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

[ChrisP]

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

[quote name="Gunther" url="/t/83505/what-would-tiger-woods-need-to-do-to-become-1-greatest-golfer#post_1176297"] 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.[/quote] Couldn't agree more. I just don't think you can't supplant yourself as the best ever by having a great career up to your mid-30s and then all of a sudden drop off the face of the earth. The fact Tiger Woods is at least #2 in my mind and most everyone's minds is a credit to just how dominant he was the first half of his career. But there's a second part of your career and you need to show up that second half. Tiger does not have to do much to be #1 in my mind (and many's minds). He doesn't even have to get to 18. Just win some more tournaments. Play some good golf. Show me that you can play strong in your 20s, 30s and 40s like Jack, Gary and other great players did. I promise you that history will remember him as much for his failures the second half of his career as the dominance the first half IF he never wins again. He has to rebound and I truly hope he does.

[iacas]

You don't like the premise of the thread

I don't think or feel one way or the other about the premise of the thread. 18 is not greater than 14 to many people now. When modern stars struggle to get to double digits it may just reinforce how good 14 is/was. So… "nothing." And seriously @ChrisP I doubt you could say with a straight face that if Tiger won 25 majors and retired at 30 he wouldn't be the best to most everyone because he didn't have a "long career."

[Golfingdad]

I promise you that history will remember him as much for his failures the second half of his career as the dominance the first half IF he never wins again. He has to rebound and I truly hope he does.

I disagree somewhat.

It seems accurate now, but I think the best parallel to this is Michael Jordan.  Remember how bad/mediocre he was while he was hanging around playing for the Wizards? During that period, everybody was saying that he was tarnishing his legacy or whatever, but really, none of that happened.  Now that his career is long over we only remember the highlights.

(Well, that and we also learned what a petty jerk he is with his HOF speech.) ;)

Same type of thing could be said for Rickie Henderson who had to be dragged off the field while in his late (I think) 40's, loooooooooooooooong after his prime.

I believe he'll be remembered for the positives.

[ChrisP]

And seriously @ChrisP I doubt you could say with a straight face that if Tiger won 25 majors and retired at 30 he wouldn't be the best to most everyone because he didn't have a "long career."

But he doesn't have 25 majors....he has 14. If he had 25, I'll admit I may look at things a bit different. But let's not play the "What If" game and play the hand with what we have.

[Mulligan Jeff]

Two keys will unlock the door to greatness: Butch Harmon Lindsey Vonn

[ChrisP]

I disagree somewhat.

It seems accurate now, but I think the best parallel to this is Michael Jordan.  Remember how bad/mediocre he was while he was hanging around playing for the Wizards? During that period, everybody was saying that he was tarnishing his legacy or whatever, but really, none of that happened.  Now that his career is long over we only remember the highlights.

(Well, that and we also learned what a petty jerk he is with his HOF speech.) ;)

Same type of thing could be said for Rickie Henderson who had to be dragged off the field while in his late (I think) 40's, loooooooooooooooong after his prime.

I believe he'll be remembered for the positives.

But MJ going back to the Wizards at that stage in his career would be like Tiger Woods playing the PGA Tour in his 50s. MJ should have stayed retired after that last title with Chicago just like Favre should have gone out after losing that NFC title in New Orleans. Tiger still is young and should be able to compete with the young boys at 39. Golf is a different game than the NBA or NFL, just like tennis is different than golf where once you're 30, you're considered old.

[Golfingdad]

But MJ going back to the Wizards at that stage in his career would be like Tiger Woods playing the PGA Tour in his 50s. MJ should have stayed retired after that last title with Chicago just like Favre should have gone out after losing that NFC title in New Orleans.

Exactly.  Favre is another good example.  In neither case was the players legacy really hurt by the late career mediocrity.  They're remembered (nearly) solely for the good stuff.

[Infamous 273]

Very hard to call Jordan's two seasons with the Wizards anything les than spectacular. He took 4+ years off from the NBA, to return to a league that was the youngest and fastest it has ever been, and averaged nearly 23 ppg. Tiger needs a 5-6 year run like VJ had in his forties IMO.

[ChrisP]

Exactly.  Favre is another good example.  In neither case was the players legacy really hurt by the late career mediocrity.  They're remembered (nearly) solely for the good stuff.

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.

[mvmac]

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)

@GreatestGolfers this thread?

To answer your question, to be the undisputed GOAT, not challenged or questioned, he would have to win 19 majors because too many people think 18 is the golden number and don't consider strength of field (or they do do and think it was stronger in Jack's day).

[saevel25]

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.

Tiger would still be the greatest golfer to ever live even if he didn't come back.

[ChrisP]

Tiger would still be the greatest golfer to ever live even if he didn't come back.

Disagree...but that's my view.

[Gunther]

Tiger would still be the greatest golfer to ever live even if he didn't come back.

lol, this explains your vehemence in the Grand Slam thread. Didn't peg you as a fanboy. ;-)

[saevel25]

lol, this explains your vehemence in the Grand Slam thread. Didn't peg you as a fanboy.

