Tiger Will Never Be the GOAT???

[brocks]

There seem to be three camps when it comes to the discussion on the Greatest Of All Time: those who think Tiger has already done enough, those who think Tiger will be the GOAT if and only if he breaks Jack's record of 18 majors, and those who think Tiger will never be the greatest, no matter what he does. I'll admit to being in the first category above --- I think Tiger has done enough, and in fact he had done enough when he completed the Tiger Slam in 2001. I think the greatest of all time is the golfer who is the most dominant over world class fields, not the one who can manage to win a major every couple of years over a long period of time. Accordingly, I don't see how it adds anything to what Tiger did in 1999-2001 (or 1996-2009, if you think two years is too short a time frame) if he manages to win five more majors over the next ten years, and I don't see how it subtracts anything if he doesn't. That said, I can certainly understand the logic of people who say Tiger has to break Jack's record before they acknowledge him to be the GOAT. I think it would make a lot more sense if they said he only had to tie Jack, because Tiger can't win four more majors without breaking Jack's career PGA victories mark of 73 (Tiger would have a minimum of 75 wins if he won four more majors), and that would leave Jack with no important records held by himself, and only two held jointly (tie with Tiger for most majors, and tie with Arnie for most consecutive years with a PGA win). Meanwhile, Tiger would hold, by himself, the records for most POYs, most Vardons, most consecutive majors, most times leading money winner, most weeks world #1, most WGCs, etc. And if you don't think those last two are fair because Jack wasn't in his prime when World #1 and WGCs were available, then you know how Hogan and Snead feel about Jack's major record, since they had a bunch of majors cancelled for WW II, and didn't consider the Open Championship important enough to put in their regular schedule, let alone something that would determine their place in golf history. I also think that judging an entire career by one stat, especially a stat that involves so much luck (and Jack and Tiger would be the first to say that luck plays a part in winning a major, much more so than winning a Vardon or even a FedEx Cup, because it's just four rounds), is misguided. But at least I can understand the reasoning. But I can't understand the logic of people who say Tiger can't be the GOAT, no matter what he does. I mean, we are talking about golfers, not candidates for husband of the year. If you don't want him to date your sister, fine, but give him his due as a golfer. There's also a lot of hypocrisy involved. I know for a fact that many of the same people who pretend to be disgusted at Tiger's private life consider Babe Ruth and Mickey Mantle to be among their favorite baseball players of all time, and they made Tiger look like a choirboy. So until today, I pretty much ignored those people. I figured they are entitled to their opinion, but I have no obligation to take them seriously. But on TGC today, Golf Central devoted the entire show to Tiger, and within the first five minutes, Brandel Chamblee said he would not consider Tiger the greatest, even if he won 20 majors. Of course, Brandel is well known for knocking Tiger, and I thought he often went overboard in doing it, but I also thought that he gave him his due as a golfer. In fact, in the same show, Chamblee said that he considered today's golfers to be on three different levels. First Tiger, then a gap, then Rory McIlroy, then a gap, then everybody else. So I was surprised that he would say --- and not only on national TV, but in a setting where he had probably prepared his remarks, rather than blurting something out --- that he would never acknowledge Tiger as the best ever. I don't especially care for Chamblee, but unlike many of the Tiger haters you see in these discussion groups, he can't be dismissed as someone with little or no knowledge of the game and its history. So I'm willing to revise my opinion of people who say Tiger will never be first on their list of great golfers. But Brandel didn't explain his reasoning, so I would like to ask those of you who agree with him, why not? Why wouldn't Tiger be the greatest golfer ever, even if he won 20 majors? Is it that you can't separate his off-course conduct from his golf, or is it that you automatically disqualify someone who swears after a bad shot, or is it that you (god help us) think Bobby Jones faced tougher fields than Tiger, or what?

[deasy55]

Why would people mention Tiger in a discussion about Jack Nicklaus?

Quote:

Originally Posted by brocks

There seem to be three camps when it comes to the discussion on the Greatest Of All Time

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by brocks

But I can't understand the logic of people who say Tiger can't be the GOAT, no matter what he does.

I've never ever read anyone who believes this or spoken to anyone who believes this.

Who says this? Where? Apart from Chamblee - but I didn't hear his comments. It's not as if it's a common belief.

Right now, he is, without question the second best player of all time.

If he passes NIcklaus's record he will, without questioin, be the GOAT as you put it.

The only people who think he is the GOAT now are the golfing equivalent of 12 year girls who think that Justin Bieber is the greatest singer of "all time".

[sean_miller]

The anything of all time is subjective in sports where wins and losses are based on head to head competition in different eras. Golf isn't a team sport where scoring stats are relative to the era the player played in (e.g. Does anyone seriously believe Wayne Gretzky would score 92 goals in today's NHL when almost every team has several two-way forwards and smooth skating defensemen who would have been first team all stars in the 1980s).

Who's the greatest tennis player of all time? Roger Federer? Pete Sampras? Bjorn Borg? The majors speak for themselves but those guys didn't play head to head.

