What would Tiger Woods need to do to become #1 Greatest Golfer?

[Gunther]

As an older dude and new golfer, I missed the whole Tiger in his prime thing ... its just hard for me to believe he'll ever be the GOAT after seeing him play the past few years - seems like it would have to tarnish his record.    I just wish they'd show more of his great golf from his early days on TV - hardly ever see any of it.

I've seen this before: "tarnishing" his legacy with his poor play at the end of his career at such a young age. This could be a point of semantics only but he is not tarnishing his career or legacy but it is being diminished. I think the only way his career would be tarnished is if something came out where he cheated in some way. Perhaps a small distinction to some but I think there's a significant difference between tarnishing his legacy vs. diminishing it.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Rogin

I agree that, in twenty years' time, people will still hold that 18 majors thing over Tiger, if he doesn't match it. At the end of the day, it's about holding the records, and that's the big one. Woods could win 100 PGA tour events, and people will still say "but he only won 14 majors".

Ugh. Sorry again, @turtleback - there are more of these types out there than I previously understood. You're right again.

@Rogin , please stop stating your opinions as facts. The fact is that even right now there are plenty of people who do not consider only "18 > 14".

Tiger leads over 2:1 in the poll on this thread: .

One thing to spice up the debate, though, in the 60s and 70s was the PGA really a "major" in the way it is now?

Yes. It was. There's really no debate about that. It was a major long before the 60s and 70s…

I've seen this before: "tarnishing" his legacy with his poor play at the end of his career at such a young age. This could be a point of semantics only but he is not tarnishing his career or legacy but it is being diminished. I think the only way his career would be tarnished is if something came out where he cheated in some way.

I don't think it does either. People may feel that way now, but again, examples have been cited. Favre and Montana from the NFL. Jordan from the NBA. Etc.

- Hogan won all of his majors over a span of 7 years (8 if you include 1949 in which he DNP in any). 1946-1953. How much did his reputation get tarnished?

- Arnold Palmer won all of his majors over a span of only 7 years. 1958-1964. How much was his reputation tarnished by his continued play?

- Tom Watson won his majors over a span of 9 years (1975-1983). How much was his reputation tarnished?

I've never heard anyone give Gary Player extra credit for winning his first and last major spanning 20 calendar years (1959 to 1978).

That's pretty much the type of logic people use to elevate Tiger to "GOAT". Field comparisons, scoring averages, etc....

But the fact is he still doesn't hold either the most majors of most pga victories.

He is without a doubt one of the greatest of all time, but not THE greatest of all time.

You're a very well known Tiger hater, and I'm not using the latter term loosely here.

Your first sentence implies that using those things is illogical, but at the end of the day, you're likely one of the same people applying the simpleton "18 > 14" logic as well with no consideration for the context in which those 18 or 14 things were won.

---

Look, guys, this thread is different than the Jack vs. Tiger thread, so any more posts like the above (including mine, as it responds to the same type of stuff) will be moved to the "Jack vs. Tiger" thread and the user may be restricted from this thread.

This thread asks you what Tiger has to do, in your opinion, to become the GOAT. Let's stick to that topic please.

If your answer is "win 18 majors" then so be it. Post that and say why if you want.

If your answer is, like mine, "He already is" then post that if you want and say why.

[RussUK]

I think the golf pundits get too hung up on the whole "Jack got 18 and Tiger is still only on 14". 14 Major's is still an incredible achievement and one to be proud of and if he can turn his off course life around a little i think people will regard him as the Number 1.

It takes more that just how many titles or majors a golfer wins. Case in point: is Michael Schumacher the greatest driver in F1 history? if you go by titles then yes, 7 is more than any other driver. But was he as good a driver as Senna, Fangio or Alberto Ascari? i dont think so down to things like comeption, length of season etc.

Going by that id say Tiger has an edge. Seasons now are longer, the comeption is tougher. Like i say, there is more to it than events won.

[Silent]

For me I would like to see Tiger win a couple of more big tournaments (including at least 1 major) before I can see him solely as GOAT. I don't think it's as easy as 18>14, but on the other hand how else can I draw the line. If Nicklaus would have won 25, then there was no discussion? Or for the ones who think Tiger already is GOAT, would 10 also be enough? Tiger is a better golfer, but better is not always greater. So to answer the question: more (big) wins also in this part of his career at this age and at least one more major after coming back from where he's now and for me Tiger will be GOAT.

[mtsalmela80]

He is going to have to start winning again. He is still a relatively young competitor and should still be able to play prime golf. He needs to hit 18 majors or more. Problem is he isn't competing against Faldo and Norman anymore. The new jacks are so good these days.

[Golfingdad]

He is going to have to start winning again. He is still a relatively young competitor and should still be able to play prime golf. He needs to hit 18 majors

I am totally fine with this.  I know many don't think it's necessary, but many do, and after all, this thread is about him becoming "consensus" number one.  However ...

