Tiger Woods in the sweep of golf's history

[TEPaul]

Older men typically give up their boyhood heroes hard and I'm sure I'm no different.

I remember Hogan well, and Snead. I remember the electricity of Arnold Palmer so well, and I was a huge fan of Jack Nicklaus all through his hayday. During his time the likes of Watson was there in the second half to challenge him for dominance, and he did challenge him successfully. I guess maybe Trevino too. People seem to forget that.

But Tiger Woods? I've watched him like a hawk ever since he sunk that putt at TPC in his first US Amateur victory. All could see he was physically super talented, and clearly a young man with immense strength of mind and pure personal confidence of the type one might label "a quiet and determined killer".

The thing I never expected to continue, though, was that odd fate of how he just kept getting things done with remarkable shots at the perfect times. Maybe a few times I could rationalize but not the amount he's had. And I also never thought he would work constantly to continue to improve himself quite as hard as he has and continues to.

It looks like he has in sight now what seems to be the ultimate goal to most fans---eg Nicklaus's 18 majors.

In my opinion, that's not important to me anymore. To accomplish that I don't think he has any more to prove about himself and where he really is in the sweep of golf's history.

In my opinion, he's on a whole different level from anyone who's come before him and I think even those greats admit that now or would if they were around---and that includes Jack Nicklaus. Bobby Jones said about Nicklaus, "He plays a game with which I am not familiar", and Nicklaus has virtually said the same about Woods.

It goes back a ways but a few I know who got to know Woods well have said his goal is to be considered the greatest golfer who ever lived.

They even said he feels he might be there or will be soon in the perception of most.

But they have also said there is just one he basically knows he may never be able to compete with in the minds of some and I believe I can see why. What Bob Jones did so remarkably he also did so quickly and then he was gone from competitive golf so young.

Despite the fact that was such a different time certainly in the world of quantitative if not also perhaps qualitative  competition, he is the only one Woods seems to realize he may never deal with in a comparative sense easily, if ever.

Nevertheless, in my opinion, Woods is there now---even with five to go in this Nicklaus 18 major comparison. From here on all he needs is health and endurance and it looks like he has that too, or will unless some really weird fate takes him out.

For those who seem annoyed by his dominance, I'd say get over it and just enjoy watching the greatest golfer who ever lived from here on out.

The world may never again see a golfer as great and as dominant as he is.

[Jim_Coleman]

   People Tom's and my age are very lucky.  We've been privileged to see Ali, Jordon and Woods - maybe the three greatest athletes in (as Keith Olberman would say) the history of the world.  Well, maybe that's over the top a little.  But maybe not.

[Phil_the_Author]

"The world may never again see a golfer as great and as dominant as he is."

Tom, it is that statement made by many along with you, that I completely disagree with.

It was last said of Nicklaus and he is not only still alive but was still playing at a very high level (or have you already forgotten his flirt with magic at the 2000 Masters) while Tiger was winning his.

If there is one thing that the history of sports competition has taught us, it's that there will always be players in every sport that someone views as the absolute greatest there ever was or will be.

Tiger may be it in golf, but as for me, he still has a bit of a ways to go.

[Jim Nugent]

When Woods was around 15 or 16, a reporter asked him if he wanted to become the greatest black golfer of all time.  

Tiger was a bit offended.  He said he wanted to become the greatest golfer period.  

IMO he has already achieved that.  

[TEPaul]

Actually Jim, sport to sport things are very relative---but nevertheless the greatest athlete in the history of the world just might be Nascar's early star Glenn "Fireball" Roberts.  

Put him in any time or place in racing against anyone---Petty, Earnhardt, Foyt, or even Fangio, Moss or Schumacher and "Fireball", despite the fact he was just a big hulking greaseball would, drive f...ing rings around each and every one of them.

What he did at Le Mans that one time would have cast him into the top of the pantheon only if that car had kept running less than one half hour longer.  

