Tiger Will Never Be the GOAT???

[max power]

Maybe there is no "right" answer-but nearly everything you laid out is actually an argument in Tiger's favor.

Originally Posted by Harmonious

It's so difficult to compare the different eras of golf, as so much has changed through the years.   Technology is vastly different today than even 10 years ago.  Many of the older, tighter, arguably tougher championship layouts are no longer used for major tournaments.  Someone with a wayward driver (Tiger) may not have been so dominant had the tree-lined courses been used.  Impossible to say.

What I would say is that there are four golfers who dominated their era that they could be considered.  They are Jones, Hogan, Nicklaus and Woods.  Jones is impossible the rate as he retired so early.  Hogan's brilliant career was cut short by injury, so it's impossible to say how great he could have been. Nicklaus' record is there for all to see.  Woods' is still unfinished.

What makes the most sense to me when discussing strength of each era's fields is not how deep they are, but how many truly excellent players there were during that time.  For instance, Jones had Hagen and Sarazen, but they only competed in a handful of tournaments together.  Hogan had Nelson and Snead, fighting it out at every major.  Nicklaus had Player (9 majors), Trevino (6), Watson (8) and, to a lesser extent, Palmer (7).  Woods had........Mickelsen?  He's the only one with 4 majors.

In other words, there has been little competition for Woods to prove he is/was the greatest of all time.  Not his fault, he beat whoever showed up; but the record shows a lack of competitive talent during his time. That was not the case with Nicklaus. His relative domination came during an era when there were a larger number of historically great players.

Anyway, good topic during the cold wintertime.  There is no "right" answer.

[Stacey_E]

Ask Pete Rose how GOAT is is relative term.  I'm not a Tiger hater BTW and NEVER have been.  I would love to see him get his 19 majors.  Unless I'm mistaken, Jack was quoted several years ago (well before the scandel) as saying something to the effect of "let's see how well he can play while balancing a family and career."  That is NOT an exact quote at all!!!  But it goes to the point that it takes a man to be well balanced, grounded and successfull in his chosen profession.  I suppose Tiger does have some fuel left in the tank.  And mark my words, if he makes it to 19, there will be more than  few secretly elated people (not JUST golfers) who will be happy to see proof of how humans can come back from personal tribulations - John Daly might be among them.

[x129]

The reason those people could challenge Nicklaus is because Nicklaus wasn't that much better than them. You have to compare golfers to their peers. Nicklaus had 2x as many majors as his peers. Woods has 3x. People had more back then because it was so much easier to win them.  I will make it clear. Guys like Phil, Vijay and Ernie are as good as or better than guys like Watson, Player and Trevino. When 1 guy does something it is an extraordinary accomplishment. When there are 4+ guys doing it, it is a lot easier or the most amazing statical fluke (i.e. the 20 handicaper going out and beating their handicap by 15 shots level).

Originally Posted by Harmonious

I don't follow your fuzzy math, so I'll just ask a simple question:  During Woods' reign at the top of the golf world, was there anybody that came even remotely close to Tom Watson's record?  Does anyone come remotely close to Gary Player's?  How about Lee Trevino's?  These are the people that Nicklaus had to beat to get his majors.  He didn't do it every time, but he did it more than anyone else.

Depth of field doesn't matter if there is no one who can challenge the leader. That certainly was the case with Woods. It was not the case with Nicklaus.

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by x129

The reason those people could challenge Nicklaus is because Nicklaus wasn't that much better than them. You have to compare golfers to their peers. Nicklaus had 2x as many majors as his peers. Woods has 3x. People had more back then because it was so much easier to win them.  I will make it clear. Guys like Phil, Vijay and Ernie are as good as or better than guys like Watson, Player and Trevino. When 1 guy does something it is an extraordinary accomplishment. When there are 4+ guys doing it, it is a lot easier or the most amazing statical fluke (i.e. the 20 handicaper going out and beating their handicap by 15 shots level).

We'll just have to disagree, then.

[StephenGSX]

Iacas

Thanks anyway, but I am actually off to a great start.

You competely miss the point about athletes. To WIN in golf is to hit the ball the fewest number of times. (I would emphasize the period if I could).  No golfer WINS because he is a better ATHLETE than the others. He wins because he is a better GOLFER than the others! Up to now, there has never been a better golfer than Jack (by the way, I never said that Tiger would never end up being better. This is something determined over a career--and yes, the "fluke" in '86 counts because he WON! Just like any fluke when Tiger is 46 years old will count).

