Tiger Woods

[Lamar Mundane]

This is getting into scary territory now. He's on his way to winning the World Match Play against 63 of the top 64 players in the world. That will take his record since August 1, 2007 to 9 tournaments - 8 victories and one second. All of these tournaments were against top notch competition - no John Deere Classics in the bunch. Only the Target World Challenge could conceivably be thrown out, but that field was high quality too, although only 16 players were in it.

I've known for a long time that he was the best in the world, but I didn't think that he would get even better as he got into his 30's. People are seriously talking about him sweeping the majors this year. If I read TradeSports correctly, the best you can get is $7.50 to win $100 if he wins all four majors. Those are ridiculously short odds for something that not only has never happened, but something nobody has ever really come close to.

On another subject (because having two golf threads on the front page would break board rules), is Michelle Wie now an official casualty? She made a cut for the first time in a long while this week, but finished 73-78 to come in last.

[Snarky_Kong]

Tiger has won all four majors consecutively, just not in the same calendar year. I'd call that close to sweeping.

[dalej42]

I was actually going to start a pit thread about Michelle Wie. She is useless.

I'm amazed while watching the Match Play classic. What is he, 8 up? Wow!

I can't wait for the Masters!

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Tiger's most amazing attribute is the ability to save par. He makes more clutch par putts than anyone else I've ever seen.


Really, if we were to play him, what would we have to get to make it even close to fair? 2 a hole?

[Lamar Mundane]

Tiger's most amazing attribute is the ability to save par. He makes more clutch par putts than anyone else I've ever seen.


Really, if we were to play him, what would we have to get to make it even close to fair? 2 a hole?
Two a hole would put me, in theory, into the low to mid 60's. But the courses he plays are around 500 yards longer than the one I play (6617 from the blues), with nasty rough and fast, undulating greens. I don't think two a hole would be enough.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Maybe a shotgun with some sort of silver shot in it? The man's definitely not human.

[Lamar Mundane]

Maybe a shotgun with some sort of silver shot in it? The man's definitely not human.
I did notice yesterday that he is developing a bald spot, so he can't beat everything.

Also, I'm old.

[gonzomax]

Best of alltime. Any argument left?

[Least Original User Name Ever]

I did notice yesterday that he is developing a bald spot, so he can't beat everything.

Also, I'm old.
Look at his woman.

[Ellis Dee]

having two golf threads on the front page would break board rulesIs this a whoosh, or are you serious?Best of alltime. Any argument left?Jack still has the numbers. The most telling for me is that while Tiger is on pace for majors won, Jack finished in the top 3 way more than Tiger.

I'm having trouble coming up with current numbers, but as of 2004 (http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/news/story?id=1700996) Tiger had only three second or third place finishes in majors. He's very feast-or-famine.

By contrast, Jack may have only had seven wins to Tiger's eight through their first eight years, but Jack finished second or third eleven times to Tiger's three.

To me that means Jack was far more consistent, probably being in the final group almost twice as often as Tiger.

[ElvisL1ves]

Best of alltime. Any argument left?Not after he wins his 18th major. That's the only detail left to clean up.

But there's no real argument left. And I say this as someone who grew up in Jack Nicklaus' hometown.

If only he hadn't wasted so much time floundering after firing his old coach, Woods might have even that record by now, and be on the way to 30 or so. All we can do is wonder and enjoy. What I wonder most at is how, like the truly greatest athletes, he actually makes his competitors worse - his final-round playing partners, the ones with the best chance to beat him, always seem to crumble from the pressure of trying to beat a machine.

[Lamar Mundane]

Is this a whoosh, or are you serious?

Maybe I should have said unprecedented.

Jack still has the numbers. The most telling for me is that while Tiger is on pace for majors won, Jack finished in the top 3 way more than Tiger.

I'm having trouble coming up with current numbers, but as of 2004 (http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/news/story?id=1700996) Tiger had only three second or third place finishes in majors. He's very feast-or-famine.

By contrast, Jack may have only had seven wins to Tiger's eight through their first eight years, but Jack finished second or third eleven times to Tiger's three.

To me that means Jack was far more consistent, probably being in the final group almost twice as often as Tiger.
Since 2004, Tiger has played in 12 more majors, winning five of them, second three times, and third once. Also fourth once, 12th once and one missed cut right after his Dad died.

You say Jack has the numbers, but he only has the career numbers. Tiger is way ahead of him at similar points in their careers. Jack won his last major at age 46. Tiger is 32.

I don't think you could find even one serious golf journalist who would say Jack is/was a better golfer than Tiger Woods.

[ElvisL1ves]

Said Nicklaus himself once: (http://www.nbc4.com/sports/14214102/detail.html)There isn’t a flaw in his golf or his makeup. He will win more majors than Arnold Palmer and me combined. Somebody is going to dust my records. It might as well be Tiger, because he’s such a great kid.

[Ellis Dee]

You say Jack has the numbers, but he only has the career numbers. Tiger is way ahead of him at similar points in their careers.Got any links? The only good one I could find was through 8 years from 2004, linked above. I tend to put a lot of weight on getting to the end even if you don't win, which is why I still rank Jack ahead of Tiger.