... or more.

This flabbergasts me.  Jack has 73 wins and 18 majors.  If Tiger won 18 majors and NOTHING else along the way he'd have tied Jack in the majors department and be ahead by 10 total wins.

Looking at it through even the most simplistic lens possible, I have no idea how you could justify that he'd need to win more than 18 majors to surpass Jack.  That makes no sense at all.

[jbishop15]

He is going to have to start winning again. He is still a relatively young competitor and should still be able to play prime golf. He needs to hit 18 majors or more. Problem is he isn't competing against Faldo and Norman anymore. The new jacks are so good these days.

??? Both Faldo and Norman were both essentially out of their prime when Tiger came around. Els and Mickelson are much better comparisons than Norman and Faldo.

[GolfLug]

As a Tiger fanboi it would be easy for me to say - Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Outside of majors, which maybe the flagship/showroom front window statistic for most to measure, there are some other incredible statistics in which Tiger has no equal and don't know if there will be any in my lifetime.

But I do feel that at least one more major now that he has gone through some seriously physically diminishing injuries would just have put a serious dent in the arguments against a GOAT status.

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

You read waaaaay more into that post than I see.  Sure, he found humor in the fact that you didn't take his challenge, but nothing else he wrote comes across as not "chilled down" to me.  Just all matter-of-fact-ish.

Maybe he has in previous threads, if so, please repost, if not - why not provide some "matter-of-fact-ish" himself.

I look forward to seeing him take himself up on his own challenge - prove himself right.

I matter of factly say that you should not claim to have an objective way of doing something that is inherently and intrinsically SUBjective.

I also say that @skydog is not a new member and has refused this challenge before, and at this point a little snark directed at him is hardly out or place.  And he still won't do it.  I asked a simple thing - rank Jack's years from best to worst.  He refuses to do it until I give him some formula to do it.  But I don't want the results of a formula, I want HIS ranking.  AND I offer him the ability to CHANGE his ranking if he doesn't like what I do with it, and yet he still won't do it.  Even his last offer doesn't answer my question, it is just HIS opinion of how many Tiger years were better than Jack years.  I'm not asking him ANYTHING about Tiger but he has to drag Tiger into his answer.  It is beyond comical how he twists and turns to avoid a simple ranking, according to whatever criteria he wants to adopt, of Nicklaus' years from best to worst.  He doesn't even have to look up the stats for those years, if he gives me a list of years I will look up and fill in:  # of events, # of victories, # of majors won.

I also matter of factly say that there are hundreds of pages of posts that occurred before you got here and a lot of history.  You really might think about reading some of it before coming in as if no one ever thought about these things before you arrived.

[k-troop]

I am totally fine with this.  I know many don't think it's necessary, but many do, and after all, this thread is about him becoming "consensus" number one.  However ... This flabbergasts me.  Jack has 73 wins and 18 majors.  If Tiger won 18 majors and NOTHING else along the way he'd have tied Jack in the majors department and be ahead by 10 total wins. Looking at it through even the most simplistic lens possible, I have no idea how you could justify that he'd need to win more than 18 majors to surpass Jack.  That makes no sense at all.

Do you remember who was the 2nd dude to run a 4-minute mile? (Not saying I agree with that logic in this case, but in "greatness" comparisons the tie seems to always go to the one who achieved it first.)

[ccotenj]

that analogy doesn't work at all... edit: darn it, forgot to quote... that was to k-troop...

[ccotenj]

imo, he doesn't have to do anything else... he was the most dominant player any of us have ever seen, and he maintained that dominance for "long enough".... i have no doubt in my mind that fields are far stronger and evenly matched than they were 40-60 years ago, which mitigates the raw number argument... and even then, the only raw number that favors jack is 18, by any other raw number argument, tiger "wins"... ot... best pitcher... pedro martinez... dead in the middle of the steroid explosion of baseball, he put up numbers that matched those of pitchers from the dead ball era, and he did it for "long enough"... he was the most dominant pitcher i've ever seen in my 52 years... common thread in the above... i rank "dominance" over "compilation"... if my life depended on the outcome, give me "prime" tiger/pedro over anyone else...

[Golfingdad]

Do you remember who was the 2nd dude to run a 4-minute mile? (Not saying I agree with that logic in this case, but in "greatness" comparisons the tie seems to always go to the one who achieved it first.)

Yeah but even the most ardent 18>14ers out there would have to agree that once 18=18 then the other tournaments do matter at least a little bit. And to that is say 83>73. :) So you're analogy would be more applicable if the second guy to reach the 4 minute mile also happened to be the first to run a milestone 1/2 mile or 1/4 mile.