Of course distance can be an advantage, but once again you don't WIN because you hit it the farthest! (I can't believe I actually have to explain this!).

A understanding of biomechanics DOES NOT make you a better GOLFER.  If that were the case, every physical therapist would be a scratch golfer.

An understanding of swing mechanincs DOES NOT make you a better golfer. I have over 100 students that have read more about the golf swing than is imaginable and still can't break 90.

To win a tournament, you don't have to win by 15 shots. 1 shot will do!  Jack has often said that he did not have the drive that Tiger had to win by a bunch of shots. A win is still a win. No World Series has ever been discounted because it was one by only one run!

Golf is a GAME that has one fundamental rule! The guy with the fewest shots wins! In competition, no one has done that better than Jack. And YES, the Majors are the MAIN criteria. Ask Tiger what he is after. Do you think he is worried about the Fedex Cup? Do you think he is going after the World Golf whatevers? Do you think he is concerned with the world rankings? Do you think he is after the Vardon Trophy? Do you think he is after the best Ryder Cup record? Do you think he is after the money?

Rest assured, Tiger wants ONE THING. Major #19! (and then 20, 21, 22, 23.....)

[StephenGSX]

Excerpt:  http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/masters/2011-04-06-tiger-woods-masters_N.htm

"It has always been my goal to pass Jack," says Woods, who has won 14 majors. "From well before I turned pro, that's what I've had my eyes set on in terms of golf. … I absolutely want to do it. The benchmark and gold standard in this sport is 18."

[iacas]

Originally Posted by StephenGSX

You competely miss the point about athletes. To WIN in golf is to hit the ball the fewest number of times. (I would emphasize the period if I could).  No golfer WINS because he is a better ATHLETE than the others.

Well that's a silly argument. No baseball team wins because they have better athletes - they win because they score more runs. But being a better athlete is part and parcel of scoring more runs, or hitting the golf ball in better spots and fewer times. By your definition nobody is an athlete.

Originally Posted by StephenGSX

Of course distance can be an advantage, but once again you don't WIN because you hit it the farthest!

You don't have to explain it. I said it's an advantage, and that's all I said. In fact, I'll go a bit farther - it's an athletic advantage.

Originally Posted by StephenGSX

A understanding of biomechanics DOES NOT make you a better GOLFER.  If that were the case, every physical therapist would be a scratch golfer.

That's a terrible argument. I said better golfer (than they would be without the knowledge). You've taken that to mean that all physical therapists would be scratch golfers?

Originally Posted by StephenGSX

To win a tournament, you don't have to win by 15 shots. 1 shot will do!  Jack has often said that he did not have the drive that Tiger had to win by a bunch of shots. A win is still a win. No World Series has ever been discounted because it was one by only one run!

That misses the point. You're trying to suggest that Jack played the "game" better than others. I'm simply pointing out that if you're looking at quality of individual wins, at times, Tiger has played "the game" (a single major) better than Jack.

As far as I'm concerned, 18 > 14 (or 20 > 17), so you really seem to have misread my posts if you think I believe Tiger > Jack.

Originally Posted by StephenGSX

Rest assured, Tiger wants ONE THING. Major #19! (and then 20, 21, 22, 23.....)

You really don't know me very well if you think you have to explain that to me.

[ghalfaire]

I like these Tiger Vs Jack discussion although that wasn't the initial question posed by the OP.  But you really can't answer the question without discussion of the other potential GOATs.  I agree with the earlier post that it is very difficult to compare athletes of different eras.  In the specific case of golf too much has changed over the years in equipment, course design and maintenance, medical technology to repair injury and maintain the body at peak performance and the increased money which will attract more athletes to the sport.  Maybe, and you can see it in this thread, there will never even be consensus on what criteria or criterion should be used to determine the GOAT.  But, for whatever it is worth, Tiger was (maybe will be again) the best golfer of his era, without question, just like Jack was.

[Deryck Griffith]

Originally Posted by StephenGSX

You competely miss the point about athletes. To WIN in golf is to hit the ball the fewest number of times. (I would emphasize the period if I could).  No golfer WINS because he is a better ATHLETE than the others. He wins because he is a better GOLFER than the others!