[Frank Pasquale]

I coach high school ice hockey, and I vividly remember addressing my team in '95, right after Tiger's second US Amateur win.  I was talking about focus, and I suggested that they watch Tiger.  I said, "There is a golfer that many of you may not have heard of yet...but mark my words, he will be the greatest athlete in the history of sports."

Ever since then, I have made every effort to watch as much as I can, and I have all 13 of his major wins on tape.  I am thoroughly enjoying watching this greatness.

[wsmorrison]

Tom, we do have a hard time giving up our childhood heroes.  Even still I doubt that has anything to do with my feelings about Michael Jordan.  Jordan, as great as he was, was not even the greatest basketball player of all time.  That was clearly Wilt Chamberlain. Yes, of course Jordan is in the top 10 for certain but their is so much emphasis given to recent athletic efforts that it becomes easy to overlook Oscar Robertson, Elgin Baylor, Bill Russell, Jerry West, and possibly Kareem Abdul Jabaar.

As far as Tiger Woods is concerned, I think he has already proven that he is the greatest golfer of all time.  If he stays healthy and continues to have the desire (no reason not to believe so), he's going to win many more majors than Jack (I hope he breaks Jack's record at Merion, but I assume he'll do it earlier--if it happens at Merion, that will be spooky) in an era when the golfing population around the world has increased dramatically.  He clearly does things in golf that others would never dream of trying.  Of course the ball and implements issue is a factor that makes comparisons difficult, unlike basketball, football (US or World) or track and field.  He out-thinks the competition and then goes out and out plays them.  He has one of the best minds I've ever seen in sports. The rate he wins tournaments, especially majors is mind-boggling.  I root for him because he has a sense of history and perspective, is a model athlete in a sorry age of professional sports, has the dedication to keep getting better with a work ethic previously unknown.  He treats golf as the sport it is.  He revolutionized the way others compete as well.  His competitors recognized that they better get fit to compete.  By the way, Phil is getting awfully soft looking again.  No doubt someone else will come along and break his records, but he will surely be inspired by Tiger's efforts today, just like Jones inspired Nicklaus and Nicklaus inspired Woods.

[TEPaul]

FrankP:

I like what you said there a lot.

You seem to have a very intuitive sense of what it takes from athletes and in athletics and whatever it is, it surely is not one dimensional, particularly when one nears greatness.

We all have always been able to see that Woods is a highly unusual physical talent in so many ways in golf. If that physical talent was mostly all he had would he be anywhere near where he is now? Of course not, and people like you seem to have a much better intuitive sense of why that is than most.

But how often is it that that gets combined in athletics in an athlete with true imagination, true perhaps untaught and unshakeable confidence and real concentration and focus?

There's no doubt in my mind that coaches and particularly very good ones understand these things many factors better than the general sports fan, golf fan, whatever.

Those who don't seem to get this when they are watching it seem to be the ones who do a couple of things that I consider wrong regarding history;

1. They tend to over-glorify people from times past.

2. They tend to not appreciate properly what they are seeing in their own time.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TEPaul,

Given the tendency of most old timers to wax poetic about how much better it was "in the day" if Tiger illicits this kind of response, I say it has to be true- he is the best.

It does stand to reason, given the dedication top athletes have today - witness Chiseled Tiger vs. Fat Jack in his youth.  Of course, most folks who are anti Tiger simply blame weak competition, but I am not so sure.  I tend to think there is more now, in part because he showed others you don't have to wait to win a major.  Kids have no fear like they used to (in general) about the big stage.  They see it all their lives on TV, and its less mysterious and they have the impression they should all be famous and successful.

Short version, he is special.  How much more or less than other heroes can and will be debated for a long time.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom, Tom, Tom, one might simply say that you are quick to make assumptions over what others mean when they themselves haven't elucidated on the subject in question...

(I've been wanting to use elucidate in something past few days.  )

I neither hinted at nor stated that my opinion that Tiger has "a bit of a ways to go" still before he would be considered the greatest of all time was based upon his needing to surpass Nicklaus 18 victories.