Through eight years, here's the comparison in majors: Tiger Jack
Wins 8 7
Top 3 11 19
Top 10 16 23Using the same logic, I find the fact that Federer has made the French Open finals adds to his impressive resume, instead of just lumping him in with guys who sucked on clay.

[Lamar Mundane]

Got any links? The only good one I could find was through 8 years from 2004, linked above. I tend to put a lot of weight on getting to the end even if you don't win, which is why I still rank Jack ahead of Tiger.

Through eight years, here's the comparison in majors: Tiger Jack
Wins 8 7
Top 3 11 19
Top 10 16 23Using the same logic, I find the fact that Federer has made the French Open finals adds to his impressive resume, instead of just lumping him in with guys who sucked on clay.
Here's the list of major winners from Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_major_golf_championships)
Jack turned 32 in January of 1972. He won nine majors after that, so he is behind Tiger 13-9. You can see Tiger's record in the majors here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Woods)

[John DiFool]

Recall that Tiger had another long win streak back in 2006. And the US Open will be at Torrey Pines, where he's won the regular tournament there 5 years running. Jack was my absolute idol when I was a kid, but Tiger had to face overall tougher fields (even if his top rivals seem to wilt, while Jack's rivals rose to the occasion).

[Ellis Dee]

Here's the list of major winners from Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_major_golf_championships)
Jack turned 32 in January of 1972. He won nine majors after that, so he is behind Tiger 13-9. You can see Tiger's record in the majors here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Woods)I'm not disputing the wins. My point is about top 3 finishes.

Jack finished in the top three 162 times in 457 chances, or 35%. If the wiki article is accurate, Tiger has finished in the top three 103 times in 218 chances, or 47%. Extremely impressive, but he has to continue that pace for a bunch of years before he will have eclipsed Jack in my mind.

13-9 is quite a beating, but so is 162-103. But the number I'm most interested in is top 3 finshes in the majors. Jack had 46 in 108 chances, or 43%. I don't have the numbers for Tiger.

In fairness I have to point out that Tiger is only 10 wins away from matching Jack's 73 wins.

[Ellis Dee]

I don't have the numbers for Tiger.Just saw them in the wiki article, though I didn't make the edit window.

Tiger has 20 top 3 major finishes in 50 chances, or 40%. That's a great pace -- slightly behind Jack's 43% -- but Jack had 46 to Tiger's 20. So Tiger's career to date needs to be doubled and then some to equal Jack when it comes to top 3 major finishes.

For perspective, it will take Tiger 16 more years of maintaining his current pace to match Jack. I'm just not prepared to concede that he will be this good for the next 16 years, especially considering he's only had 13 years so far. Right now it's a Mario Lemieux / Wayne Gretzky situation.

[Snarky_Kong]

Why would their rate of not winning matter at all? Man, Germany finished runner up in the World Cup twice as many times as anybody else, they must be the best...

[gonzomax]

Golf has bigger fields and more talented and trained players than when Jack played. I think it is harder to win now.
Think how good Mickelson would have been if Tiger took up baseball instead.

[Ellis Dee]

Why would their rate of not winning matter at all? Man, Germany finished runner up in the World Cup twice as many times as anybody else, they must be the best...Imagine Germany was tied for the most wins, but had appeared in the finals twice as much as the country they were tied with. That wouldn't have merit as a tie-breaker in your eyes?

[John DiFool]

Fields are deeper than in Jack's day, as I outlined above (there are probably several ways you could quantify that, all labor intensive). Here's another number for you: average margin of victory in major victories:

Jack: 2.67 strokes (incl. 3 playoff wins, which might skew the results some)

Tiger: 4.61.

[Jackknifed Juggernaut]

If Tiger retired from golf today, would he be the greatest ever? I say yes. As an example of dominance, Tiger has had at least 3 career winning streaks of 4 or more PGA tournaments. Nicklaus: 0. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_PGA_Tour_win_streaks

There are so many other reasons, but that list was impressive.

[Contrapuntal]

For perspective, it will take Tiger 16 more years of maintaining his current pace to match Jack.If Tiger maintains his current pace for 16 more years he'll have 30 majors and 140 victories, give or take. I'd say Jack will be way back in the dust at that point.

[Wee Bairn]

IMO having a bunch of second places means nothing, or even is a negative- it means a whole bunch of times you were in a position to win on Sunday and didn't. Woods' few second places means when he had any chance at all to win, he usually did.

[Lamar Mundane]

Due to the incredible ammount of money now available on the tour (thanks to Tiger), Woods doesn't have to play in 40 tournaments a year. I don't think he even plays 20. He does do some things that Jack never did, though, like play in Dubai and Europe and Asia once a year. Those wins don't count on his totals, although the fields are every bit as good as the ones on the PGA tour.

[gonzomax]

If Tiger maintains his current pace for 16 more years he'll have 30 majors and 140 victories, give or take. I'd say Jack will be way back in the dust at that point.
Which pace is that.,The 8 of the last 9. If he comes close to that pace no discussion is possible,

[Contrapuntal]

Read this for some fun Tiger facts. (http://www.tigerwoods.com/defaultflash.sps) (Click on "Biography" under "About Tiger" in the upper left hand heading.) Best ever? I think so. He's done a hell of a lot in less than 12 full years as a pro.