[brocks]

I've never ever read anyone who believes this or spoken to anyone who believes this.

Well then, obviously it's never happened. Sorry to bother you. But before you set me straight, I would have said that a good 20-30% of people feel that way, at least among those who post to golf DBs. Maybe it's different on this board, but I assure you that my estimate was conservative for the old TGC board. [quote name="Shorty" url="/t/54927/tiger-will-never-be-the-goat#post_669449"] The only people who think he is the GOAT now are the golfing equivalent of 12 year girls who think that Justin Bieber is the greatest singer of "all time". [/quote] So among other things you've never read or heard is that several past and current top pros consider Tiger the greatest of all time.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by brocks

Well then, obviously it's never happened. Sorry to bother you.

But before you set me straight, I would have said that a good 20-30% of people feel that way, at least among those who post to golf DBs. Maybe it's different on this board, but I assure you that my estimate was conservative for the old TGC board.

So among other things you've never read or heard is that several past and current top pros consider Tiger the greatest of all time.

Absolute rubbish.

Nicklaus has 18 majors.

Tiger has 12.

The consensus is that a player's career is in large part measured by their success in majors, at least in modern times, and certainly when it comes to judging the GOAT.

As for people who say that no matter what he does he'll never be GOAT? Seriously?

Many current and past players will say that Tiger is the best player they have ever seen or played with.

Name one that says he is the GOAT.

[brocks]

Absolute rubbish. Nicklaus has 18 majors. Tiger has 12.

I think even Justin Bieber knows Tiger has 14. [quote] The consensus is that a player's career is in large part measured by their success in majors, at least in modern times, and certainly when it comes to judging the GOAT.[/quote] I agree that's the most popular criterion. It doesn't mean it's right. For one thing, as I said in my other post, it puts too much emphasis on luck. A good bounce for one player, or a bad bounce for another, could decide it. For another, it's totally unfair to anybody who played before Jack. Jack was the first top player to play four majors a year, every year. Even Arnie, who rescued the Open Championship from obscurity, only played it about every other year. And the guys in contention for GOAT who played before Arnie had zero majors to play some years, and played only one or two in most years. [quote] As for people who say that no matter what he does he'll never be GOAT? Seriously? [/quote] Yes, seriously. To be fair, I remember one guy who wasn't quite in the "no matter what" camp, but he was pretty close. He reasoned that Jack's competition was five times tougher than Tiger's, so Tiger needed to win 90 majors to be better than Jack. [quote] Many current and past players will say that Tiger is the best player they have ever seen or played with. [/quote] And they have seen or played with Jack. One whom you may have heard of is Byron Nelson. [quote] Name one that says he is the GOAT. [/quote] If you demand it word for word, you're unreasonable. As you just admitted, many have said he's the best they have seen, which is just a way of saying they have no way to evaluate the likes of Vardon and Jones (it's called admitting your opinion is not a fact; you should try it some time). But plenty have said it in so many words. Most recently and prominently, Fred Couples, who justified his selection of Tiger for the PC by saying, repeatedly, that he was "the best player forever."

[cart7]

IMO, the field Jack played up against during his career way outshines the players Tiger has had to compete with.  Heck, Tigers presence in a major tournament had 3/4 or more of the field psyched out before they hit the first tee.

Tiger will definitely need to win more majors than Jack and still, if you could through a time machine pit them against one another,  Jack would still be the guy to win between the two.  He had the mental side way figured out and wouldn't have allowed the Tiger factor to intimidate him or his game.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by brocks

. Most recently and prominently, Fred Couples, who justified his selection of Tiger for the PC by saying, repeatedly, that he was "the best player forever."

Yes...but he's hardly going to say "I want Tiger because he's the second best player ever" or "Apart from NIcklaus, Tiger is the best player."

I know what you are saying, but I truly doubt that there would be a single person who, if Tiger won 20 majors would say. "No. Not good enough."

Also, there are peope who would say that Tiger is the best ever even if he retired tomorrow..

Not an argument anyone can "win", but the consensus amongst serious golf followers is that NIcklaus has to be consider the GOAT until Woods surpasses 18.

For my money, the best player I ever saw - and I have seen Watson, Nicklaus, Woods, Player all in the flesh - is Greg Norman by a considerable margin, in terms of ability to hit a golf ball.

Unfortunately his major record (wins) will make future generations overlook him, and was never a GOAT contender. If he had won the dozen majors he should have, perhaps. I would say also, personally that I think at his best Woods is a better player than Nicklaus at his best, but the argument is moot, because all you can do is beat the opposition you have. Both of them do/did that pretty convincingly.

Woods' off course transgressions will always be a part of his biography, but I can't see anyone using themto denigrate his record - unless they are completely stupid.

[brocks]

IMO, the field Jack played up against during his career way outshines the players Tiger has had to compete with.  Heck, Tigers presence in a major tournament had 3/4 or more of the field psyched out before they hit the first tee.

