What will Tiger's legacy be?

[France46]

Originally Posted by muggs

Nobody was asking this question in May of 2010, cheech, 'cept me. Hence the writing on the wall. I saw this coming, the lemmings still don't.

What exactly did you see coming?

[Ole_Tom_Morris]

As far as longevity in the sport, Tiger claims one reason for his swing changes was to reduce wear and tear.    Somebody mentioned Phil and Veejay and Ernie.   Two of those are aging out and are probably looking forward to the Champions Tour.  Phil is not in great health and while he is stronger now than when he was a scrawny pot-bellied kid he is on the far side of the hill.

As far as steroids there is no reason to suppose Tiger took any.   His buffed look mighta come by natural means only.   (Course I said that about Floyd and Lance. :( )

If we second guess the value/harm of gym work to golfers, I think Keegan Bradley is the best target right now. New England nerd-type who played great then found weights.

As far as Tiger's Open performance, he's not superman though he's come close at times.   Tough course, tough competition and the odds were far and away that somebody else would win.

I'm a Tiger-basher but his winning 4 times this year earned a lot of respect from me.    He's not a quitter, he loves the competition and the game and gives his all.

Maybe some of his mental edge is in retreat.   When Tiger is laughing and horsing around on the course with his homeboy McIlroy, there's been a sea change.

Of whom was it said:

"He was a man.   Take him for all in all, we shall not look upon his like again."

[muggs]

The fact that his actions would affect his play which would in turn ultimately affect his legacy. I didn't realize this was all so hard to follow...

[boogielicious]

Originally Posted by Ole_Tom_Morris

If we second guess the value/harm of gym work to golfers, I think Keegan Bradley is the best target right now. New England nerd-type who played great then found weights.

Hey!  I resemble that remark!  What's wrong with being a New England nerd?

[zipazoid]

"Oh what could have been"...? What the heck kind of option is that?

If he doesn't win another event ever again, he finishes 2nd in majors & 2nd in wins all time . He's already on the very short list of greatest ever.

[WUTiger]

How about a third choice for the poll?

[  ]  He's the Jack Nicklaus of the new Millennium.

• Tiger won the J. Nicklaus College Player of the Year award in 1996; and...
• The PGA Player of the Year - Jack Nicklaus Award - 10 times between 1997 and 2009.

Tiger will break Nicklaus' record of 18 majors, but it will take him until his mid-40s. After all, Tiger has created the template for the 21st Century Golfer... about a dozen Tiger clones play on PGA Tour right now... Snedeker, Johnson, Simpson, McDowell, McIlroy...

[Ole_Tom_Morris]

Originally Posted by boogielicious

Hey!  I resemble that remark!  What's wrong with being a New England nerd?

Nothing whatever!

If I played like Keegan Bradley used to, I wouldn't change my underwear, I wouldn't comb my hair, I wouldn't breathe.   I sure wouldn't try to remake my body.

Yeah, I know most golf pros are buffed now, have personal trainers, and spend time in the exercise trailer.   I am a big believer in exercise and weight training.   But I am not convinced that it has no detrimental effect on an already great golf game.

[France46]

Quote:

Originally Posted by muggs

Seeing how the past year has been for him, do you think we've seen the end of his dominance, or do you think he's talented and determined enough to overcome this adversity and be the true #1 again?

to

Quote:

Originally Posted by muggs

The fact that his actions would affect his play which would in turn ultimately affect his legacy. I didn't realize this was all so hard to follow...

Seems like an after the fact prognostication- I didn't see what you voted in the poll, but your original post in this thread gave no indication of what side you were on.  As it turns out, Tiger was talented enough to overcome adversity and regain the #1 ranking so I am not exactly sure what you correctly "predicted."  At the very least, Tiger will be considered the greatest player of his generation, so option 2 on the poll is clearly going to be incorrect (and that is the one you seem to be going with).

If you want to take credit for early prognostication, you should have at least written an article like this one published over 2 months BEFORE this thread. http://www.cleveland.com/livingston/index.ssf/2010/02/jack_nicklaus_record_now_appea.html

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by muggs

Seeing how the past year has been for him, do you think we've seen the end of his dominance, or do you think he's talented and determined enough to overcome this adversity and be the true #1 again?