Your logic on an athlete and athleticism as it pertains to Golf is soooo incredibly "oversimplified" it's borderline offensive.

A person who is more athletic than another will almost always excel faster from a newbie starting point than someone who isn't athletic at all from that same starting newbie point.  And really, this applies to all "games" or "sports" that not only require (physical strength) but also require abilites such as timing, balance, flexibility, hand eye coordination, trained muscle memory, good mannerisms, etc etc etc etc.....

Being an "athlete" doesn't only mean you can bench 225 pounds or have a 40 inch vertical.  The skills I listed above are also things that make someone athletic and in most cases, people who have grown up playing some type of sport or game have some of those skills or maybe even all of those skills.  Of course, people who continue on in their sport advance the skills more than their peers which makes them even a better athlete and more capable of maybe yes, putting a more "athletic move" on a golf swing.  How does that not make sense to you?

Let's look at John Daly.  Yes, he isn't a muscular specimen but let's see what athletic abilites he has?

Timing - Check

Balance - Check

Flexibilty - Big Check (**see driwing swing)

Had Eye Coordination - Big Check

Good Mannerisms - Suprisngly enough, Check

Muscle Memory - Check (Daly can not touch a club for 6 months and still repeat his swing and play good golf).

I would also argue that John Daly is probably, to a smaller degree, a naturally strong person as well; regardless, the athletic skills that he has all contribute to his ability to "get the ball in the hole" as you say.  And from there, you can extrapolate to all of the other hundreds of PGA golfers and will quickly see that they all have  of a level of "athleticism" which helps them succeed at what they do.

Even go ahead and take a look at early pictures of Jack Nicklaus.  There is no way in hell you can say he wasn't an "athlete" or "athletic" when he first started his career.  In fact, at the time, he was known as being the yonger "athletic" up and comer in his generation.  So while you say Jack "got the ball in the hole," he did that as an athlete and his athleticism assisted his ability to do so from day one and made him a better GOLFER.

[StephenGSX]

My point about athleticism in golf is that it is not the athletics that gets the job done. Golf is a game of skill and strategy and competitive golf adds a dimension of mental toughness that ultimately determines the winner.

Tiger's last performance is a good example of this point. He definitely was not in all of the good spots but he finally got his GAME back which is crucial recoveries at crucial times and his mental toughness, all of which once again showed his dominance of the PGA tour players. His athleticism did not get that accomplished. Tiger initially became great because he had an awesome short game and an insatiable drive to be known as the BEST ever (i.e. 19 majors). In addition, I would not hesitate to argue that Tiger's game was actually a lot better when he was less of an "athlete." In any case, the point again is that athletics in golf. do not make you the winner.

Mental exercise: admit that all PGA Tour players are now all very good athletes. Becoming a "better athlete" will not make an average tour guy become a champion.

And YES, I would apply this to the other games such as baseball, football, soccer, basketball. Of course, the nature of those games is such that pure athleticism is much more important. I will still argue, however, that the group of best individual athletes will not make the BEST team.

As far as an 'more " athletic move" on a golf swing' goes, no-one has won a major because of a "more athletic move on a golf swing!" How "athletic" does one have to be to hit a chip shot, a putt a bunker shot? How "athletic" does one have to be to play within his own game? How "athletic" does one have to be to relax under pressure? How "athletic" does one have to be to be patient. How "athletic" does one have to be to play one shot at a time and to not think about the score? How "athletic" does one have to be to stick to a game plan? How "athletic" does one have to be to pull out 3-wood instead of driver on the 72nd hole of the US Open?

These are elements that make CHAMPIONS WIN MAJORS, not athleticism. And nobody has done that BETTER than Jack! (By the way, Jack and Daly were both great athletes. John perhaps more than Jack. Jack just happened to be a better GOLFER).

Iacas, regarding the whole thing about the Majors, I was just trying to respond to some of the feeds about making up some hokey formula to determine the BEST EVER. We already have it: THE MAJORS!

If you don't believe me, just re-read Tiger's quote above and you have it straight from the "KID'S" mouth!  (In case you don't get it, KID is the name for a BABY GOAT!)

[iacas]

Originally Posted by StephenGSX

My point about athleticism in golf is that it is not the athletics that gets the job done. Golf is a game of skill and strategy and competitive golf adds a dimension of mental toughness that ultimately determines the winner.