That is not what holds me back, yet there is much to say for someone who achieves it.

You make a good point and then completely ignore it without realizing it when you said, "if odd fate and tragedy somehow took Woods out today the fact that he didn't reach 18 majors and what that would mean in how he stacks up against the rest would become almost completely irrelevent in the light of history and greatness..."

Well, hasn't that already happen, in a different sort of fashion, to one who has already held the "greatest of all time" mantle in golf... Bobby Jones?

Didn't he, quite tragically in the eyes of many, give up competitive golf at a relatively early age where if he had continued to play in his mid-40's it would be quite safe to assume that he would have won many more majors, and may have reached a number where Jack might still be playing today to try and catch him?

If Jack was greater than the greatest of all time, then why did he have to surpass a number in order to be appreciated as such? Yet if some, and again I'm not one of them, believe that Tiger must do the same, they somehow have an inability to appreciate the nuances of "contemporary history?"

Sorry Tom, but your reasoning as I see it doesn't hold...

p.s. - Wayne, playing in Philadelphia doesn't automatically make one the greatest. I have three words for you - Oscar, Oscar, Oscar  

[TEPaul]

"It does stand to reason, given the dedication top athletes have today - witness Chiseled Tiger vs. Fat Jack in his youth.  Of course, most folks who are anti Tiger simply blame weak competition, but I am not so sure.  I tend to think there is more now, in part because he showed others you don't have to wait to win a major.  Kids have no fear like they used to (in general) about the big stage.  They see it all their lives on TV, and its less mysterious and they have the impression they should all be famous and successful."

Jeff:

In my opinion, that entire paragraph of yours is just very relevent to this whole subject.

What you said there should be much more discussed on here, if not on this thread, then on its own.

Like you, I'm old enough to have seen the difference and it is a very large difference in perspective between back then and now.

I don't know why the culture of a sport like golf has changed so dramatically at that level in this way.

I guess the easy answer is professional golf has entered into the world of really big business and personal lucrativeness and this has developed a much, much larger base from the bottom up.

The modern age of TV has undoubtedly done that.
 
When a factor of ten or twenty or thirty times or perhaps a hundred times more kids get these kinds of things into their minds at a very young age how can things not change dramatically in this way?

[wsmorrison]

"Those who don't seem to get this when they are watching it seem to be the ones who do a couple of things that I consider wrong regarding history;

1. They tend to over-glorify people from times past.

2. They tend to not appreciate properly what they are seeing in their own time."

I disagree with you, Tom.  While I do believe there is a systematic problem with historical perspective, I think a majority of people overestimate what they are seeing today and underestimate the work of those that came before, especially without first hand knowledge.  

[John Kavanaugh]

In Asia is he seen as the greatest Asian golfer?

[TEPaul]

"Tom, Tom, Tom, one might simply say that you are quick to make assumptions over what others mean when they themselves haven't elucidated on the subject in question..."

Phil:

It's interesting to me how often you say something in some post and then make a remark like that one above when someone disagrees with you. It doesn't seem to be the ordinary give and take of discussion or even debate. It seems more like some refrain such as; "Oh My God, the things I say are always so misunderstood".

I'm not too sure what you mean or are trying to imply about Bob Jones' short career or what it would have meant if he'd continued.

In my opinion, those who appreciated the greatness of Bob Jones appreciated his greatness for what it was at the time he was playing and were not laboring under some perception that his greatness could only be affirmed by a long career.

In that vein, I do not recall that Jack Nicklaus was ever competing against some total major number of someone who came before him as some think Tiger Woods is doing or must do.

Jack Nicklaus was just extremely dominant during his time but it does not appear even he was as dominant as Tiger Woods has been to date.

By the way, if you believe that Tiger Woods has 'a ways to go' maybe you'd like to tell me what it is you do mean by that. What do you think being four years ahead of Nicklaus with 13 majors is, dog meat?