[Contrapuntal]

Which pace is that.,The 8 of the last 9. If he comes close to that pace no discussion is possible,I understood him to be referring to the current career pace; i.e. extrapolating what he has done so far for another 16 years.

[Snarky_Kong]

Imagine Germany was tied for the most wins, but had appeared in the finals twice as much as the country they were tied with. That wouldn't have merit as a tie-breaker in your eyes?

It would, but I don't think that's an analogous situation.

[silenus]

Why would their rate of not winning matter at all? Man, Germany finished runner up in the World Cup twice as many times as anybody else, they must be the best...

They were the runner-up in a couple of world wars, too. Doesn't say a lot for their standing now, does it? :D

[Ellis Dee]

IMO having a bunch of second places means nothing, or even is a negative- it means a whole bunch of times you were in a position to win on Sunday and didn't. Woods' few second places means when he had any chance at all to win, he usually did.This is a mindset I just don't understand. Second place is just as good as last?

So in the early 90s, the Buffalo Bills were no better than the Arizona Cardinals? That is obviously false.If Tiger maintains his current pace for 16 more years he'll have 30 majors and 140 victories, give or take. I'd say Jack will be way back in the dust at that point.Agreed, though Jack would still have 20+ more victories.

I concede that Tiger is on pace to be the best ever. He just isn't there yet. Again I would point out the Mario Lemieux / Wayne Gretzky comparison.

If Tiger never comes close to Jack's top 3 number, he needs to shatter the wins number. If Tiger ends up just edging Jack out by a couple major wins, then Jack's huge lead in top 3 finishes would keep him above Tiger IMO.

For me, once Tiger gets to around 22 major wins, Jack's top 3 number will become moot.

I don't think Tiger is remotely capable of matching Jack's top 3 number because Tiger is nowhere near as consistently great as Jack. If he were, he'd practically always finish in the top 3 like Jack did.

[Ellis Dee]

IMO having a bunch of second places means nothing, or even is a negative- it means a whole bunch of times you were in a position to win on Sunday and didn't. Woods' few second places means when he had any chance at all to win, he usually did.We don't actually know anything about Jack's second and third place finishes. You assume that he started Sunday in position to win, but how do you know he wasn't way out of it when day four started, only to come storming back with a huge Sunday to fall just short? I think we can all agree that Tiger is almost incapable of doing that; generally speaking he's either in it and wins it or is out of it and is a non-factor.

I would welcome any cites, as I'm actually curious.

[Contrapuntal]

Agreed, though Jack would still have 20+ more victories.Huh? Tiger would have 140, almost 70 more than Jack.



I don't think Tiger is remotely capable of matching Jack's top 3 number because Tiger is nowhere near as consistently great as Jack. Tiger has won around 30% of the tournaments he has entered. Jack has won 12%. Who is more consistent?

Tiger has won 40% of the Masters he has played, 20% of the U.S. Opens, and 30% of the PGA's and British Opens. He holds or shares the low score in relation to par in all four. He has been the PGA player of the year nine times out of the eleven he has been eligible. Not consistent? I must confess I don't see it.

[Ellis Dee]

Huh? Tiger would have 140, almost 70 more than Jack.Yes he would. My bad.Tiger has won around 30% of the tournaments he has entered. Jack has won 12%. Who is more consistent?

Tiger has won 40% of the Masters he has played, 20% of the U.S. Opens, and 30% of the PGA's and British Opens. He holds or shares the low score in relation to par in all four. He has been the PGA player of the year nine times out of the eleven he has been eligible. Not consistent? I must confess I don't see it.Where is he in the tournaments he doesn't win the other 70% of the time?

I don't actually know; for all I know his top 3 and top 10 numbers are better than Jack's. I can't seem to find the numbers.

The only current numbers I've found for Tiger are top 3 majors, and in that stat he is decidedly lacking compared to Jack.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Yes he would. My bad.Where is he in the tournaments he doesn't win the other 70% of the time?

I don't actually know; for all I know his top 3 and top 10 numbers are better than Jack's. I can't seem to find the numbers.

The only current numbers I've found for Tiger are top 3 majors, and in that stat he is decidedly lacking compared to Jack.


He plays in Dubai where he gets a king's ransom just for an appearance fee. Then he wins there, too.

[gonzomax]

He made the cut for 7 years in a row,142 straight tourneys and he is not consistent?

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Yes he would. My bad.Where is he in the tournaments he doesn't win the other 70% of the time?

I don't actually know; for all I know his top 3 and top 10 numbers are better than Jack's. I can't seem to find the numbers.

The only current numbers I've found for Tiger are top 3 majors, and in that stat he is decidedly lacking compared to Jack.


He also takes some tournaments off because he's all about the majors.


I'm not getting the "he's inconsistent" argument either. Tiger really is the greatest. I suppose it can be debated, but I don't see how it'd be relevant when it's just not true.

He could hang it up right now and never play again and he'd still be the best ever.

[Ellis Dee]

He could hang it up right now and never play again and he'd still be the best ever.Despite the fact that Jack has won more majors? Is this the New Math?

[Snarky_Kong]

Despite the fact that Jack has won more majors? Is this the New Math?

If they played each other, who do you think would win? Does that depends on the longevity of Tiger's career?

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Despite the fact that Jack has won more majors? Is this the New Math?


