Tiger Greatest of All Time

[Baynative]

There is a very special aura about the legend of Bobby Jones in that he chose to maintain amateur status and left at the pinnacle of accomplishment.

I think it is arguable the the true greatest of all time is Ben Hogan, also because of the special aura surrounding his legend and career achievement after being badly mangled and almost being killed.

Tiger, too has a special uniqueness about him in that he is probably the first top tier pro actually groomed to be a champion from the time he was a toddler - AND HE CAME THROUGH. Had he failed or even finished in the middle of the pack after his big contracts and all the hype surrounding him he would have been no more than a humorous sidebar to the history of golf. That put a lot of pressure on him before he ever teed it up. No one has dealt with that sort of external emotional pressure.

Before the world knew about Tiger, I met a man who had just been at the California State high school championships to support his son who was playing. We were at dinner at a marketing seminar and when our table began discussing the next day's golf outing a gentleman I was sitting by said that he had just witnessed the future of golf.

He then told us a story about the finish of the tournament: (he said) Tiger was playing in the last group and needed par to win as medalist and take first place for his team. With all the teams that had finished, parents and coaches surrounding the final par four green, Tiger missed his approach and was shortsided in long grass with a downhill lie. He took a couple of full swing practice cuts which caused whispers in the crowd and then WIFFED - he slipped the club completely under the ball causing it to settle down in the grass even further.

He needed to get up and down to tie now. He stepped away from the ball and took a moment to compose himself then set up and played the same full swing flop shot again and holed it out to win.

The man telling the story said, "This scrawny kid has ice water in his veins. His name is Tiger. Remember that name."

[Rafcin]

Watch some of the old films of Bobby Jones and you will see what talent he had. He was playing with old stick shafts and thin blades and I've seen him hit a 3 iron over 200 yds with uncanny accuracy. If he wasn't the best, he sure should rate up there with them. Alot of golf as we know it belongs to him, Jack and Arnie. They also had to make it financially from the ground up. They didn't have 60 mil placed in their lap before they even hit one ball on the tour.

You can't take it away from Tiger just because of the time he lives in?!? Sorry, but your statement reminds me of a grumpy old man, who keeps bitching about the "youth of today, that's nothing like back in my time". A player with this talent, work attitiude and this kind of mental power would dominate regardless of the century he lives in. It's tru the equipment Bobby Jones was using wasn't maximizing the preformance - but so was equipment of his competitors. As Erik said countless times in various thread - argument, that Tiger is making the game look easy is only based on the equipment development is bogus - every other player has the access to the same equipment - hell, we (hackers) have access to THE SAME equipment (bit expensive, but's out there).

[ragontona]

You can't take it away from Tiger just because of the time he lives in?!? Sorry, but your statement reminds me of a grumpy old man, who keeps bitching about the "youth of today, that's nothing like back in my time". A player with this talent, work attitiude and this kind of mental power would dominate regardless of the century he lives in. It's tru the equipment Bobby Jones was using wasn't maximizing the preformance - but so was equipment of his competitors. As Erik said countless times in various thread - argument, that Tiger is making the game look easy is only based on the equipment development is bogus - every other player has the access to the same equipment - hell, we (hackers) have access to THE SAME equipment (bit expensive, but's out there).

And as I've said in another thread, Tiger might be the

least technologically advanced player on tour right now. Save for his driver (which he struggles with anyway) and the One Platinum golf ball, most of the equipment in his bag is technology that is simply outdated, according to some. Forged blades with weak lofts (by today's standards), fairway woods that are a couple of product lines old, and a Scotty putter that he's had in play for nearly ten years. In essence, the field is lapping him, technology-wise. But he's still busting 'em up all day long.

[Rafcin]

... Forged blades with weak lofts ....

I saw a 4iron from 248, that he hit about 238... Damn, I've to get myself some weak lofts too !

[Jeepthrills]

Does someone have to have all of the records to be the best ever? Karl Malone has more points than Michael Jordan. Emmit Smith has more yards than Barry Sanders, Walter Payton, Jim Brown and Gayle Sayers. Barry Bonds is an A Hole. OK, I just slipped that one in because I hate the guy.

If Tiger had to retire today because he blew out his back, you could still argue that he was the greatest of all time. Look at his winning percentage and the margin of his wins. Look at his closing percentage. He doesn't have a ton of runner ups in majors, because when he get's close he wins.

The equipment arguement doesn't fly because like everyone said it is available at every sporting goods store. Besides, the courses are longer and more tricked up than ever. How many times did the people at Augusta change the course to slow down Jack?

[Baynative]

Possibly the best indication of talent is what their competitors think.

Hale Irwin once said of Jack: "If you were in the final round on Sunday he would shake your hand, look you in the eye and you knew that he knew ...that you knew you were about to get your ass kicked."

Padraig Harrington once said (when asked of his chances to win going into Sunday with a large lead): "Anything can happen when Tiger is only 7 back."