I'm not, but I've stated before in this thread and others that I think Tiger is the best. I can not like an athlete and think he's the best in their given sport. I don't let my personal opinion about the person cloud my judgement on giving credit when it's due. for sports achievement.

Disagree...but that's my view.

Here's a way to put it on Tiger versus Jack. 4 out of the top 5 spots for winning percentage in a year go to Tiger. 7 out of the top 10 go to Tiger. 13 out of the top 20 go to Tiger.

That was up against better competition.

Rank	Player	Win %
1	Tiger	66.7%
2	Tiger	53.3%
3	Tiger	45.0%
4	Tiger	43.8%
5	Jack	38.9%
6	Tiger	38.1%
7	Jack	36.8%
8	Tiger	35.3%
9	Tiger	31.3%
10	Jack	31.3%
11	Tiger	28.6%
12	Tiger	27.8%
13	Tiger	27.8%
14	Jack	27.8%
15	Jack	26.7%
16	Tiger	26.3%
17	Tiger	25.7%
18	Tiger	25.0%
19	Jack	21.7%
20	Jack	20.8%

[ChrisP]

I'm not, but I've stated before in this thread and others that I think Tiger is the best. I can not like an athlete and think he's the best in their given sport. I don't let my personal opinion about the person cloud my judgement on giving credit when it's due. for sports achievement.

Here's a way to put it on Tiger versus Jack. 4 out of the top 5 spots for winning percentage in a year go to Tiger. 7 out of the top 10 go to Tiger. 13 out of the top 20 go to Tiger.

That was up against better competition.

Rank

Player

Win %

1

Tiger

66.7%

2

Tiger

53.3%

3

Tiger

45.0%

4

Tiger

43.8%

5

Jack

38.9%

6

Tiger

38.1%

7

Jack

36.8%

8

Tiger

35.3%

9

Tiger

31.3%

10

Jack

31.3%

11

Tiger

28.6%

12

Tiger

27.8%

13

Tiger

27.8%

14

Jack

27.8%

15

Jack

26.7%

16

Tiger

26.3%

17

Tiger

25.7%

18

Tiger

25.0%

19

Jack

21.7%

20

Jack

20.8%

Listen, I'm not going to disagree with you that Tiger in his prime was better than Jack in his prime. I've said numerous times that Tiger at the top of his game was better than any player that ever lived. The question is "What is your definition of the greatest ever?" For some, that is enough to meet their credentials. For me, it's not. I think there are a lot of things that go into it, and being able to sustain your play at a high level for a long period of time is part of it. That's why I think Roger Federer is the greatest of all-time, even though I think Novak Djokovic would take Federer down in his prime and Nadal did take him down in his prime. I think Djokovic is the best I've ever seen in his prime. Now if Djokovic wins some more majors and comes up short, I will acknowledge Novak as the best ever because even though he has less, he went through tougher competition and sustained a high level of play throughout his career. But if he drops off in his late 20s like Nadal is, it's a different story.

LIke I said, everyone's definition is different. It's why there is no right or wrong answer. And I re-iterate what I said to make the Tiger people happy....Tiger in his prime was the most dominant player ever, but that to me doesn't make you the greatest golfer ever.

[jbishop15]

Listen, I'm not going to disagree with you that Tiger in his prime was better than Jack in his prime. I've said numerous times that Tiger at the top of his game was better than any player that ever lived. The question is "What is your definition of the greatest ever?" For some, that is enough to meet their credentials. For me, it's not. I think there are a lot of things that go into it, and being able to sustain your play at a high level for a long period of time is part of it. That's why I think Roger Federer is the greatest of all-time, even though I think Novak Djokovic would take Federer down in his prime and Nadal did take him down in his prime. I think Djokovic is the best I've ever seen in his prime. Now if Djokovic wins some more majors and comes up short, I will acknowledge Novak as the best ever because even though he has less, he went through tougher competition and sustained a high level of play throughout his career. But if he drops off in his late 20s like Nadal is, it's a different story.

LIke I said, everyone's definition is different. It's why there is no right or wrong answer. And I re-iterate what I said to make the Tiger people happy....Tiger in his prime was the most dominant player ever, but that to me doesn't make you the greatest golfer ever.

I get what you're saying, I really do, but it wasn't as if Tiger's prime was short. From 1997-2009, he was the best golfer on the planet. From 1999-2002 (and probably even longer), he was a supernova. Tiger's prime lasted longer than most people's careers.

[ChrisP]

I get what you're saying, I really do, but it wasn't as if Tiger's prime was short. From 1997-2009, he was the best golfer on the planet. From 1999-2002 (and probably even longer), he was a supernova. Tiger's prime lasted longer than most people's careers.

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, albeit not the only piece, and winning tourneys is important. 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.

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, at least 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.

[saevel25]

Listen, I'm not going to disagree with you that Tiger in his prime was better than Jack in his prime. I've said numerous times that Tiger at the top of his game was better than any player that ever lived. The question is "What is your definition of the greatest ever?" For some, that is enough to meet their credentials. For me, it's not. I think there are a lot of things that go into it, and being able to sustain your play at a high level for a long period of time is part of it.

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.