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

[jbishop15]

Very true, but his last major was at 32. Jack's was at 46. And majors is a big piece of what we look at. I really do use the tennis analogy a lot because it really is a perfect analogy for how I feel and I think how a lot of people feel. The game of tennis is so much stronger now than when Federer dominated. Federer really had very little competition... while he seemed invincible, he won most of his majors when his biggest rival was Andy Roddick.  But why people consider Federer so great isn't just his majors, but the fact he's almost in his mid-30s and still competing at a high level and still winning regular tournaments and going deep into majors. Playing at a high level in tennis in your mid-30s is like playing at a high level into your late 40s in golf.

In the end, I really do think if Tiger can avoid another major injury, he will bounce back to some degree, maybe even win a major in his 40s, pass Sam and go down as the best ever. I still think he's playing mental games in his head with his back. I don't think he'll do anything this year, but if he can stay healthy, he'll be fine. I just question the health aspect and mental aspect some.

Those are all fair points. But Jack's last major before he turned 46 was at the age of 48, and Tiger not winning a major since then has to do more with personal life upheaval and pretty severe injuries. And I disagree that tennis is that much stronger now than it was when Fed his stride. It's stronger , that I don't deny, but the level of competition hasn't risen that much since he first came on the scene.

[ChrisP]

Those are all fair points. But Jack's last major before he turned 46 was at the age of 48, and Tiger not winning a major since then has to do more with personal life upheaval and pretty severe injuries. And I disagree that tennis is that much stronger now than it was when Fed his stride. It's stronger, that I don't deny, but the level of competition hasn't risen that much since he first came on the scene.

Jack won three majors in his 40s and five total tourneys in his 40s. I could go into other stats and figures regarding finishes, but bottom line is Jack was able to compete at a high level for over 25 years. If you take away the time Tiger missed for injuries and personal issues, he's competed at a high level for maybe just over half that. And that's my point right now is that if Tiger doesn't recover at all and continues to slip off the charts, I just can't say "Well, he was great the first half of his career so let's just ignore the fact he shit the bed the second half of his career and couldn't win a major past 32 while Jack still kept winning." The age of 32 is pretty young to stop winning majors, IMO.

Federer's strongest competition when he won most of his majors was Andy Roddick, and just my opinion, but Roddick couldn't hold a candle to Murray, Djokovic or Nadal in their primes. I think Djokovic is going through a much tougher wall of competition, especially since Federer looked as good at Wimbledon as he did 10 years ago.

[ChrisP]

You mean over the first 19 years of Tiger's Career compared to Jack's. Jack had more early success, then Tiger blitzed him over the next 15 years. Tiger had equal to or more PGA Tour wins than Jack 11 out of 15 years.

Guess what, after the 19th year, Jack only had 3 more wins in his entire career. This was his career, 19 years. Tiger beat him soundly. Just because Jack played basically half a season from 1987 till 2000 doesn't add a thing to his career other than being a good spokesman for the game. After 1984 Jack's scoring average never broke 71 again. He wasn't really relevant except for being an outlier in 1986 at The Masters.

But Jack still won tournaments in his 40s, even if it wasn't a lot. He still competed at a high level and competed in majors, nearly winning the 1982 US Open to boot. I'm not saying Tiger has to break Jack's record of 18. But at least show me something at the back end of your career. Don't flame out at 37 and not win another major after 32. And like I've said many times, I think if Tiger Woods can mentally get over his back issues and stay healthy, he will show something on the back end of his career, so my point may end up being mute.

[Jakester23]

But Jack still won tournaments in his 40s, even if it wasn't a lot. He still competed at a high level and competed in majors, nearly winning the 1982 US Open to boot. I'm not saying Tiger has to break Jack's record of 18. But at least show me something at the back end of your career. Don't flame out at 37 and not win another major after 32. And like I've said many times, I think if Tiger Woods can mentally get over his back issues and stay healthy, he will show something on the back end of his career, so my point may end up being mute.

Tiger isn't even 40 yet so how can you compare what Jack did in his 40's to what Tiger might do?

[ChrisP]

Tiger isn't even 40 yet so how can you compare what Jack did in his 40's to what Tiger might do?

Read my post again. I said "Hypothetically if Tiger cannot regain his form." The whole basis of this is a "What if Tiger is done" game and his career is over.

[Golfingdad]

The big difference would be Favre and MJ's demise came when they were old (in their sport) and in the last two years of their career, kinda like what Kobe is going through now or Federer in tennis or Manning in football. It's another thing if it happens mid-way through. I think Peyton Manning is the best qb ever, and I thought at the age of 31 he was better than any qb I ever saw at the top of his game, but if he got hurt at 31 and never materialized into anything after that and just vanished, I would have a hard time calling him the best ever and I think his career would be seen as two separate careers....the first half which was amazing and the second half which was crippling.  And this may not apply to Tiger...he may rebound and I truly hope he does and I think he'll win more tournaments down the road....this is just a "What If" game in case he continues to lose it and never gets it back.

Sooo, like Sandy Koufax then?

[ChrisP]

Sooo, like Sandy Koufax then?