[TheHacker]

I would probably be going out on a limb here, but I would think overall that Ben Hogan is probably the best golfer I have heard of.

The reason I say that is when you look at how good his swing was, how well he did despite his best years being interrupted by World War II and then that horrible car wreck, I can't think of more challenging scenarios to overcome and still win like that. The one qualifier there would be putting. Hogan had legendary yips from what I understand.

As far as depth of competition getting better in today's world, I am not sure I buy that. If the average tour player today was really better than the average in Nicklaus's day, then you would I think see that reflected in the average score...and you don't. This is especially true given the fact everyone nowadays has so much better clubs and balls, not to mention launch monitors to fit them. Indeed, I would say all that stuff has maybe made the average joe better, but not the pros.

Give Tiger a off-the-shelf persimmon driver and one of those old golf balls, and put him up against Hogan in a game, it better come down to putting for Tiger's sake I think because ball striking and consistency I think Hogan would still own. Or change the scenario and give the Hawk a set of top o' dee line computer fitted TaylorMades and a box of Titleist Pro V1's and it would be the most amazing ball striking ever seen.

That said, Woods is easily the best today, and I think probably better than Nicklaus, he just wants it more.

[ragontona]

Give Tiger a off-the-shelf persimmon driver and one of those old golf balls, and put him up against Hogan in a game, it better come down to putting for Tiger's sake I think because ball striking and consistency I think Hogan would still own. Or change the scenario and give the Hawk a set of top o' dee line computer fitted TaylorMades and a box of Titleist Pro V1's and it would be the most amazing ball striking ever seen.

I think there's too much "head-to-head" speculation of golfers from different eras going on. All we can do is look at the empirical evidence -- how does a golfer compare to his contemporaries? How do his statistics compare to everyone else that's currently playing? How does he do against people he plays against now?

It's the only realistic, tangible way to discern just how good a golfer is compared to the rest of the field. Anything else is just a guess.

[TheHacker]

I think there's too much "head-to-head" speculation of golfers from different eras going on. All we can do is look at the empirical evidence -- how does a golfer compare to his contemporaries? How do his statistics compare to everyone else that's currently playing? How does he do against people he plays against now?

I agree with you on that count about being incomparable regarding players of different eras. I think the best example of that being a "problem" for the armchair quarterbacks is comparing Babe Ruth to anyone from basically 1960 on, because the game of baseball, and the dedication and conditioning of the players had changed so much. Comparing Barry Bonds (even minus the 'roids) with Babe Ruth is impossible because those eras were so different.

The only reason I would put Hogan in a different light is the magnitude of the challenges he dealt with. I can't think of another golfer who was that successful after getting crushed in a car wreck, to be that broken physically and within two years hobble to winning five of the six events you could enter in a season, I think that's incomparable in any era.

[iacas]

The reason I say that is when you look at how good his swing was, how well he did despite his best years being interrupted by World War II and then that horrible car wreck, I can't think of more challenging scenarios to overcome and still win like that. The one qualifier there would be putting. Hogan had legendary yips from what I understand.

Hogan won not that long after his car accident. It didn't put him out of commission for long, and his best years came after the car accident, in fact. So it's tough to say "boy, that car accident cost him a good five years." It didn't really...

As far as depth of competition getting better in today's world, I am not sure I buy that. If the average tour player today was really better than the average in Nicklaus's day, then you would I think see that reflected in the average score...and you don't.

That's a silly comparison to make, though. Today's fairways are smaller, faster, and the holes themselves longer. Today's pins are tucked more and the greens are faster. Today's rough is longer.

Put Tiger Woods with today's equipment on some of the courses from the 1960s and you'd see some scoring... I would imagine a scoring average around 64. Scoring average across generations is by no means a good way to determine skill or ability. Too many variables.

Give Tiger a off-the-shelf persimmon driver and one of those old golf balls, and put him up against Hogan in a game, it better come down to putting for Tiger's sake I think because ball striking and consistency I think Hogan would still own.

But this is all from a golfer you've only "heard of."

Here's the thing: Tiger is at least nearly as good as both Ben Hogan and Jack Nicklaus off the tee and with his irons. Tiger's at least as good as Jack with the putter (and better than Hogan). But where Tiger would win every day against Jack or Ben is with his short game. Jack's short game was pretty horrible for an 18-major winner, and Ben simply didn't have to play the kinds of shots Tiger can play because the pins were in the middles of the greens (much more so than today). So send Tiger back to the 1960s or send Nicklaus or Hogan to 2006, and I think Tiger wins on his short game alone.

[Xt1ncT]

I've had to vote no.

That he will become the greatest ever I have no doubt, I think the only thing that could stop him is a major injury. Barring that he'll overtake Jack and should get well into the 20's in major wins.

Until he overtakes Jack in the major wins column he can't be classed as the best ever. It's also too difficult to compare eras, where so many things have changed. That all of the players mentioned would have been great in any era is also a given, but to compare them is something that just can't be done, other than through stats - ie Tiger getting to 50 wins before the others etc - but that doesn't make him the best ever - major wins will do that. LEt's hope he gets number 12 this week.

