Tiger and "The Record"

[Lemay427]

Players today dont fear Tiger like they used to. The, "Tiger effect" is gone.

I am sure that fear will be back when/if Tiger gets his game back.

[InTheFairway]

There's no doubt it will get harder as each year passes because time does run out on you. Jack Nicklaus has acknowledge that this year was a big opportunity missed for Tiger and it will get harder for him. If he had been able to carry the momentum he had in 2009 into 2010, he probably should have snagged 1 or 2 majors this year. But if Tiger keeps hanging around in the major championships and stay around the top of the leaderboard, he will convert a few more whether his opponent melts or he's able to put together a good final round. I think Tiger can play well enough to keep giving himself chances to win, even if he doesn't dominate as he used to, he should reach that magical number 18.

[GaijinGolfer]

I am sure that fear will be back when/if Tiger gets his game back.

Perhaps, but it hasnt kicked in yet. Honestly, I dont think today's young players are going to fear Tiger like people did in the past. They are young, brash, a little cocky and know that on any given day they can go toe to toe with Tiger and win.

Look at Rory, he pretty much called Tiger out and said he could beat him.

[MrKadash]

Jack wasn't exactly the most physically fit guy during his career - he carried an extra 20-25 pounds throughout his career - which had to have helped him hit a bit of a wall as he approached 40.

Actually Nicklaus was as physically fit from age 32-42 as he ever was, with his weight at times as low as 190, much lower than in his 20's.

Back to topic, given Tiger's history with swing changes, there is absolutely no reason to believe he won't be back and better than ever given some time for implementation of those changes. I truly don't believe the age is a factor at all. He has kept himself in incredible shape.

[The Recreational Golfer]

Since Tiger started winning majors, he has gone through three 10-major droughts - a streak where in ten consecutive majors that were held he didn't win one. He finished his third this year, so this is nothing new. Of course, in the first two droughts he didn't have all the distractions (to put it kindly) that he has had this year. But saying that he will or he won't break Jack's record, if you're that sure, can you also give me some help with the stock market?

Questions:
Yes, he finished 4th twice in majors this year, but is that now how good he is? Good enough to finish 4th? We'll see.
Are the new stars, McIlroy, D. Johnson, et. al. overtaking him? They have never been beaten by him head-to-head in a major, so maybe they aren't afraid of him like the old Big Five was.
35 is old for an athlete in team sports. It's certainly past prime in an individual sport like tennis. Golfers who have achieved at this age and beyond might be exceptions that prove the rule, but I haven't looked into that matter deeply. It would be an interesting study.
Because the difference between success and failure in professional sports is so fine, it might be at this age a swing change just doesn't "take" the way it would in a younger body, the mind not withstanding.

Everyone says, "Don't bet against Tiger." But so far, it's a good bet.

[iacas]

Since Tiger started winning majors, he has gone through three 10-major droughts - a streak where in ten consecutive majors that were held he didn't win one. He finished his third this year, so this is nothing new.

10 majors, yes, but he missed eight of them. The point remains valid, but in some ways he could fail to win the first two next year and still count it as 10. It'd be 10 for him, but not 10 in the timeline of his career, since he still will have aged during the two he missed.

[Acropo]

Jack Nicklaus won exactly one major after the age of 40,...

Eh? Were the US Open and PGA Championship not Majors in 1980? (Jack's birthday is in January...)

and he was not playing against the extremely deep talent pool that exists today.

I can give no better response to that than JWL1957 already has...

"there is a difference between deeper talent and the balls to win. Tigers opposition would have been better served to be sponsored by some baby diaper companies. They folded up like lawn chairs when they were paired with Tiger."

[CalBoomer]

Eh? Were the US Open and PGA Championship not Majors in 1980? (Jack's birthday is in January...)

I believe "after 40" means 41 and beyond. Beemer and Yang did awfully well for "lawn chairs."

[sean_miller]

I believe "after 40" means 41 and beyond. Beemer and Yang did awfully well for "lawn chairs."

No, it starts at one minute after midnight on your 40th birthday.

[tristanhilton85]

I have no doubt that Tiger will pass Jack. At his age, he has plenty of years of great golf ahead of him. It's easy for people to say he won't break it now because he is in one of his worst slumps. Now that the divorce and everything is behind him, he will take the time to regain his form and will start winning majors again. I'd say probably 2 next year.

[iacas]

I believe "after 40" means 41 and beyond. Beemer and Yang did awfully well for "lawn chairs."

I don't take it that way. You're 40 for one day (if that, could just be a moment in time). After that, it's "after 40," which is the same as "after turning 40."

But whatever. It's one major or three... who cares? Tiger isn't Jack. Or Ben Hogan. The comparisons are mostly pointless.

[Zeph]

I think he'll either beat Jack, or not win another major.
If he first starts winning a major, he'll be fired up and his fire to beat Jack will rekindle. Based on his current form, I think he'll star winning tournaments again next year.