He's more dominant than Jack was. So yeah, it's that new math. It's also ebonics, if you're counting.

[Lamar Mundane]

Somebody's got the talking points from three years ago and hasn't been paying attention.

[Ellis Dee]

Somebody's got the talking points from three years ago and hasn't been paying attention.The same somebody who has explicitly and repeatedly stated that he doesn't have the numbers for the past few years and would like to see them? That guy?

[Contrapuntal]

Where is he in the tournaments he doesn't win the other 70% of the time?For his career, he has 232 starts, 218 cuts made, 63 firsts, 23 seconds, 17 thirds, 146 top tens, and 192 top twenty fives. In the top ten in 63% of the tournaments played. Can we lay the inconsistency idea to rest? Cite. (http://www.pgatour.com/players/00/87/93/) Overall he has won PGA events 27% of the time, so I was wrong about the 30% figure, but it is still more than twice that of Nicklaus. I suspect the 30% figure factors in his worldwide schedule,where he has won 20 or so other titles. (That cite also gives his PGA stats for the past four years.)


Nicklaus had 594 starts, 506 cuts made, 73 wins, 58 seconds, 34 thirds, 286 top tens, and 389 top twenty-fives. Cite. (http://www.pgatour.com/players/00/18/69/) They both came in second about 10% of the time. 48% of his starts were top tens, compared to 63% for Tiger. Further comparisons down the line are similar, or favor Tiger.

What do you suppose Nicklaus would say if asked who the greatest of all time was?

I think this emphasis on "top 3 in majors," to the exclusion of everything else, is strange. It seems to me to be a made up criterion. Yes, Nicklaus had a lot of seconds and thirds. Good for him. The day that Tiger passes him in total majors all this will be moot. And that day is coming soon.

[don't ask]

Silly argument really. If you are going to discount all other factors, like depth of the playing talent, then we should be comparing Woods with the greatest golfer of all time Bobby Jones. Although essentially just a weekend player who played golf for 3 months a year, when he retired at 28 his record was phenomenal. He won 65% of the majors he played from 1923 - 30. In the last 12 Opens he played he finished first or second in 11, winning 7. He only played 11 US Opens but is equal with Nicklaus on 4 wins and 4 seconds, 2 other top ten finishes and a worst result of eleventh.

[Contrapuntal]

While we're at it, Woods is 15 for 26 with two seconds, two fourths and two fifths in the WGC, which typically includes the top 50 golfers in the world. Arguably the deepest field of any tournaments. He has 15 wins. The rest of the world has 11, with, IIRC, only one other golfer (Darren Clarke) having more than 1 win. Clarke has 2.

[don't ask]

While we're at it, Woods is 15 for 26 with two seconds, two fourths and two fifths in the WGC, which typically includes the top 50 golfers in the world. Arguably the deepest field of any tournaments. He has 15 wins. The rest of the world has 11, with, IIRC, only one other golfer (Darren Clarke) having more than 1 win. Clarke has 2.

Wow that is stupidly dominant. What a great stat.

[Ellis Dee]

He has 15 wins. The rest of the world has 11heh, that's amazing.

I'm comparing top 3 in majors because of the reasons I already outlined -- coming very close to winning is a positive, not a negative -- and because Tiger himself says to only look at his performance in the majors.

But I thank you profusely for offering up the cold hard stats I so craved. Your argument is quite compelling, and I find a perverse satisfaction that Tiger is indeed a big top 3 player if only so people like Wee Bairn have to backpedal so furiously:IMO having a bunch of second places means nothing, or even is a negative- it means a whole bunch of times you were in a position to win on Sunday and didn't. Woods' few second places means when he had any chance at all to win, he usually did.Really? Because Tiger finished 2nd more often than Jack did -- 9.9% vs 9.8% -- so I guess that's a negative for Tiger, right?

I'd still like to see the numbers for just the majors, though. It is what Tiger has asked us to do, after all.

[Ellis Dee]

the WGC, which typically includes the top 50 golfers in the world. Arguably the deepest field of any tournaments.This confuses me. Aren't the top 50 golfers in, say, the US Open, along with 100 others? I mean, what top 50 player skips a major? I'm honestly asking, since I always assumed the PGA was like the WTA, where all the best players show up for the majors. (Barring injury, of course. Plus the clay court thing, but you get the idea.)

[Contrapuntal]

This confuses me. Aren't the top 50 golfers in, say, the US Open, along with 100 others? I mean, what top 50 player skips a major? I'm honestly asking, since I always assumed the PGA was like the WTA, where all the best players show up for the majors. (Barring injury, of course. Plus the clay court thing, but you get the idea.)Amend my statement to "deepest field of any tournaments excluding majors." I would put the WGC fields on a par with majors.

[borschevsky]

Really? Because Tiger finished 2nd more often than Jack did -- 9.9% vs 9.8% -- so I guess that's a negative for Tiger, right?You could also look at this in the context of top 3s. Over 60% of Tiger's top 3s are wins, with 22% and 17% seconds and thirds. For Jack it is 44% / 35% / 21% based on the stats upthread. So in tournaments where they were in the thick of the race, Tiger closed the deal more often. The source of his slight lead (9.9 vs 9.8) in second places is the fact that he's near the top in a larger percentage of events.