[Rafcin]

Does someone have to have all of the records to be the best ever? Karl Malone has more points than Michael Jordan. Emmit Smith has more yards than Barry Sanders, Walter Payton, Jim Brown and Gayle Sayers. Barry Bonds...

Two thoughts :

1. I think additional factor is the fact of a individual game vs. team game. MJ wouldn't win his titles w/o Pipen, Rodman, etc., All running backs would do nothing w/o offensive line (ok, maybe Barry Sanders could . In golf you're all alone, nobody will help you out or cover for you when you have "off day". 2. In general I'm against calling someone "best ever". Too many environmental factors are involved - a valid comparison is only possible if all surrounding factors are equal - and in sport - it's impossible. He's the greatest now and he dominates HIS competitors like nobody ever did before - he changed the game, he changed the fans, he changed the course design approach. Does it make him greatest EVER? If there is only Yes and No option - I'd lean towards yes. Tomorrow could be a different story....

[Baynative]

There are some other factors to consider. One is competition. Tiger only plays against the strongest fields. I don't think that was always the case for Jack who was raising a family and making a living without the benefits of lucrative sponsorship deals.

Also in tournament footage I've seen from the 60's and even 70's they didn't hide the pins like they do now. Many of the shots shown on Golf Channel chronicles have the pins right in the middle of the green. Last week I heard an interesting stat: since the WGC (World Golf Championships) began, there have been 60 world class events- 8 per year for 71/2 years (including WGC and the Majors) with fields featuring the best in the world -usually most of the top 25 or 30 - Tiger has won 20 of these events. Ernie, Phil, Vijay, Retief, Padraig and S.Appleby have COMBINED for 18.

[Xt1ncT]

Also in tournament footage I've seen from the 60's and even 70's they didn't hide the pins like they do now. Many of the shots shown on Golf Channel chronicles have the pins right in the middle of the green.

This is true, but then you have the equipment factor of the modern era.

It's so much easier to "bomb" drives and then get your irons to spin the ball that it was back then which makes competition comittees have to tuck pins away etc. It wasn't until irons like the Ping Eye2's that clubs had really good grooves on them (which is why they were banned for a time) and players could start exerting even more control over the ball. As for the spnsorship comment, why do you think Tiger plays so few compared to others? He's on the largest sponsorship deals and so doesn't need to compete to earn a crust - and the prize money is so much more than it was even 10 years ago. TV coverage is more widespread now, so sponsors get more coverage etc etc. Don't get me wrong I think Tiger is fantastic, I tune in just to watch him most of the time - when he's not playing it's like pfft can't be bothereed watching "average" players. Now we all know they aren't average, but Tiger makes them look average. And he will become the greatest, no doubt. But...and it's a big but, he's won 11 to Jack's 18. When he gets to number 19 we can start to call him the greatest.

[Ghost Runner]

Greatest.player.ever.

[iacas]

It's so much easier to "bomb" drives and then get your irons to spin the ball that it was back then which makes competition comittees have to tuck pins away etc.

Again I'll point out that the accurate drivers have basically an equal proximity count than the long bombers of the ball. Obviously it's no easier to stick a wedge from the rough than to hit an 8-iron from the fairway close to the hole.

So I "get" what you're saying, but at the same time, it's misleading.

When he gets to number 19 we can start to call him the greatest.

If Tiger retired right now he'd have my vote as the greatest ever. He wins at such a higher pace than Jack that, given the time span, 11 majors and 50 victories in 10 years beats 18 and 72 wins or whatever Jack has in 24 years.

[Jeepthrills]

This is true, but then you have the equipment factor of the modern era.

The equipment is different. However, the couses are longer and tougher than ever before.

The sponsorships are not why Tiger plays so few events. They may help to allow him to do it, but they are not why he plays so few. He has done what Jack did later in his career. He has picked the tournaments that give him the best chance to win majors. He sets his schedule up to best fit into his plan. I can assure you that Nike, Buick, Tag, Amex, etc. would rather see him play 15-20 events and win majors than play 30+ and burn out. As far as the prize money goes, he is the reason it is so high. Look at the average purse and the TV deals since Tiger came on the scene. It is not simply a matter of the growth of golf as a spectator sport.

[SubPar]

"Tiger Woods is the greatest individual athlete of our time. OK, of all time.

There, I said it and it feels right...

But this isn't about golf anymore. Woods doesn't have anybody within a par-5 of him on tour. I thought Phil Mickelson was good enough to challenge Woods, but he isn't. Not now. Maybe not ever."

Story at ABC News
-----------------

Food for Thought : Phil is #2 behind Tiger and was on the cusp of a third straight major at U.S. Open two months ago at Winged Foot. Phil had been playing his best for some weeks. In the final two majors, he finished a combined 25 shots behind Woods.