[John Kavanaugh]

Tiger needs to win a major where he makes his audience cry instead of himself.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Please, you couldn't possibly have written, "It's interesting to me how often you say something in some post and then make a remark like that one above when someone disagrees with you. It doesn't seem to be the ordinary give and take of discussion or even debate. It seems more like some refrain such as; "Oh My God, the things I say are always so misunderstood"."

I wrote "Tom, Tom, Tom..." as a direct reply to YOUR having written, "Phil, Phil, Phil: If you are going to write history you might need to do a better job of recognizing it when it's actually happening than that post of your indicates..."

Why is it when I write it, "It doesn't seem to be the ordinary give and take of discussion or even debate..." yet when you do it is the result of some rapier-like wit?

Why is it when someone disagrees with YOU that your repsonse usually takes on the sarcastic refrain found in questions such as "What do you think being four years ahead of Nicklaus with 13 majors is, dog meat?"

It seems to me that you are the one who isn't seeking discussion on this topic as much as you are agreement.

That's a shame, because this is a discusiion that has been taking place for some years now and will continue for quite some time.

It is hard to conceive that you are, "not too sure what you mean or are trying to imply about Bob Jones' short career or what it would have meant if he'd continued." when YOU are the one who stated, "The thing you seem to completely fail to realize is that if odd fate and tragedy somehow took Woods out today the fact that he didn't reach 18 majors and what that would mean in how he stacks up against the rest would become almost completely irrelevent in the light of history and greatness..."

I merely cited the example of the "greatest player of all time" as he was considered at the time, had done just that... left the game untimely early and far before the time that both his contemporaries were doing and that his fans wanted.

To say that Nicklaus didn't play against the spectre of Bob jones victories is also ludicrous. And before you quote St. Jack, yes I am quite aware of his past staements made about how it wasn't until an interviewer mentioned that he was just several behind Jones that he took notice of the number.

I, like you, was quite alive during those years and I was aware of the numbers even if Jack wasn't. This was because it WAS being written about. The point is that Jack DID compete against the ghost of Bobby Jones and will even recite cherished in-person meetings with him with near-reverence. he also did make emotional statements, both before and after breaking Jones number and how significant an achievement it was.

Again, Tiger doesn't need to break jack's number to be recognized as the greatest of all time... but it wouldn't hurt either...

[Jim Nugent]

Of course, most folks who are anti Tiger simply blame weak competition, but I am not so sure.  

Until Tiger came along, the exact opposite argument was the common wisdom.  i.e. that competition was so great now, no one could ever dominate the game again the way Jack did.  

[John Kavanaugh]

Tom,

My post was not intended to be or was in reality a racist statement.  I often have people say to me that they expect Asian men to take over the tour much like has happened to the women.  I don't know what to tell them.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Please, you couldn't possibly have written,....."

Yeah, Phil, I guess I could have done----but I didn't and I stick with what I did say without hesitation.

I don't think I want to get into another---"I'm misunderstood and why couldn't you have said..." back and forth on this thread. It's reminds me too much of that Tillinghast/Cascades thread and posts and I don't think we need another of those right now.  

Sorry about that. Onward and upward my friend!  

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
My post was not intended to be or was in reality a racist statement."

I didn't think it was, John. Was there something I said that makes you think it was?

Some people on here seem to think anything someone else says that may contain a response to them should simply stick specifically to that.

I wish my mind worked that way but clearly it doesn't and never has.  

Have you ever heard of the term "free association"?

I've always kinda like that concept and I like the individual words too.

[Jim_Kennedy]

......Like the '86 Masters  


Tom,
I see no harm in recognizing Woods as the top competitor in the world today, as was Nicklaus in his day, as was Hogan in his, Jones in his, and on and on. There's no lack of talent or drive in Tiger Woods and anyone who says he isn't the 'best' that's ever come along in these departments is fooling himself, but even he has set his sites on Nicklaus' records as the way to proving himself 'best-ever'. Tiger will have a ways to go to match Jack's 154 consecutive majors and his 73 top 10, 56 top 5, 48 top 3 and 19 second place finishes in those events.

