Will Tiger Break Jack's Major Record?? (2012 Edition)

[the19thhole]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Don't think so. At one point other players were in awe of him. Intimidated. No more.

I hear this over and over that players now are not in awe of him. I honestly don't get that. He hasn't been winning so much over the past few years because he has been playing badly and yes others players have been playing better. Just because they are not intimidated by him doesn't go hand in hand with shooting a lower score than him.

Oh I voted Yes

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by bwdial

Please, do me a favor and point out where I said Tiger was "washed up".  All I did was point out his injury history, that he's getting older, and that as he ages, his body will have a hard time recovering.  Look at how long it's taken him to get back to this point since 2008.

How many ACLs and Achilles tendons did Jack rupture?

As to your first point, sure, as soon as you point out where I claimed you said Tiger was washed up. But there really were lots of people claiming Jack was washed up at several points in his career - the point being that it is easy to underestimate greatness.

As to your second point, Jack didn't blow out his ACL or achilles, his problem was bursitis in his hip.  Fortunately for him it wasn't as much of a problem as Tiger's injuries have been for him, although ultimately they did cause him to get a hip replacement.  But this is golf, not football, and there really is very little reason to think that these injuries will be an ongoing long term problem for Tiger.  And Tiger is in better overall shape than Jack ever was at any point in his career, so there is no reason to think that his career cannot be as fruitful for as long as Jack's was.

The reason he has had such a hard time getting back to his 2009 form (and let's remember that he DID win 6 times in 2009, but because it is Tiger that year is accounted a failure since those 6 wins did not include a major - for any other player it would be a career year) is the combination of turmoil in his personal life including a self imposed hiatus from the game, a swing change, and injuries that prevented him from practicing the swing change enough to ingrain it more quickly.

Originally Posted by the19thhole

I hear this over and over that players now are not in awe of him. I honestly don't get that. He hasn't been winning so much over the past few years because he has been playing badly and yes others players have been playing better. Just because they are not intimidated by him doesn't go hand in hand with shooting a lower score than him.

Oh I voted Yes

If by better you mean they have been playing better than Tiger then I agree.  But if by better you mean better than players were playing when Tiger was dominating I disagree.  The other players really haven't been playing any better.  In Tiger's heyday there were several occasions where other players had scoring averages under 69.  Since his falling off, there has been exactly one player, Luke Donald in 2011, who has done this.  But even though other players occasionally had scoring averages under 69 in Tiger's salad years he still dominated because his scoring was even lower, 68.5 or lower in most years with a couple even being below 68.  If he starts scoring at that level again, as I think he will, he will be just as dominant as ever.

[cwebbie]

When you consider the fact that Tiger can playin all four majors without ever again having to qualify, you'd have to think sooner or later he'll beat Jack's record. Even if he does , it doesn't make him the greatest of all time. For that to happen Tiger would have to get back to where he was in the early 2000s. Or, Mickleson is going to need to win five more majors. You can say today's tour players are better than the players of Jack's era, but you can't make any real case Tiger had the kind of rivals Jack did during his career. I love Phil M as much as anybody but even he is mot going to claim his accomplishments even come close to that of Arnold Palmer. Nor can he stack up favorably to gary Player or Tom Watson. It's not Tiger's fault he dominated in an era when no other player could stand out in terms of winning majors. But it is what it is and we have to give Jack credit for winning in an era full of other proven winners. There is also the very real possibility that Jack would have won 100 times and had 25 majors had there been the same focus on Golf as a sport then as there is now (ironically thanks in large part to Jack and tiger's achievements). Jack has said that he had no idea how important the four majors are in golf because in his day golf did not enjoy the kind of crossover appeal that it does now in the sports world. He has said that once his golf design business began to prosper he more or less lost focus on his golf game. This makes you wonder how many more majors a fully invested Jack would have won considering he came in second something like 25 times! Most important in the comparison is character, which matters more in golf than any other sport. It's not about the personal life stuff; it's about on the course behavior and how great Jack is at representing the game of golf. Jack wasn't one to pump his fist up and down in a kind of in-your-face bravado. Jack played his best and hoped his opponent did the same. In rare instances when Jack came up short he accepted defeat with class--the sign of a true champion. Tiger seems to getting better at this since his "accodent," but in terms of his place in golf history the damage is done. All this amounts to Tiger eventually passing the 18 major milestone, but he'll still have miles to travel to eclipse the greatest golfer to ever live.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by cwebbie

You can say today's tour players are better than the players of Jack's era, but you can't make any real case Tiger had the kind of rivals Jack did during his career. I love Phil M as much as anybody but even he is mot going to claim his accomplishments even come close to that of Arnold Palmer. Nor can he stack up favorably to gary Player or Tom Watson. It's not Tiger's fault he dominated in an era when no other player could stand out in terms of winning majors. But it is what it is and we have to give Jack credit for winning in an era full of other proven winners.