If it was only 3/4, then they were tougher than Jack's competition, because Jack famously said he only had to worry about five or six guys at a major. And in his 1996 autobiography, Jack said that because of the big money and much larger talent pools, the fields were much tougher then (1996) than in his day. He said that the average pro of 1996 was as good as the top players of his day. I would imagine it's only gotten tougher since then.

[brocks]

Yes...but he's hardly going to say "I want Tiger because he's the second best player ever" or "Apart from NIcklaus, Tiger is the best player."

Freddie is no dummy, and he was asked the question a hundred times, so he knew it was coming. He could very easily have said, "Tiger is the best player in the world," or even "Tiger is the best American player," and totally justified his pick. He didn't have to bring "forever" into it unless he meant it. [quote] Woods' off course transgressions will always be a part of his biography, but I can't see anyone using themto denigrate his record - unless they are completely stupid.  [/quote] You may be on to something there. :-)

[newtogolf]

GOAT is a subjective category.  How do you measure greatness, you're measure might be different than mine.  In golf and tennis the sports writers tend to use Majors as the determining factor and right now Tiger is #2.  If Tiger surpasses Jack some will still argue Jack was better because he played against tougher competition, again subjective criteria as there's no way to make that determination objectively.

Cart 7 is one of those guys that won't give Tiger his due even if he beats Jacks record so the debate will rage on for years.  My guess is if Tiger does beat Jack's record he will be recognized within the industry as the GOAT because Majors wins was the metric they used to crown Jack as GOAT.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Shorty

I've never ever read anyone who believes this or spoken to anyone who believes this.

Who says this? Where? Apart from Chamblee - but I didn't hear his comments. It's not as if it's a common belief.

Right now, he is, without question the second best player of all time.

If he passes NIcklaus's record he will, without questioin, be the GOAT as you put it.

The only people who think he is the GOAT now are the golfing equivalent of 12 year girls who think that Justin Bieber is the greatest singer of "all time".

Quite possibly the dumbest statement ever made on a golf DB.  But what do you expect from someone who doesn't even know the facts.  Tiger has 12 majors???  LOL.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Shorty

Absolute rubbish.

Nicklaus has 18 majors.

Tiger has 12.

The consensus is that a player's career is in large part measured by their success in majors, at least in modern times, and certainly when it comes to judging the GOAT.

As for people who say that no matter what he does he'll never be GOAT? Seriously?

Many current and past players will say that Tiger is the best player they have ever seen or played with.

Name one that says he is the GOAT.

The consensus was that number of PGA tour victories was the determining factor.  Until Jack realized he would never pass Snead and lobbied for the most majors being the criteria.  But why most?  How about highest percentage?  I haven't done the math but I think if we went by highest percentage then Harry Vardon would be the guy.

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by cart7

IMO, the field Jack played up against during his career way outshines the players Tiger has had to compete with.  Heck, Tigers presence in a major tournament had 3/4 or more of the field psyched out before they hit the first tee.

Tiger will definitely need to win more majors than Jack and still, if you could through a time machine pit them against one another,  Jack would still be the guy to win between the two.  He had the mental side way figured out and wouldn't have allowed the Tiger factor to intimidate him or his game.

Jack disagreed with your field claim in his 1996 autobiography.  In there he said " . . . the fact is that, to be able to hold onto their cards, and earn a decent living, the golfers in the middle of the pack today have had to become as good as the players at the top were when I started out thirty and more years ago, while those in the top have become the equals of superstars of my generation."

And as far as intimidation goes, it is Jack about whom it was said, "Jack knew he was going to beat you. You knew Jack was going to beat you. And Jack knew that you knew that he was going to beat you."

Is it so hard for you to see that if only a handful of guys have a realistic chance of winning a major them the majors will be bunched among those guys?  Jack's fiels were so tough that guys like Frank Beard and Dave Hill could win money titles and Vardons?

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by turtleback

Quite possibly the dumbest statement ever made on a golf DB.  But what do you expect from someone who doesn't even know the facts.  Tiger has 12 majors???  LOL.

Ever typed on an ipod touch in semi darkness, in a hurry? LOL

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by turtleback

The consensus was that number of PGA tour victories was the determining factor.  Until Jack realized he would never pass Snead and lobbied for the most majors being the criteria.  But why most?  How about highest percentage?  I haven't done the math but I think if we went by highest percentage then Harry Vardon would be the guy.

So---Keegan Bradley could retire now and be considered one of the greatest of all time?

And - stupid as it may seem, when people talk about "all time" for some reason we only think about golfers from perhaps Hogan and after him.

It's all relative. Not an argument anyone can "win".

[brocks]

The consensus was that number of PGA tour victories was the determining factor.  Until Jack realized he would never pass Snead and lobbied for the most majors being the criteria.  But why most?  How about highest percentage?  I haven't done the math but I think if we went by highest percentage then Harry Vardon would be the guy.

Assuming a minimum requirement of three wins, to help eliminate flukes, I'd guess it would be Young Tom, who batted .444.