Having said that the stats for Jack may be a bit misleading as I assume they include all his more recent tournaments which would skew his stats down.

[Ellis Dee]

You could also look at this in the context of top 3s. Over 60% of Tiger's top 3s are wins, with 22% and 17% seconds and thirds. For Jack it is 44% / 35% / 21% based on the stats upthread. So in tournaments where they were in the thick of the race, Tiger closed the deal more often. The source of his slight lead (9.9 vs 9.8) in second places is the fact that he's near the top in a larger percentage of events.

Having said that the stats for Jack may be a bit misleading as I assume they include all his more recent tournaments which would skew his stats down.Great way to look at it.

I noticed the same thing about the skewing down, since after 25 years and (roughly) 450 tournaments Jack had basically done everything he was going to do. In the next (roughly) 150 tournaments he only had a handful of top 3 finishes with no wins.

[John DiFool]

This is a mindset I just don't understand. Second place is just as good as last?

Jack himself would agree with that statement. And before anybody cries "cite!", I've been following Jack's career for years, and I remember several statements he's made along those lines.

The only inconsistency that Tiger has shown is a couple of major-less years when he was completely overhauling his swing, only to come roaring back the next year.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Jack himself would agree with that statement. And before anybody cries "cite!", I've been following Jack's career for years, and I remember several statements he's made along those lines.

The only inconsistency that Tiger has shown is a couple of major-less years when he was completely overhauling his swing, only to come roaring back the next year.


Funny how the overhauls, to the untrained eye, are virtually nil.

[gonzomax]

This argument occurred when Nicklaus was overtaking Hogan.Hogan fans said the equipment was better courses better etc. There are some geezers who will tell you now that Hogan was the best all time. Just another cycle of sports life rotating another rev and returning to the same spot.

[DKW]

Since the guy's crushed almost every argument (and those he hasn't may be academic within a couple of years), I'd like to raise a different issue, one I think the PGA had better seriously start considering: Is he going to kill the sport?

I mean, for starters, who the hell are his peers? His rivals? His big matchups and bitter foes and potential usupers? No one is within fifty miles of him right now. Phil Mickelson (who'd be a megastar in any other era) is all but an afterthought now, and he's by far Tiger's strongest opponent. Everyone who's chased him or was touted as a rival has gone down in flames...remember Sergio Garcia? During the heyday of Jack & Arnie (golf's last great rivalry for a long, long time), there were a whole bunch of other big names who were always in there. Heck, I remember some of them: Seve Ballesteros, Bernhard Langer, Tom Kite, Mark Calcaveccia, Vijay Singh, Fuzzy Zoeller, Steven Ames, and Justin Leonard, among others. There were reasons to watch other than The Man To Beat, who often wasn't even Jack or Arnie.

When there's only one man in there who has a prayer, what's the point of watching? Sure, there's always the battle for second (and I've seen some very entertaining ones), but that's generally a pretty tough sell.

Where's the next black (or blackish; I definitely don't mean to be discriminatory here) PGA phenom? Whoever tries to follow in Tiger's footsteps will be in his shadow for his entire career, and there's no way in hell he'll come within a continent of measuring up...and this is in addition to the normal frustrations of golf. Who's going to pass up a lucrative NBA, NFL, or even MLS career to compete in a sport with no guaranteed money whatsoever, no prepaid expenses, and a very hard fight every season just to be in the next?

What happens after Tiger retires? Can fans readjust to 4-foot putts lipping out, somewhat-less-than-spectacular rough shots, laying up on dangerous par 5's, errant sand saves, and long stretches of pars? For that matter, who will pay to watch what will be at that point a bunch of nobodies?

Yeah...what's with the constant negativity, DKW? Well, I'm seeing a lot of trouble on the horizon, trouble that I never saw with Michael Jordan (far from univerally loved, and plenty of other superstars active in his time), Pete Sampras (all too human; nb. his clay record), Wayne Gretzky (great individual stats, but it didn't always translate to championships), Greg Louganis (fringe sport), Lance Armstrong (ditto), or Jerry Rice (tremendous but not ungodly hype; playing with Joe Montana for so long definitely helped).

Don't get me wrong, it's cool that I'm alive to witness a truly monumental period in a sport (on par with Louganis, who I doubt will ever be eclipsed), but all the same, I'm having a little difficulty being happy about it.

[The Controvert]

Is he going to kill the sport?Not until golf becomes winner-take-all. We're having too much fun watching him go for previously unheard-of achievements. Can he complete the calendar year slam? Can he go undefeated in a year? He is single-handedly boosting interest and participation in the sport. When he leaves, there might be a downward blip in interest, but the interest built during the Tiger years will be too strong to die off.

[Mullinator]

Since the guy's crushed almost every argument (and those he hasn't may be academic within a couple of years), I'd like to raise a different issue, one I think the PGA had better seriously start considering: Is he going to kill the sport?

I actually think it currently helps golf for him to be so singularly dominant right now. He is likeable, great at what he does, keeps out of trouble, and is fun to watch. It's interesting to watch various potential foes rise up, test him a bit, and get swatted down. Even some of the better ones like Mickelson repeatedly rise up, but Tiger always manages to overcome them.