Comparing to previous big names won't give any answers. They are not the same people. Debating it will never yield answers, we just have to wait and see. In the end, some people will have guessed right, some wrong.

Nicklaus and Hogan won majors late in the career, but again, this does not give a rule. If anything, the older Tiger gets, the harder it will be because of the harder competition today compared to earlier times. Regardless of his competition, he needs to bring his A and B game to do it.

[majorchamp]

IMHO, if Tiger ends up not surpassing Jack's record, I truly don't believe ANYBODY will ever beat Jack's record. Tiger has the only shot at it and if Jack's record is going to get beat, its from some kid who is still a twinkle in his daddy's eyes.

[majorchamp]

Perhaps, but it hasnt kicked in yet. Honestly, I dont think today's young players are going to fear Tiger like people did in the past. They are young, brash, a little cocky and know that on any given day they can go toe to toe with Tiger and win.

Yea, Rory with his A game can beat Tiger with his B game.

Regarding fear, I truly believe once Tiger is firing on all cylindars, we might see some spark of what we saw in 2000. Sure, he has more mental baggage now, but divorce is complete, he is going winless, he has fallen about as low as he can go, so I see him rising from the ashes one of these days and what we will see could be scary. who knows though.

[CalBoomer]

Louie Oosterheuzen smokes the Open field and Charlie Hoffman smokes the Deutsche Bank field. There are all kinds of unknowns out there who can get really hot for 4 days. Phil and Tiger and Els and Stricker are just not going to beat these random supernovas with their B games. And there a lot more of these guys out there than there used to be. It just makes winning Majors--or any golf tournament--a lot harder than it used to be, even only 10 or 15 years ago.

[max power]

IMHO, if Tiger ends up not surpassing Jack's record, I truly don't believe ANYBODY will ever beat Jack's record. Tiger has the only shot at it and if Jack's record is going to get beat, its from some kid who is still a twinkle in his daddy's eyes.

Agreed. I actually think if Tiger doesn't surpass 18 majors

no one will. Despite what some will argue, the talent pool in golf worldwide continues to expand, lessons have been learned from both Jack's and Tiger's approaches to the game, and we've got a lot of strong, competitive golf ahead of us-but with no player as dominant as Jack or Tiger. Baseball is a good example. Until the widespread use of steroids (which skewed the numbers and analysis from about 1994-2007) the greatest hitting and power numbers, and some of the most dominant pitching were all to be found prior to 1950. Why? Not because the best players on a relatively few number of white-only teams (compared to the modern era) were so much more talented than Jackie Robinson, Mickey Mantle, Carl Yaztremski, Roberto Clemente, George Brett, Willie McCovey, Tony Gwynn, etc. Talent pool wasn't nearly as deep, and there weren't generations of kids growing up in baseball culture. I'm not saying the individual players from the 50's-80's (and 90's if we include un-tainted guys like Frank Thomas, Derek Jeter, Ken Griffey Jr, Jim Thome, etc) are better than the best individual players from the first half of the century (Ruth, Cobb, Gehrig, W. Johnson, Foxx, etc). But I'd certainly argue that the average player was better and the teams are deeper. Tiger Woods has been so abnormally skilled at golf, and tournament golf, that he's almost an aberration. I don't think we'll see his like again in my lifetime (another 50 years or so). I don't think we'll see many 4, 5, 6 major winners in the future either. After Tiger, Phil has 4 (I know, he should have about 7), and if he follows Vijay's model of continued success throughout his 40's he could realistically win another 2 (maybe 3). Harrington doesn't look like he's going to return to the form of his 2 year span that brought him 3 majors, and it's been quite a while since Els won a major. If any of the youngbloods on the tour right now manage to pick up 2-4 majors over the next 15-20 years they have to be seen as unqualified mega-success stories. I think guys like McIlroy, Fowler, Kaymer, Dustin Johnson, (Kim if he returns to form), have the skill to win more than 3 or 4 majors in the next 20 years, but there is also a tremendous amount of talented other golfers who will make it extremely hard for them. If and when the next "Tiger" shows up, and sticks around for a while-I think we'll see more like 7-9 majors out of him. I don't know when or if 10 will ever happen again.

[3 wiggle]

It really is all up to tiger. IMHO he has a very athletic move. I think this may be hard to repeat in his 40s. Its really all about his health. He could get hurt in any number of ways...we do. Its too early to call i think. After a bad year like this i think its apparent the tiger factor is gone...and that was the most critical factor to his success imho. The young guns whom we have not seen the best of WANT tiger. Woods has never faced this, as everyone was intimidated by him in the past. Will he do it? I hope not, but think so...if that makes any sense at all...

[majorchamp]

Agreed. I actually think if Tiger doesn't surpass 18 majors

great post. 100% agreed. The talent pool is just becoming TOO rich with talent. Tiger had great competitors and still does...but during his "magic" years winning those 14 majors, I think the talent today has magnified x 10. But if someone can knock out 5 more majors in 10 years...it's Tiger.