Basically. It would be interesting to see how many Jack guys think Nolan Ryan's the greatest pitcher ever and Tiger guys think Koufax is.

[saevel25]

Read my post again. I said "Hypothetically if Tiger cannot regain his form." The whole basis of this is a "What if Tiger is done" game and his career is over.

So basically you are saying. If a Baseball player hits 750 HR over 25 years versus a guy who hits 730 HR over 15 years. You are going to say the 25 year guy was better because he happen to stretch out his career longer? Yet he averaged 30 HR per season versus 48 per season of the other guy?

Just making sure I am getting the longevity correct here?

Basically. It would be interesting to see how many Jack guys think Nolan Ryan's the greatest pitcher ever and Tiger guys think Koufax is.

My personal favorite is Greg Maddux. For never leading the league in strikeouts he has 8th ranked WAR for a pitcher.

[Golfingdad]

Basically. It would be interesting to see how many Jack guys think Nolan Ryan's the greatest pitcher ever and Tiger guys think Koufax is.

Ot but anybody who thinks Nolan Ryan is the greatest pitcher ever is dead wrong. I will not say the same about anybody who thinks Jack is the greatest ever.

[ChrisP]

So basically you are saying. If a Baseball player hits 750 HR over 25 years versus a guy who hits 730 HR over 15 years. You are going to say the 25 year guy was better because he happen to stretch out his career longer? Yet he averaged 30 HR per season versus 48 per season of the other guy?

Just making sure I am getting the longevity correct here?

I get what you're saying, and we can go around in circles here (and it's getting bed time for me), but Tiger was so explosive and dominant in his time that of course if you average out the numbers of Tiger to 37 and Jack to 37, Tiger is the better player. But Jack holds the big edge in majors. And we can argue all day about the competition and the depths of the field and yeah, it's a stronger field in Tiger's day (even Jack admits to that), and the field in Spieth and Rory's day is stronger than Tiger's, but Jack still has the edge in the biggest number of all and that's a HUGE feather in his cap no matter how much you argue and factor in the competition. You can't take that number out of the equation. You just can't. However, I can get over that number of majors and concede Tiger is the best ever if he just shows me something in the back end of his career. Just give me something. Show me you didn't just have a hot run of majors from '99-08 and you win early in your career and later in your career, because if he doesn't, I'll simply say "Tiger at the peak of his game was the best ever, but career-wise, Jack was the best ever." And in my opinion, there's a difference in the two. And this is exactly what many of TGC analysts said a couple weeks ago when debating this very topic and I thought they were spot on.

A lot of determining who is the best ever is an opinion game and it's not about numbers. It's how YOU perceive it. And everyone perceives it differently.

[lewisgl]

You mean over the first 19 years of Tiger's Career compared to Jack's. Jack had more early success, then Tiger blitzed him over the next 15 years. Tiger had equal to or more PGA Tour wins than Jack 11 out of 15 years.

Guess what, after the 19th year, Jack only had 3 more wins in his entire career. This was his career, 19 years. Tiger beat him soundly. Just because Jack played basically half a season from 1987 till 2000 doesn't add a thing to his career other than being a good spokesman for the game. After 1984 Jack's scoring average never broke 71 again. He wasn't really relevant except for being an outlier in 1986 at The Masters.

After 1984 Jack was already 44 years old.   That is kind of invalid point because Tiger isn't even 40 years old yet.   Of course the scoring average is going to go down when your over 40.  Might be better to see how Tiger's full career goes before trying to do a complete comparison on scoring averages and etc.

[Gunther]

After 1984 Jack was already 44 years old.   That is kind of invalid point because Tiger isn't even 40 years old yet.   Of course the scoring average is going to go down when your over 40.  Might be better to see how Tiger's full career goes before trying to do a complete comparison on scoring averages and etc.

Well, that's the point of the thread: What does Tiger need to do to become GOAT? He ain't there yet, regardless what some think. Strength of field? BS. So, if Jordan or Rory get to 9 majors then they'll be the best because strength of field is so much better? No, of course not. Then if someone in 2135 gets to 5, they'll be GOAT? Course not. It's a Tiger - Jack specific argument that the fanboys grasp with a dead man's grip. The fact is, history will tell the tale (as I've said before). If Tiger does not go on a tear on his 40s, he will never be considered GOAT in 30 years, and he shouldn't. He's got a lot left to do.

[Hatchman]

Here's my take on the Jack and Tiger debate as greatest of all time. At final tabulation analysts (and I kind of do to) will look at the numbers over the span of thier careers. Both had dominance at stages. I would factor in Tigers injuries. Athletes have lost time for injury or service duty before. Jack's wins late in his career cannot be overlooked and/or his overall record. If Tiger comes back and plays well into his early to mid fourties, or at least until Hall of Fame qualification age then one may be able to compare the two in that regard. It has weight. Over a ten year span Tiger dominated, but haven't others in thier eras? What the public might be seeing now is an athlete possibly in his decline...hanging on, or rebuilding from injury close to another comeback. I can't tell. But then jack declined, but then won a late major. It remenber Jonny Miller coming on tour and tearing up the scene and rooting for him. Greater than Jack...for that moment in time.