The interesting thing will be 10 years from now. There is a generation of future golfers out there right now doing things like getting driver's licenses, starting puberty, turning 10, and learning to walk. Some of them will be driven to try and do what Tiger has done. I'd imagine in 10 years, we will end up with a whole batch of players like an improved Mickelson but not as good as Tiger which means there will be no ubergolfer, but the overall competition will be better than ever.

When I see Tiger, I think of Babe Ruth. Someone that does things previously thought impossible and changes the accepted and expected parameters of the game.

[Dinsdale]

Is he going to kill the sport?


No, he isn't going to kill the sport, because the average consumer is an idiot, and loves a simple, attractive, predictable package.

Have to admit, tho, his dominance bores the shit out of me. In my mind, no question he is the best ever. Only way you would get any argument is if you defined "best" as requiring a career of a certain length. But I get a heck of a lot more enjoyment out of watching tournaments he is not in. If Tiger is playing, the only question is whether he is on his game or not.
-If he is, then he wins. Especially if he is in the lead going into the final round. I don't get a heck of a thrill out of watching the inevitable.
-If he isn't, well, he's still the main story, and still might come out of nowhere and win it. He deserves all the credit in the world for coming back against Ernie in Dubai, and against JB this past week. But both occurances disappointed me tremendously.

It will be interesting to see how long he can/will continue at this level. Hell, look at Fred Funk, winning at 50, or Vijay going strong into his 40s. It is mind-boggling to think that Tiger, after accumulating record titles and wealth, will keep going for another 2 decades. Will also be interesting to see how long he keeps going should he ever "lose a step" to age. But as long as he's winning every event he enters, I'll be tuning in the ladies, seniors, Nationwide, or even a good putt-putt match.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

I don't know. I'm torn between that area of thought and another Dinsdale. I wait for the shots that Tiger makes that become legend. Like the 274 yard 2-iron over a lake that he stuck to 5 feet or the 20-yard hook he hit around a tree and stuck like a dart 10 feet away or the times he salvaged par from a disastrous tee shot? Yeah, it gets boring to see Tiger dominate, but it will all be worth it when it happens.

"It", being the time that he doesn't mount the charge. The time where someone runs him down from a 3 stroke deficit on Sunday. That will all be worth it.

[Dinsdale]

I wait for the shots that Tiger makes that become legend. Like the 274 yard 2-iron over a lake that he stuck to 5 feet or the 20-yard hook he hit around a tree and stuck like a dart 10 feet away or the times he salvaged par from a disastrous tee shot?

Yeah, but the problem is (to the extent it is a problem) that he is so damned good that he can win even when he is playing like shit. How many times have you seen him drive it entirely into jail, only to knock stiff some crazy unimaginable shot? Or he'll even drive OB, head back to the tee, and still save par.

Hell, I expect him to make the miraculous recovery shot. He has got to be the best player ever as saving pars. So much of the time par for him almost seems like a let down. And his entire game is so damn good, that he can recover from sand, around the greens, putting... All the time the announcers are cooing over him as tho they'd love to give hime a BJ.

Here's something kinda irrational, and that I expect to get some grief for, but I'll say it anyway. I really respect his competitiveness and never-say-die attitude. But it also kinda makes me think of him as somewhat of a prick, the way he shows so little personality other than competitiveness and occasional anger on the course. And I'm not a fan of the way he and Steve whine when someone takes his picture during his swing. Never did understand why these guys need complete silence. I'm not saying he shouldn't get mad, just saying ISTM that he gets madder than most of the others. I know he has bigger crowds than everyone else as well...

I acknowledge I'm likely stretching to find something to criticize about him. Actually, I often think my real complaint is with the other guys - Mick, Vijay, Reteif, Ernie, Sergio ... who have consistently failed to step up to the plate.

But I make a point of not buying Nike products, and don't intend to buy his Gatorade whenever possible.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Yeah, but the problem is (to the extent it is a problem) that he is so damned good that he can win even when he is playing like shit. How many times have you seen him drive it entirely into jail, only to knock stiff some crazy unimaginable shot? Or he'll even drive OB, head back to the tee, and still save par.

Hell, I expect him to make the miraculous recovery shot. He has got to be the best player ever as saving pars. So much of the time par for him almost seems like a let down. And his entire game is so damn good, that he can recover from sand, around the greens, putting... All the time the announcers are cooing over him as tho they'd love to give hime a BJ.

Here's something kinda irrational, and that I expect to get some grief for, but I'll say it anyway. I really respect his competitiveness and never-say-die attitude. But it also kinda makes me think of him as somewhat of a prick, the way he shows so little personality other than competitiveness and occasional anger on the course. And I'm not a fan of the way he and Steve whine when someone takes his picture during his swing. Never did understand why these guys need complete silence. I'm not saying he shouldn't get mad, just saying ISTM that he gets madder than most of the others. I know he has bigger crowds than everyone else as well...

I acknowledge I'm likely stretching to find something to criticize about him. Actually, I often think my real complaint is with the other guys - Mick, Vijay, Reteif, Ernie, Sergio ... who have consistently failed to step up to the plate.

But I make a point of not buying Nike products, and don't intend to buy his Gatorade whenever possible.


I don't disagree, but on their best days, a Bob May can give a Tiger Woods a run for his money on a big stage.


I get your problem with Tiger regarding pictures and cameras. I often wonder about that myself, but Tiger also has things on his plate that the others don't deal with (death threats, giant crowds, more people taking pictures, etc.)