Sorry, but this theory has been debunked for all but the most rabid Jack partisans.  Including by Jack himself, before he had to start worrying about Tiger eclipsing his records.  Good players won more majors in Jack's time because there were so few of them.  When there are 5 guys who have the ability to some degree consistently compete in majors they are each going to win more majors than if there are 25 players who have the ability to consistently compete in majors.  Jack himself used to day that there were only a handful of guys he had to worry about in the majors.  There are lots more guys to worry about, now, which makes Tigers achievements more, not less, remarkable than Jack's.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by cwebbie

Even if he does , it doesn't make him the greatest of all time. For that to happen Tiger would have to get back to where he was in the early 2000s. Or, Mickleson is going to need to win five more majors.

You can say today's tour players are better than the players of Jack's era, but you can't make any real case Tiger had the kind of rivals Jack did during his career.

Most important in the comparison is character, which matters more in golf than any other sport. It's not about the personal life stuff; it's about on the course behavior and how great Jack is at representing the game of golf. Jack wasn't one to pump his fist up and down in a kind of in-your-face bravado.

First argument is logically flawed and has been put to rest a few times already.  Second argument is irrelevant to "greatness" and reeks of an agenda.

[Wallstreet]

Originally Posted by eich41

The two posters who are the most adamant that he will do it, both have Tiger Woods in their avatar.  I think there are a lot of people who WANT Tiger to be back, and try to extrapolate every positive thing he does as a sign he's back.  Look at the Master's.  Everyone was certain that he was going to run away with it because he won the Arnold Palmer Inv. and he wasn't even in the hunt on the weekend.  While I may be wrong in my take that he won't beat Jack's record, those of you that are waiting for him to become the dominate force he was in past years shouldn't get your hopes up.  That Tiger will never be seen again.

Of course I am biased.  I do of course want him to do it but I also believe he will do it.  I really don't think the leg injuries have much to do with his play since 2008.  Yes of course he had to take time off for it but I really think its all in his head.  Ever since he got caught cheating he has been an absolute mess mentally.  I think he is embarrassed and its probably been in the back of his mind for the last 4 years.  Once he gets a few more wins including a major he will regain his confidence and you will see that "tiger of old" is not gone.  Its all in his head.  The talent will always be there, he just needs to get over his bruised ego.

[bwdial]

Originally Posted by turtleback

As to your first point, sure, as soon as you point out where I claimed you said Tiger was washed up. But there really were lots of people claiming Jack was washed up at several points in his career - the point being that it is easy to underestimate greatness.

As to your second point, Jack didn't blow out his ACL or achilles, his problem was bursitis in his hip.  Fortunately for him it wasn't as much of a problem as Tiger's injuries have been for him, although ultimately they did cause him to get a hip replacement.  But this is golf, not football, and there really is very little reason to think that these injuries will be an ongoing long term problem for Tiger.  And Tiger is in better overall shape than Jack ever was at any point in his career, so there is no reason to think that his career cannot be as fruitful for as long as Jack's was.

Are you really so obtuse to not see that you implied it?  Whatever.

As to your bolded statement, he's had ongoing knee problems since he was a freshman at Stanford.  That's close to twenty years.  Seems pretty long term to me, and age does the body no favors.  The Achilles issues have been cropping up with regularity as well.

You are right about him being in better shape than Jack.  Of course, he did rupture his ACL running on a golf course.

[brocks]

When you consider the fact that Tiger can playin all four majors without ever again having to qualify

No, he can't. And IMO your post went downhill from there.

[bobsuruncle]

while he's not all the way back, but he's back enough.  if he's consistently contending every time he tees up, then it's just a matter of time before the wins start to pile up again.

[cwebbie]

No, he can't. And IMO your post went downhill from there.

Which major is it you figure wouldn't give Tiger Woods a special exemption in the event he fails to qualify on performance or by being a former winner? The point is that Four majors would be a hell of a career for any pro but a good deal of why it's so hard to win multiple majors is the idea that qualifying for them becomes more difficult as a player gets older. We saw it with Ernie Els at Augusta and DL3 had to go to sectional qualifying this year. Tiger will not have to deal with this issue.

[cwebbie]

Second argument is irrelevant to "greatness" and reeks of an agenda.

I never said Tiger isn't a great golfer. Tiger is the greatest golfer of this era. I said he isn't the greateat of all time. I believe sportsmanship, i.e character, is an important factor to consider. BTW sorry my agenda smells So bad. Guess it needs changing.

[zipazoid]

I voted yes. Which may come as a shock to those that think I'm a 'Jack Homer.' But that's only in the context of right now, he's the GOAT. But that's a different topic in a different thread.

Tiger's performance in this US Open has me believing he will break the record. Up until now, I wasn't so sure, as I had stated a few times that 5 more majors is, basically, Seve Ballesteros' entire career. One more that Phil's career to date. So it's not like, oh, he'll just win five more majors, like it's as simple as just showing up. It's a large chasm.

I coupled that with his now-four-year gap since his last major win, plus his health issues, plus yet another swing change. Add that all up & 5 more major wins is far from automatic.

