man holding a rattlesnake at the end

it's pernicious ...and more than a Lasik tune-up IMHO  ...Tiger doesn't hit it as far , as straight or as good as Jack , but no one that has ever lived has made more clutch putts ..Jack included   ...if this slips at all , he doesn't catch him .

[George Pazin]

if this slips at all , he doesn't catch him .

... and it's that pesky little "if" that I disagree with.

For about half of Tiger's majors, he was right there with Jack in terms of length, straightness, pretty much any and all ball striking ball striking. The other half, he found a different way to win them. I see no reason to think he can't figure out how to get at least 4 more. Sure, that's a career for more than most, but then again, Tiger's career is already more than Phil's, Ernie's and Vijay's combined!

The most eye-opening stat I read about Tiger's career that I can recall was a recent observation from Phil. He said, if I win another 40 regular events and another 10 majors, I still won't have caught Tiger (this was pre-2010 Masters).

[Matthew Petersen]

Guys,

In 2009, after a 5 month layoff for ACL Surgery, driving it all over creation with that Haney action, the guy averaged 68.05.  If he's healthy, ingrains the new Foley action and gets back to his usual short game routine, I'd fully expect him to average around 68 strokes again this season.  Just as a lifetime .300 hitter when coming to the plate after an 0 for 25 slump has a 3 in 10 chance of getting a hit.  MAYBE he's lost the mental edge, MAYBE he's lost confidence in his putting, MAYBE everyone else is licking their chops now that they see he's beatable.  Or maybe he just went through a very difficult divorce and didn't have the time to put in and had an off year and you guys have decided to stick a fork in him 'cause he's done...

I agree with you but disagree about the conclusions. Those are 3 HUGE "ifs": if he stays healthy, if he ingrains the Foley action, and if he gets his short game back. Any one of those things surely has long odds (and honestly he could probably get by pretty well with just the short game and not the other two). I know he's Tiger and he had an unbelievable first fifteen years of his career, but usually when a guy in his mid-30s has his short game vanish we don't all sit around saying, "Well, when he gets it back he's going to be just as good as he was when he was 28." When your short games goes, it's usually gone. Nevermind the health and swing issues, both of which work against his ability to get his short game back and/or keep it there.

[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

Let's be real shall we.

I never said all of those who espouse a view that Tiger can't surpass Jack's record as Tiger-haters. But let's be a bit more candid shall we -- there are more than a few here who just can't stand the guy and all the fluff being said is really a smoke screen for it.

[archie_struthers]

 

great stuff guys ...just shows the interest in the two best players ever...

George I'd argue that Tiger never hit it as good as Jack ,but his short game is a gift from God , no one ever made as many clutch shots on and around the green  ...he is human though and my point was that no really great golfer has continued to putt liek a kid forever, myself included  lol       Serously , you would have never believed Watson would ever get the yips , his stroke was beautiful and he was absolutely fearless  .... but.....Tiger may find a way , he is amazing ,but recently his stroke is not the same , why this happens continues to be a great mystery of life as to putting ..no one has figured it out yet

[PThomas]

he has so much talent that i cant imagine him not winning another major..or maybe several