Fail. Athletics does help get the job done. You can call it "skill" all you want but it's "athletic skill" that you're talking about. Golf isn't chess (pretty sure there's not much athletic skill in picking something up and putting it down a few inches away). The guy with the best mind doesn't always win. It helps, too, but execution matters, and execution has a large athletic component.

And the part addressed to me clearly illustrates you don't understand how I feel or think about Tiger's position in golf.

The rest of your post is so dumb (and so full of straw men arguments) that I'm just ignoring it.

[sean_miller]

It's somewhat true that to be considered a great athlete at one sport doesn't mean you're necessarily a great athlete over all.

I've never seen Shaun White hit a baseball or throw a football (he probably could do it quite well though), Phil Mickelson run and bounce a basketball (I have seen him jump though - unfortunately), and I can't picture Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan on a snowboard, but they're all great athletes.

[x129]

How to you factor in that the majors just weren't as important in Pre 1960s golf? Take Sam Snead or Ben Hogan. The pretty much didn't play the Open (Sam 1/3 and Ben was 1/1). And Hogan won the 1953 masters, US Open, Open and then didn't play the PGA( which he did 18 times according to wikipedia.). Now I haven't check to see how many of the Opens and PGA that they were qualified to play, but I am guessing they could have played most of them if they want.

A lot comes down to how much you value peaks versus long term consistancy. Hogan winning 5/9 majors between 1950 and 1953 or Tiger 1999-2002 (7 majors in 16 attempts) are peaks that Jack doesn't come close to. However Jack did perform at the top level for much longer than either Tiger has and Hogan didn't start winning majors until his 30s.

And heaven forbid the PGA every goes LPGA on us and decides to add a 5th major.....

Quote:

As far as I'm concerned, 18 > 14 (or 20 > 17), so you really seem to have misread my posts if you think I believe Tiger > Jack.

You really don't know me very well if you think you have to explain that to me.

[StephenGSX]

Iacas,

I said that the comments about the Majors referred to other posts in the feed (not necessarily at you). But while we are on that subject, why don't you explain your position on Tiger as I don't seem to get it....

As far as the rest is concerned, I guess I'll just have to take my "F" for failing the class.

Rolopolo clearly makes better points than I:

"Is Tiger a better golfer than Jack was? Without a doubt, of course he is. But then, many of today's youngsters might be better than Jack.

Golfers 30 years from now will be much better than Tiger - the speed at which athletes becomes better is phenomenal"

Indeed, not only is Tiger better than Jack, so are alot of the young guys because they have become better athletes.  I guess I don't know enough about golf to understand such wisdom. Jack must now be the 9th or 10th best golfer of all time!! And Tiger will be old news too. It's quite obvious.

I'm at least glad that you agree that having the best mind at least "helps" at winning in golf ("It helps, too,.."). And I guess that you are right in saying that the guy with the best mind doesn't "always win." It just seems odd to me that the two guys that happen to have the best golfing minds (Jack and Tiger, just in case...) happen to have won more than anybody else. But I am sure that this is pure coincidence.

In any case, I think we have beaten the dead GOAT enough....

[jamo]

I'm at least glad that you agree that having the best mind at least "helps" at winning in golf ("It helps, too,.."). And I guess that you are right in saying that the guy with the best mind doesn't "always win." It just seems odd to me that the two guys that happen to have the best golfing minds (Jack and Tiger, just in case...) happen to have won more than anybody else. But I am sure that this is pure coincidence.   In any case, I think we have beaten the dead GOAT enough....

Who is to say those are the two best golfing minds of all time?

[StephenGSX]

"Who is to say those are the two best golfing minds of all time?"

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, just every professional golfer that has ever been on tour.

[jamo]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, just every professional golfer that has ever been on tour.

All I'm saying is, there's absolutely no way to measure "how good of a golfing mind someone has," and speculating about it seems pointless to me. Scoring well in golf requires a combination of things. Innate athleticism and "a mind for golf" are just two parts, and none of them hold a perfect correlation to scoring.

[StephenGSX]

Jamo,

You are right, winning is the result of many factors. However, there are ways to determine how good a golfing mind a person posesses. One can tell how he responds to certain situations and the decisions he makes. One can listen to interviews and understand how the person thinks. One can tell by how he carries himself in different sitautions, his demeanor.

There is no question that Jack demonstrated the attributes of a great golfing mind. I would argue the best, but that would get us into long discussions that might not be worth it.