[ChiefScott]

What amazes me about Tiger is his more mundane stats and actions. Greens in regulation vs. fairways hit -- amazingly he's tops in GIR and near or below the average fairways hit.
He has 3 putted exactly ONCE this year.
His sand play, in my opinion, is second to none.
Most players are content to find the green when laying 210-150 yards. Tiger feels he's FAILED if he doesn't put the ball within 5 feet of the cup on his approach.

I was hoping for a match this weekend. Instead I got a televised match play round with him being "spotted" 4 holes. I watched every shot and what entertained me was each shot. I didn't miss the suspense of who'd win. Luckily, I can enjoy watching a round of golf several different ways.

[Dinsdale]

What amazes me about Tiger is his more mundane stats and actions.

There was a stretch where he went something like a year or more without missing from within 3 feet or something crazy like that.

I've actually been enjoying watching the women a bit more lately. Not just for the obvious reasons! :cool: But also because their swings and games are a little more similar to those of us mere mortals. I watch the men, and there's nothing I can take from their games to mine.

Anyone see Paula Creamer win that tourney last Sat? Birdied something like 4 of the last 5 holes to come from (I think) 2 down to win on the 18th. With a friggin pink ball, no less! :eek:

[ChiefScott]

I watch the men, and there's nothing I can take from their games to mine.

There's another reason why I enjoy watching the men, and in particular Tiger. They do things I can never hope to do and that astounds me. A three-foot fade? Controlling the amount of draw on a ball? Getting draw from the sand? Achieving a consistant and reliable distance from every club?

Hell, if I wanted to do the things they do I'd first need to find a way to consistently tee my ball at the same height every time!

[Dinsdale]

I stopped going to pro tournaments some time ago, mainly because I found it depressing how damned incredible the worst players out there were. Heck, you can watch a full day of golf and the worst shot you see is likely to be better than the best shot you ever hit. And I'm talking as a 10-15 handicapper.

I remember the last time we were at the Western, and we saw one guy who was way right in some trees. Of course, he pulled off some miraculous blind sweeping banana onto the green. My wife said something like, "I bet you couldn't do that!" I responded, "Actually, hitting curving shots out of the trees is something I have a lot more experience with than hitting greens from the fairway!" ;)

[Least Original User Name Ever]

So..um...am I the only one that gets the urge to hit the same shot that Tiger did the day before on the course?

[Dinsdale]

So..um...am I the only one that gets the urge to hit the same shot that Tiger did the day before on the course?

Which one - the 360 yd drive, or the 200 yd 8-iron, or the wedge out of thick grass from the short side of the green that somehow manages to stop on a downhill?

I'm a pretty big hitter. Not crazy long, but pretty long. It amazes me when I catch on on the screws, maybe even with a touch of tailwind and downslope, and pace it off to no more than 300 yds. An average 3-wood for these guys.

[JohnT]

I've admired Woods since his days at Stanford, but to be honest, if there was a "Non-Baseball Juice Pool" (ala the "Death Pool") he'd be my #1 name. I'd have no idea how such things could help a golf swing, but I can't help but notice the coincidence of Tiger's dominance and the steroid era. Perhaps it is just coincidence. Perhaps.

[Lamar Mundane]

I stopped going to pro tournaments some time ago, mainly because I found it depressing how damned incredible the worst players out there were. Heck, you can watch a full day of golf and the worst shot you see is likely to be better than the best shot you ever hit. And I'm talking as a 10-15 handicapper.


At the late lamented International quite a while back, I saw Tom Kite and Peter Jacobsen (two very good but journeyman players) hit shots that almost made me give up the game they made me feel so inadequate.

Kite hit a shot out of a greenside bunker onto a two-tiered green where the pin was right at the bottom of the tier. The ball, I swear, came to a complete stop at the top of the tier, sat still for a few seconds, then trickled down the hill to within inches of the cup. I could stand in that bunker all day and throw the ball and not be able to duplicate that shot.

Jacobsen pulled his second on a par 5 into some trees. The ball was sitting on bark mulch on a steep downhill lie about 20 yards from the green and 20 feet above the pin. He hit a hooded 7 iron to keep it under the branches, landed it in heavy rough to take the speed off of it, one hopped it onto the green and watched it trickle downhill to about eight feet. From the look on his face, I don't think he was even too pleased with the shot.

Bastards.

[Lamar Mundane]

I've admired Woods since his days at Stanford, but to be honest, if there was a "Non-Baseball Juice Pool" (ala the "Death Pool") he'd be my #1 name. I'd have no idea how such things could help a golf swing, but I can't help but notice the coincidence of Tiger's dominance and the steroid era. Perhaps it is just coincidence. Perhaps.
Naw, unless roids can make you a better putter or ball striker around the greens. The PGA Tour is full of 150-160 pound guys who can crush the ball. Tiger hasn't been among the leaders in driving distance for a while now. Of course, he's hitting a lot of two irons off the tees these days.