But on the other side, there's two things. One, it looks like his game is rounding into form. I think he has a great chance to win the Open this year, but I have doubts since Olympic has the reputation of choosing the wrong champ. I wouldn't be surprised to see it be Tiger & David Toms down the stretch with Toms prevailing. That's the kind of result Olympic tends to produce. But anyway, win or lose, it sure looks like Tiger is ready to win more majors. If ti doesn't happen at Olympic, the next two majors are only one and two months away. He could win one - or both - of them.

The other thing is his age. At 36, he is smack in the middle of his prime of a career that has produced 14 major wins so far. In that context, 5 more doesn't seem unreasonable, especially since he's already won twice this year.

I might also add he still seems extremely motivated. That might be the thing that determines whether he breaks the record. He has proven time and again that when he really wants something, he will do what it takes to make it happen. As long as he keeps that attitude, he breaks Jack's record.

[iacas]

Up until now, I wasn't so sure, as I had stated a few times that 5 more majors is, basically, Seve Ballesteros' entire career. One more that Phil's career to date.

I never understood that. Who cares how it compares to someone else's career - you're talking about a guy with 14 majors. Comparing it to Phil's career seems stupid. It would make more sense to say something like "that's only 35% of Tiger's career." At least then you're comparing it to the same kind of guy. Or comparing it to Jack, since he's the only other guy with more, so it's only 28% of Jack's career. Makes more sense than saying "that's Phil's whole career PLUS another major!" Tiger's already 350% as good as Phil's career. And 280% as good as Seve. FWIW I think I'm one of the people who chose 18 in the poll. :-) But I sure hope he gets to 19. I'd like to see that in my lifetime. P.S. I'm not singling you out. You see this type of commentary all the time, this "it's Seve's whole career!" Seve didn't win 14 frickin' majors, either, so who cares? It's like saying it's five of Zach Johnson's careers. Or 2.5 of Retief Goosen's. Or 5 Jim Furyks. None of those players are Tiger Woods, and added up they don't even get to 10 majors let alone 14.

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by iacas

I never understood that. Who cares how it compares to someone else's career - you're talking about a guy with 14 majors. Comparing it to Phil's career seems stupid. It would make more sense to say something like "that's only 35% of Tiger's career." At least then you're comparing it to the same kind of guy. Or comparing it to Jack, since he's the only other guy with more, so it's only 28% of Jack's career.

Makes more sense than saying "that's Phil's whole career PLUS another major!" Tiger's already 350% as good as Phil's career. And 280% as good as Seve.

FWIW I think I'm one of the people who chose 18 in the poll. But I sure hope he gets to 19. I'd like to see that in my lifetime.

P.S. I'm not singling you out. You see this type of commentary all the time, this "it's Seve's whole career!" Seve didn't win 14 frickin' majors, either, so who cares? It's like saying it's five of Zach Johnson's careers. Or 2.5 of Retief Goosen's. Or 5 Jim Furyks. None of those players are Tiger Woods, and added up they don't even get to 10 majors let alone 14.

It's just in the context that 5 more majors isn't some kind of easy thing, not even for Tiger. It wasn't to compare Tiger's career to Seve's or Phil's - that, I agree would be stupid.

That's why that wasn't what I meant.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by iacas

FWIW I think I'm one of the people who chose 18 in the poll. But I sure hope he gets to 19. I'd like to see that in my lifetime.

P.S. I'm not singling you out. You see this type of commentary all the time, this "it's Seve's whole career!" Seve didn't win 14 frickin' majors, either, so who cares? It's like saying it's five of Zach Johnson's careers. Or 2.5 of Retief Goosen's. Or 5 Jim Furyks. None of those players are Tiger Woods, and added up they don't even get to 10 majors let alone 14.

It is an infinite number of careers of the vast majority of pro golfers who ever teed it up at a major.  Therefore he will never reach 14 majors.  Oh wait.  LOL

[brocks]

If by better you mean they have been playing better than Tiger then I agree.  But if by better you mean better than players were playing when Tiger was dominating I disagree.  The other players really haven't been playing any better.  In Tiger's heyday there were several occasions where other players had scoring averages under 69.

Interesting that the only guys under par after 36 holes of a very tough US Open are Tiger and two guys in their 40's. Meanwhile, the young turks like Dustin Johnson and Rory McIlroy have the weekend off.

[eich41]

Originally Posted by brocks

Interesting that the only guys under par after 36 holes of a very tough US Open are Tiger and two guys in their 40's. Meanwhile, the young turks like Dustin Johnson and Rory McIlroy have the weekend off.

And yet, for the purpose of this discussion, Tiger's ~20th place finish is no different than him missing the cut.  And if the performance of the three big amateurs in this Open is any indication, the talent that is going to hit the tour over the next 4 years is only going to make this task more difficult.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by eich41

And yet, for the purpose of this discussion, Tiger's ~20th place finish is no different than him missing the cut.  And if the performance of the three big amateurs in this Open is any indication, the talent that is going to hit the tour over the next 4 years is only going to make this task more difficult.

Amateur performances don't often translate into dominant professional careers.