Let me see........ the past 9 months.......what is it .......7 tournament victories?

7 career victories would make someone a legend,

That's good enough for a "true #1" for me.

Most PGA Tour players would do well to win 3 or perhaps 4 times in a career. And many great players win once, if at all.

A guy who hardly ever plays wins on average once every six weeks or a third of the time he tees it up  and that isn't "dominant" enough for you?

[billchao]

Even if Tiger retired today, he'd still be one of the greatest golfers of all time and the most dominant golfer of his era.

The poll is limited in scope, because neither choice really covers how I feel.

And no, I don't feel his personal life will affect his legacy much. He is not Lance Armstrong.

[bobsuruncle]

Let's revisit this in a few years' time ... perhaps there'll be nothing to debate at that point ...

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by bobsuruncle

Let's revisit this in a few years' time ... perhaps there'll be nothing to debate at that point ...

Frankly, the only real debate is whether he's the best ever or not, and if not, he's edged out by Jack. What other options are there?

And please. Spare me the Walter Hagen or Ben Hogan options. It's either Jack or Tiger.

[inthehole]

I think the most professional tour wins should trump most majors.    To me, major championships are a measure of how one copes with maximum possible hype and pressure in a tournament setting.    So the guy that plays the best under pressure at 4 big tournaments each year should be the best ever regardless if he has less cumulative pro wins than someone else ?!?!    The greatest number of career wins will undoubtedly be in Tigers bag when he hangs up his cleats ... that should make him clearly the best ever, even if he doesn't beat JN's 18 majors.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by inthehole

I think the most professional tour wins should trump most majors.    To me, major championships are a measure of how one copes with maximum possible hype and pressure in a tournament setting.    So the guy that plays the best under pressure at 4 big tournaments each year should be the best ever regardless if he has less cumulative pro wins than someone else ?!?!    The greatest number of career wins will undoubtedly be in Tigers bag when he hangs up his cleats ... that should make him clearly the best ever, even if he doesn't beat JN's 18 majors.

It's a combination, I'd say.

Golfer A: 70 pro wins, 18 majors, 2 U.S. Amateurs.

Golfer B: 85 pro wins, 16 majors, 3 U.S. Amateurs.

I think one would be justified in calling B the better golfer, especially since Golfer A considers U.S. Am wins to be pretty important.

Golfer A: 70 pro wins, 18 majors, 2 U.S. Amateurs.

Golfer B: 100 pro wins, 14 majors, 3 U.S. Amateurs.

I think the majority of people would be right in choosing A as the better golfer, especially since Golfer B considers majors to be almost the sole determinant of such.

[muggs]

If he doesn't break Jack's Major record, everyone will say his legacy is not what it may have been. Wake up.

[Zwick]

Originally Posted by iacas

Golfer A: 70 pro wins, 18 majors, 2 U.S. Amateurs.

Golfer B: 100 pro wins, 14 majors, 3 U.S. Amateurs.

I think the majority of people would be right in choosing A as the better golfer, especially since Golfer B considers majors to be almost the sole determinant of such.

There are 18 players with 30 or more PGA tour wins, and 27 with 4 or more major titles. So i'd say 30 wins are easily as important as majors, at least the acomplishments are equal.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by muggs

If he doesn't break Jack's Major record, everyone will say his legacy is not what it may have been. Wake up.

Originally Posted by muggs

Seeing how the past year has been for him, do you think we've seen the end of his dominance, or do you think he's talented and determined enough to overcome this adversity and be the true #1 again?

You don't get to keep changing the rules. :)

We know you hate Tiger. It's about all you ever seem to post about anymore. Good for you. Others don't care about his personal life and just want to see great golf.

[boil3rmak3r]

History shows that wining majors after you turn 40 is extremely hard. Tiger is getting close to that age. I couldn't fathom Tiger catching Jack. If he wins 2 more majors I would be surprised. As for the poll, whether people think Tiger is the greatest of all time or not, I would have to believe that most are already asking, "What could have been?" Whether it was coincidental or not, he just hasn't been the same since the scandal. 40 years from now, I don't think that'll be his legacy. By then, it'll just be a question of whether he or Jack was the best...