Norman says "probably would have" beaten Tiger

[TomK82]

Norman was a solid player and still is compared to me but Tiger in his prime was just a different level of greatness, I don't think anyone would have kept up with Tiger in his prime. Phil couldn't, Ernie also was always playing second fiddle.  However I think Tom Watson could have handled him better than most.

[iacas]

I think Greg Norman spent 331 weeks at number one in the world, and Tiger Woods just hit twice that: 662 weeks.

[Mulligan Jeff]

Norman is right he would have beat all of them - on Saturday!

[mvmac]

Norman is right he would have beat all of them - on Saturday!

[flopster]

I think the blown opportunities at majors is still haunting the guy to this day and he just says things like this to bolster his ego. Some of the lost tournaments were from heroic shots Mize, Gamez  etc,  but then there was the 96' masters, that is going to go down as one of the biggest folds in tournament golf. And of course the very next year Tiger blazes Augusta national, if they did not make the changes to that course as soon as they did he may have 6 jackets by now particularly adding rough in 99.

[Spitfisher]

Norman would have beaten Tiger........that's a fair statement. Take that statement for what's its means, it refers to Norman the way he played in his career and time, against Tiger the way he has been playing. He makes no reference to when Tiger was dominating. Norman was really long and really straight. Reading into it as comparing himself to Tiger accomplishments is a different statement entirely.

[saevel25]

Greg Norman was one of the best drivers of the golf ball.

Just taking a look at at scoring average. Though when Tiger was at his best, his scoring average was 2-3 strokes better than Greg's. Greg had a 10 year stretch were his scoring average was in the realm of a few years Tiger was at. Greg at the end of his career had nearly the same scoring average as Tiger at the beginning '97. I think Greg could beat Tiger on occasion. Even when Tiger was in his prime, I think Greg could take a few tournaments from Tiger.

[Crim]

Norman is right he would have beat all of them - on Saturday!

[turtleback]

Greg Norman was one of the best drivers of the golf ball.

Just taking a look at at scoring average. Though when Tiger was at his best, his scoring average was 2-3 strokes better than Greg's. Greg had a 10 year stretch were his scoring average was in the realm of a few years Tiger was at. Greg at the end of his career had nearly the same scoring average as Tiger at the beginning '97. I think Greg could beat Tiger on occasion. Even when Tiger was in his prime, I think Greg could take a few tournaments from Tiger.

Huh?

Norman's best ever scoring average was 1994 at 68.81.  But you have to look at that in the context if the scoring averages of the other players that year.  His biggest margin was in 1995, beating the #2 by .53 strokes.  Tiger had SEVEN years where he bet the #2 by a bigger margin.  In fact in his 10 seasons where he led the scoring average, Tiger had a smaller winning margin only 3 times. Of the other 7 his smallest winning margin was .74.  And he had 4 years where his winning advantage was more than a full stroke.  In the 6 years that Norman led his average winning margin was .29 strokes.  In the 10 years that tiger led the scoring average his average margin was .89.

Or, looking at it another way, Greg's best year was 1986 when he had 3 wins including one major.  Tiger has had NINE years that were better than that.

Could Greg have won an occasional event with Tiger on the field?  Sure.  So what?  Lots of guys have won occasional events with Tiger in the field over the last 19 years.  If THAT is what Greg meant than it is true, but he is an idiot for even saying it, it is so self-obvious.  But we all know that he meant a lot more than that.  And frankly I don't think he would have been better than Phil nor Vijy over most of that period.  Let alone Tiger.  Greg is very very lucky that he was born 20 years before Tiger.  If he had been born in 1975 instead of 1955, IMO he would be lucky to be considered the 3rd best player of his time. And he would have had the same number of weeks at #1 as Phil has had.

[ScouseJohnny]

I think he probably is, anyway.

Faldo - Ballesteros - Norman

He's lucky Woosie, Lyle, or Langer didn't win more majors. Actually, to be honest, on reflection, I probably rate Langer higher than Norman anyway.

[tooc]

Norman is being honest, this is what he thinks and probably what it takes to be one of the greats of all time. Probably would have won have won 10 majors if it wasn’t for larry Mizes chip in. If u ask Seve he would say

[Kelzzy]

There's one thing being confident, then there's another thing saying you can beat the best player in the world without even matching up against him once. Hell, it doesn't matter if it's the worst player, you don't say you can beat someone unless you beat them first, no exceptions. This is just a cause of Norman either being the typical narcissist he is, or wanting the spotlight again. Probably both.

[Deryck Griffith]

How can you claim you would've beat Tiger when he couldn't even beat Faldo, Fuzzy Zoeller, Raymond Floyd, Bob Tway, Larry Mize, Mark Cakcavecchia, Paul Azinger, Corey Pavin......should I keep going?

Norman should keep his mouth shut and check his memory because it's pretty short.