It is longevity and record-smashing that determines 'best-ever'.
I wouldn't bet against Tiger doing it, I'm happy to watch it happen in his future.

[TEPaul]

"Why is it when someone disagrees with YOU that your repsonse usually takes on the sarcastic refrain found in questions such as "What do you think being four years ahead of Nicklaus with 13 majors is, dog meat?"

It seems to me that you are the one who isn't seeking discussion on this topic as much as you are agreement.

That's a shame, because this is a discusiion that has been taking place for some years now and will continue for quite some time."

Phil:

I'm sorry you think it's a shame. I don't know how to answer your question about why I take some of the things you say the way I do and you take some of the things I say the way you do but I can tell you this---I'm not seeking your agreement on anything I say---I'm merely disagreeing with some of the things you say.

That's what we do on here, isn't it Phil? I don't see why that should upset you (it's a shame? ) and lead you to constantly respond that you're misunderstood or to implore other people to say something differently than they have.

This is a discussion forum---and on it we constantly discuss and argue and disagree with one another. Wit, sarcasm and such may not be completely ideal but what the hell, they sure aren't the end of the world either. Constantly suggesting that people should never use those tactics seems more like a constant inadequate response to me---nothing more.

My suggestion, as always, is just live with the way it is and always has been on here and don't take anything about it personally.

[Craig Sweet]

I have never seen any athlete, in any sport, with the mental toughness of Woods....he has won tournaments where all he had going for him was his will to get the ball in the hole...Jordan could have a bad night and he had four other guys to pass and shoot the ball, Montana could have a bad passing day and he had someone to hand off to, Ali had his bums, and a handful of real big fights, but his greatness was not necessarily what he did with his fists...

There has not been a golfer yet that can hold a candle to Woods...has there been a winner of majors that hits long irons as well as Woods? Has there been a winner of majors that putts like Woods, especially when he "has to make" the putt? Has there been a major winner that hits the ball off the tee like Woods? Has there been a major winner that has the mental toughness, and puts all his game together for that one week, like Woods?  Woods does this for every major and every tournament he plays in.  Just look at Els, Singh, Mickleson, Furyck....where have they gone??

Jack's feat of winning 18 majors, against what I believe to be better competition (the top 5 players during Jack's era, at anyone time, are vastly superior to the top 5 during Tigers era) is incredible but Tiger will surpass it. BUT it's not so much how many majors they have, but how they won those majors and Tiger has a big edge...he's the total package...mental toughness, strength...golf skills...course management....preperation...etc.

[TEPaul]

"It is longevity and record-smashing that determines 'best-ever'.
I wouldn't bet against Tiger doing it, I'm happy to watch it happen in his future."

JimK:

I don't agree with that either--not at all. At least not unless it's only longevity that's being considered for greatness.

I do consider that but that most certainly is not all I consider, or think should be considered, in who may be the greatest golfer of all time. Maybe that's the biggest problem that some have with evaluating Woods about his position in the sweep of golf's history for greatness. In other words, they seem to think these things can and should only be evualated and considered when he reaches the very end of his career in golf.

Personally, I don't think that's necessary.

If one simply considered longevity as the basis for greatness that sure would take Bobby Jones out of the evaluation, and I sure wouldn't want to do that.

Who would?  

[Peter Pallotta]

Tiger needs to win a major where he makes his audience cry instead of himself.

John - you probably know this, but that's what Frank Capra said about the realization he had that led to him making a string of terrific pictures. He said "I thought that drama was when the actors cried, but then I realized it was when the audience cried."

But in Tiger's case, it's not yet in the natural order of things for his wins to produce tears in the audience. I think it's in the natural order of things for the greatest golfer of all time, in the middle of his prime, to simply dominate completely; and there's probably not much 'drama' in that for some. But years from now, when Tiger's days of domination are over, and his powers are fading, and he hasn't won a major in a while, there just might be that last, great raging against the dying of the light, and it will then be in the natural order of things, and then we'll probably all cry.  

Peter