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

[GreatestGolfers]

Assuming consensus that Jack Nicklaus holds this position.

What number of what events would Tiger need to achieve to become undisputed #1?

(Considering mostly the Majors, WGC and US and Euro events)

[isukgolf]

Many think that is 17+ majors ...

[Golfingdad]

What number of what events would Tiger need to achieve to become undisputed #1?

Knowing the passionate dislike many have for Tiger, as well as the backwards thinking of many others who don't understand strength of field, I'd say that even if he won 19 or 20 majors, he'd never become the "undisputed" greatest.  You'll continue to get many of these arguments:

"Jack had to compete against multiple guys with many major victories day in and day out and Tiger had to compete with Bob May and Y.E. Yang.  I rest my case."

But amongst un-biased folks, I'd say that if he was to have a career revival of any sort, perhaps another half dozen wins and a major (two would really advance the cause) then that would certainly go a long way to tip the scales in his favor towards 'undisputed' or at least 'consensus.'

Also recognize that there are many who already believe he's the greatest.

[iacas]

Nothing more than he's already done. I'll merge this thread if another moderator doesn't beat me to it.

[ChrisP]

He needs to at least top Snead. Some may say he already has surpassed Jack, but the majority out there (at least from what I've heard) thinks he has a little bit more work to do. Every expert on golf channel was asked this a few weeks ago and only Begay said he's the greatest of all time right now. The rest said Jack. I still think at his peak he was the greatest, but I think to be the greatest you need to maintain a strong level of play throughout your career and into your 40s. Just my opinion.

[skydog]

But amongst un-biased folks, I'd say that if he was to have a career revival of any sort, perhaps another half dozen wins and a major (two would really advance the cause) then that would certainly go a long way to tip the scales in his favor towards 'undisputed' or at least 'consensus.'

I think this is accurate.

Tiger at his best was the greatest the game has ever seen but in terms of a total career- his still falls short of Jack and I don't think that is overly debatable. 14 majors and 4 runner ups just can't compare to 18 majors and 19 runner ups- it's too big of a difference to stake the strength of field argument on.

It all depends on what someone's definition of 'greatest' is. Same as Beattles vs. Stones argument. The Beattles hit a higher plateau in their short career but the the Stones' longevity has cemented their position.

[RJH999]

He needs to win The Northern Trust Open and The Zurich Classic of New Orleanss. Then he's the greatest golfer ever. ;-)

[turtleback]

Assuming consensus that Jack Nicklaus holds this position.

What number of what events would Tiger need to achieve to become undisputed #1?

(Considering mostly the Majors, WGC and US and Euro events)

He already is.

He needs to at least top Snead. Some may say he already has surpassed Jack, but the majority out there (at least from what I've heard) thinks he has a little bit more work to do. Every expert on golf channel was asked this a few weeks ago and only Begay said he's the greatest of all time right now. The rest said Jack. I still think at his peak he was the greatest, but I think to be the greatest you need to maintain a strong level of play throughout your career and into your 40s. Just my opinion.

While it is not official, on any kind of apples to apples comparison he is ahead of Snead.  Snead is only ahead if you count events like team events and short field events that counted then but that under current rules do not count for Tiger.  It would be kind of like counting Jack's US Amateurs but not Tiger's, which thankfully no one does.

Cy Young > Sandy Koufax?

Emmit Smith > Jim Brown?

[iacas]

Tiger at his best was the greatest the game has ever seen but in terms of a total career- his still falls short of Jack and I don't think that is overly debatable. 14 majors and 4 runner ups just can't compare to 18 majors and 19 runner ups- it's too big of a difference to stake the strength of field argument on.

It's clearly highly debatable. And many feel 14>>18 (or 17>>20) already, other career achievements notwithstanding.

[ChrisP]

He already is.

While it is not official, on any kind of apples to apples comparison he is ahead of Snead.  Snead is only ahead if you count events like team events and short field events that counted then but that under current rules do not count for Tiger.  It would be kind of like counting Jack's US Amateurs but not Tiger's, which thankfully no one does.

Cy Young > Sandy Koufax?

Emmit Smith > Jim Brown?

He still needs to pass him, though. I think most of us can agree the majors record is out of reach. He needs to at least get the wins record because if he doesn't, I think it would be extremely disappointing to get so close at 37 years old and then just never win again. It's almost Seve-like or Watson-like in that the second half of his career was empty and I think he'll be remembered just as much for the disappointing end to his career just as much as the amazing run he had. And to be the greatest ever, in my opinion, you need to have a complete career, not just a hot spell of winning majors in a 10-year span. Others disagree and I respect that, but I still look at Jack as having the better overall career right now. That can change. I think if Tiger can make a comeback and win some tournaments in his 40s and pass Sam, I would look at his overall career and say he was able to win in his 20s, his 30s and his 40s, and while maybe he wasn't able to win a major, at least he has more wins than anyone else, and I think many in history would say he's the greatest ever. I don't think a majority of people right now view him as "the greatest ever." Just from what I've heard.

[tiger19]

I don't really remember watching Jack to much. But I just can't imagine anyone playing better golf then TW in his prime. It just doesn't seem possible.

[iacas]

I don't think a majority of people right now view him as "the greatest ever." Just from what I've heard.

The poll in the other thread is a data point that disagrees with your experiences.

[ChrisP]

The poll in the other thread is a data point that disagrees with your experiences.

Not people on this board. I think this board is a bit 'Tiger biased'. I'm talking people outside this board, writers and experts. The Golf Channel talking heads ALL said Jack with the exception of Begay (shocker). Both Harig and Sobel also said Jack. Haven't heard the opinions of others on that network. But like I said, everyone has their opinion and I respect that.

[iacas]

Not people on this board. I think this board is a bit 'Tiger biased'.

I think you thinking that is your bias. :-)

[Patch]

Woody already is the greatest golfer ..........of his era of golf. Also, his era of golf seems to be fading.

[iacas]

This thread is probably going to be merged. Nothing new is being said.

[skydog]

This thread is probably going to be merged. Nothing new is being said.

You don't like the premise of the thread because it's based on the notion that Tiger isn't the GOAT yet, but it's a different and interesting topic IMO- what does Tiger need to do from here on out to become the GOAT (if you don't already think he is). If you already think he is, that's great and fine, but those folks aren't going to have much to add to the thread other than the word 'nothing'.

[Gunther]

You don't like the premise of the thread because it's based on the notion that Tiger isn't the GOAT yet, but it's a different and interesting topic IMO- what does Tiger need to do from here on out to become the GOAT (if you don't already think he is). If you already think he is, that's great and fine, but those folks aren't going to have much to add to the thread other than the word 'nothing'.

I agree. I do not think he's there yet and don't believe he will, although he is firmly entrenched as #2 in my view. I believe that as time goes on, the 18>14 justification grows stronger. In 30 yrs, people aren't going to be looking at Vardon trophies or PoYs. While I agree those peripherals do add to the discussion, I think they lose their I dunno, oomph? over time, folks just won't be talking about it. And then considering the much shorter longevity of his career, he's not there yet. I believe Tiger must have a total resurgence in his 40s to prevail as the GOAT 30 years from now. That means 10 more wins, 3 or 4 more majors.