[tristanhilton85]

Well, that's the point of the thread: What does Tiger need to do to become GOAT? He ain't there yet, regardless what some think. Strength of field? BS. So, if Jordan or Rory get to 9 majors then they'll be the best because strength of field is so much better? No, of course not. Then if someone in 2135 gets to 5, they'll be GOAT? Course not. It's a Tiger - Jack specific argument that the fanboys grasp with a dead man's grip.

The fact is, history will tell the tale (as I've said before). If Tiger does not go on a tear on his 40s, he will never be considered GOAT in 30 years, and he shouldn't. He's got a lot left to do.

You state your opinion as if it is fact. It is not. Some believe that Tiger is already GOAT. Honestly, if Rory or Jordan get to 9, maybe that'll be enough for them, but we can't judge that now. I think that it is a little shortsighted to look at 18 vs 14 and be done with it. You are only taking into consideration the number of majors when there is so much else to consider. What about number of wins on the tour (73 vs 79). If the strength of field argument is BS, then say why. To me it's a pretty compelling argument. Do you really believe that the level of competition in Jack's day is the same as it is now?

To say that Tiger must go on a tear in his 40s to ever have a shot at being considered the GOAT is ridiculous, considering that many consider him it already.

If you don't agree that Tiger is the GOAT, that's fine, but to discount other's opinions as BS and not support your own is ludicrous. Those who say Tiger have made many compelling arguments as to why, where as the best you can say is "18 > 14 and strength of field is BS."

[Gunther]

You state your opinion as if it is fact. It is not. Some believe that Tiger is already GOAT. Honestly, if Rory or Jordan get to 9, maybe that'll be enough for them, but we can't judge that now. I think that it is a little shortsighted to look at 18 vs 14 and be done with it. You are only taking into consideration the number of majors when there is so much else to consider. What about number of wins on the tour (73 vs 79). If the strength of field argument is BS, then say why. To me it's a pretty compelling argument. Do you really believe that the level of competition in Jack's day is the same as it is now? To say that Tiger must go on a tear in his 40s to ever have a shot at being considered the GOAT is ridiculous, considering that many consider him it already. If you don't agree that Tiger is the GOAT, that's fine, but to discount other's opinions as BS and not support your own is ludicrous. Those who say Tiger have made many compelling arguments as to why, where as the best you can say is "18 > 14 and strength of field is BS."

You're right, I didn't add the my opinion caveat, just an oversight. It's not fact because comparing athletes of different eras can't truly be done. I personally don't buy into the strength of field argument a much as others. My point on 18>14 is that will be the litmus test 30 years from now. The peripherals will become obscured but that measure will not. Whether you agree with it or not, Jack did his job well.

[tristanhilton85]

You're right, I didn't add the my opinion caveat, just an oversight. It's not fact because comparing athletes of different eras can't truly be done. I personally don't buy into the strength of field argument a much as others.

My point on 18>14 is that will be the litmus test 30 years from now. The peripherals will become obscured but that measure will not. Whether you agree with it or not, Jack did his job well.

It's more than just saying that you forgot to add that it was your opinion. You state your opinion as if it were fact. It is not.

[skydog]

Well, that's the point of the thread: What does Tiger need to do to become GOAT? He ain't there yet, regardless what some think. Strength of field? BS. So, if Jordan or Rory get to 9 majors then they'll be the best because strength of field is so much better? No, of course not. Then if someone in 2135 gets to 5, they'll be GOAT? Course not. It's a Tiger - Jack specific argument that the fanboys grasp with a dead man's grip. The fact is, history will tell the tale (as I've said before). If Tiger does not go on a tear on his 40s, he will never be considered GOAT in 30 years, and he shouldn't. He's got a lot left to do.

Most accurate post I've seen on TST. Longevity matters in careers. If Tiger can't regain form then his second half of career struggles will be remembered as much or more than his early successes. The media have already labeled it the greatest fall from grace of any professional athlete and that legacy will only be compounded if he continues to compete and struggle hugely. On the flipside, if he can somehow return from the abyss and win another couple of majors, it would be remembered as one of the greatest comeback stories in sports history and IMO would be enough to call him the GOAT. And as an aside, the Wizards Jordan comparison isn't in the same stratosphere here. What has happened to Tiger would be akin to Jordan coming back in 94 (after the baseball break) and averaging 3.2 pts 0.9 assists and 9.3 mpg instead of winning three more championships and three more MVPs. Jordan's wizards run was at the very end of his career by any NBA age standards and the dude still averaged 20+ pts a game. We're all unfortunately used to having to watch the athletes we love age and lose some of their form. History tends to forget this aging as long as it occurs somewhat gracefully and gradually (see: Federer, Manning, Jordan, etc.). So far, based on the constant media cries of Tiger's game being embarrassing, I don't think we can say his decline has been gradual or graceful.

[saevel25]

Longevity matters in careers. If Tiger can't regain form then his second half of career struggles will be remembered as much or more than his early successes.

Longevity is over-rated.