[ChrisP]

Yeah but even the most ardent 18>14ers out there would have to agree that once 18=18 then the other tournaments do matter at least a little bit. And to that is say 83>73. :)

So you're analogy would be more applicable if the second guy to reach the 4 minute mile also happened to be the first to run a milestone 1/2 mile or 1/4 mile.

I agree. I personally don't think Tiger needs 18. But that's the whole question that has no definitive answer....even with all the statistics and numbers that people crunch and break down and the science of it all.....the field is deeper and stronger now, but is it 5 majors more stronger? I could argue that Rory and Jordan would take away some of Tiger's 14 majors if they played in his day just like Tiger would take away some of Jack's 18 and Jack could take away a couple more of Tiger's. That's why it is SO DIFFICULT to compare eras. If you put all 4 of those players (Jack, Tiger, Jordan, Rory) in one era, they'd probably split a lot of the titles and it's impossible to say who'd win more.

The 2000 version of Tiger would be tough to beat, but in 2001, he had a down year in the majors after the Masters, and maybe a hot Rory comes along and wins 2. Tiger played solid in the '02 Masters, but maybe Jordan plays better.  Same with the '05 Masters Tiger won. I do think you have to factor in all the tournaments Tiger's won and that's why I think if he gets a couple more majors, that will squash the 18>14.

But I've said over and over and I stick to it.....to me, Tiger Woods needs to win a major after his 32nd birthday. When I think of the words "best ever", I think performing at your best in the big tournaments (majors) in the prime of your career, and in golf, the prime of your career takes place between 25-45, but that can be adjusted a bit, as in the case of Tiger, Rory and Jordan. But it's longer than a 9-year stretch where Tiger won 13 majors. He needs to at least win one more major or break Snead's record to at least then make me consider him being the best of all-time. I still think he's #2 even if he's the best I've ever seen in his prime.

[GreatestGolfers]

I matter of factly say that you should not claim to have an objective way of doing something that is inherently and intrinsically SUBjective.

I also say that @skydog is not a new member and has refused this challenge before, and at this point a little snark directed at him is hardly out or place.  And he still won't do it.  I asked a simple thing - rank Jack's years from best to worst.  He refuses to do it until I give him some formula to do it.  But I don't want the results of a formula, I want HIS ranking.  AND I offer him the ability to CHANGE his ranking if he doesn't like what I do with it, and yet he still won't do it.  Even his last offer doesn't answer my question, it is just HIS opinion of how many Tiger years were better than Jack years.  I'm not asking him ANYTHING about Tiger but he has to drag Tiger into his answer.  It is beyond comical how he twists and turns to avoid a simple ranking, according to whatever criteria he wants to adopt, of Nicklaus' years from best to worst.  He doesn't even have to look up the stats for those years, if he gives me a list of years I will look up and fill in:  # of events, # of victories, # of majors won.

I also matter of factly say that there are hundreds of pages of posts that occurred before you got here and a lot of history.  You really might think about reading some of it before coming in as if no one ever thought about these things before you arrived.

I have never claimed to provide a fully objective method, I claimed to remove "SOME subjectivity".

This is inherently a subjective topic, after all - on that we can agree.

As for your remarks in your last paragraph, there are less "in-your-face" ways to get others opinion and "welcome" new members.

[skydog]

I also say that @skydog is not a new member and has refused this challenge before, and at this point a little snark directed at him is hardly out or place.  And he still won't do it.  I asked a simple thing - rank Jack's years from best to worst.  He refuses to do it until I give him some formula to do it.  But I don't want the results of a formula, I want HIS ranking.  AND I offer him the ability to CHANGE his ranking if he doesn't like what I do with it, and yet he still won't do it.  Even his last offer doesn't answer my question, it is just HIS opinion of how many Tiger years were better than Jack years.  I'm not asking him ANYTHING about Tiger but he has to drag Tiger into his answer.  It is beyond comical how he twists and turns to avoid a simple ranking, according to whatever criteria he wants to adopt, of Nicklaus' years from best to worst.  He doesn't even have to look up the stats for those years, if he gives me a list of years I will look up and fill in:  # of events, # of victories, # of majors won.

Dude maybe you're off your meds but two days ago on this thread was the first time I have ever seen or heard anything of this 'challenge'. I have not 'refused this challenge before' because I had never heard or seen of it before. If you can provide any evidence to the contrary I'll send you $100 but you're dead F'ing wrong and apparently have me confused with someone else. Get over yourself.

[colin007]

Pedro Martinez was the freaking MAN.

[ccotenj]

Pedro Martinez was the freaking MAN.

http://youtu.be/RN1nUnCr1QM prime pedro was even more fun than prime tiger, because you got him every 5 days... :-) it brings back the "dominance" over "compilation"... like pedro toyed with batters, tiger toyed with the pga tour... if he was in the event, you could almost be guaranteed that "WOODS" would be on the first page of the leaderboard on sunday afternoon, and often as not, on top with a pretty comfortable margin...