[Figaro]

I've admired Woods since his days at Stanford, but to be honest, if there was a "Non-Baseball Juice Pool" (ala the "Death Pool") he'd be my #1 name. I'd have no idea how such things could help a golf swing, but I can't help but notice the coincidence of Tiger's dominance and the steroid era. Perhaps it is just coincidence. Perhaps.Seems a bit cynical to me. He was hitting the ball even longer than he does now when he was a gangly 20-year-old, and there is nothing inhuman about his physique (unlike, say, most NFL and NBA players). Right now I think it's only fair to assume that he's simply that good. After all, Jack Nicklaus dominated as a doughy crewcutted lad. He presumably wasn't juicing either.

[JohnT]

Seems a bit cynical to me.

Which is something that I've been accused of, maybe once or twice. ;)

[Contrapuntal]

I've admired Woods since his days at Stanford, but to be honest, if there was a "Non-Baseball Juice Pool" (ala the "Death Pool") he'd be my #1 name. I'd have no idea how such things could help a golf swing, but I can't help but notice the coincidence of Tiger's dominance and the steroid era. Perhaps it is just coincidence. Perhaps.Tiger Woods had not been born when the steroid era began.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Which one - the 360 yd drive, or the 200 yd 8-iron, or the wedge out of thick grass from the short side of the green that somehow manages to stop on a downhill?

I'm a pretty big hitter. Not crazy long, but pretty long. It amazes me when I catch on on the screws, maybe even with a touch of tailwind and downslope, and pace it off to no more than 300 yds. An average 3-wood for these guys.


No, the nuts 20 yard hook around a tree or the 274 yard 2-iron. Those types of shots he's got to hit to get out of trouble.

[Figaro]

No, the nuts 20 yard hook around a tree or the 274 yard 2-iron. Those types of shots he's got to hit to get out of trouble.I don't know about you, but I end up hitting those shots every time I play out of necessity. In fact, the miracle recovery shot is my only "wheelhouse" shot. Nice straight drive? Eh...only sometimes. But if you need a low hooking half 4 iron that will trundle onto the green from 150-yards out, I'm your man :cool:

[Least Original User Name Ever]

I think the last time I was in a fairway was 1998.


Is there a reason we haven't had a golf Dopefest yet? (outside of winter, of course)

[Figaro]

I think the last time I was in a fairway was 1998.


Is there a reason we haven't had a golf Dopefest yet? (outside of winter, of course)Michigolfdopefest! I'm in as soon as it's not nipple-curdlingly cold outside.

[gonzomax]

At the late lamented International quite a while back, I saw Tom Kite and Peter Jacobsen (two very good but journeyman players) hit shots that almost made me give up the game they made me feel so inadequate.

Kite hit a shot out of a greenside bunker onto a two-tiered green where the pin was right at the bottom of the tier. The ball, I swear, came to a complete stop at the top of the tier, sat still for a few seconds, then trickled down the hill to within inches of the cup. I could stand in that bunker all day and throw the ball and not be able to duplicate that shot.

Jacobsen pulled his second on a par 5 into some trees. The ball was sitting on bark mulch on a steep downhill lie about 20 yards from the green and 20 feet above the pin. He hit a hooded 7 iron to keep it under the branches, landed it in heavy rough to take the speed off of it, one hopped it onto the green and watched it trickle downhill to about eight feet. From the look on his face, I don't think he was even too pleased with the shot.

Bastards.
At one time Tom Kite was the all time leading money winner.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Michigolfdopefest! I'm in as soon as it's not nipple-curdlingly cold outside.

I agree. We need this.

[Figaro]

At one time Tom Kite was the all time leading money winner.And then there are his 19 tour wins, including a U.S. Open.

[Dinsdale]

At one time Tom Kite was the all time leading money winner.

I caddied for him once during the Amana VIP Pro-Am back in the 70s. What a nice guy. And the apparent ease with which he consistently made phenomenal shots boggled this teenager's mind.

I recall the size of his "targets" was impressed me. Whereas I would aim at the green, or maybe a half or quarter of the green, he'd have a specific pinpoint he'd be trying to hit.

[gonzomax]

It was a criticism of Kite that he hit the ball straight. he worked it less than other players. I have seen so many greens missed by golfers overcooking a fade . I have always liked hitting it straight and playing angles. Kite was very successful with it. I think some players should consider it.

[Lamar Mundane]

I have nothing against Tom Kite. I said in my post that he was a very good player. Almost everyone with 15 PGA Tour wins has at least one major among them.

Kite was very, very lucky in his U.S. Open win. I remember watching it - A big wind kicked up at Pebble Beach towards the end of the last round, just as Kite was finishing up. The leaders were just getting started on the back nine when Kite finished, and had to play seven or eight holes in brutal conditions. I can't find the scorecards of the leaders, but IIRC Kite was 2 shots or so behind them when he finished with a 72. The leaders were humbled by the conditions and their scores ballooned, leaving Kite with the win.

[Figaro]

It was a criticism of Kite that he hit the ball straight. he worked it less than other players. I have seen so many greens missed by golfers overcooking a fade . I have always liked hitting it straight and playing angles. Kite was very successful with it. I think some players should consider it.People have said the same about Annika Sorenstam, except in her case it amounts to "she's too boring, because she just hits the ball straight at her target every time." Which is a ludicrous criticism of someone whose job is exactly that.

I've never been able to hit a straight ball -- I wish I could. I used to be a permaslicer, but after some lessons I learned to work it either way. I tend to overdo it at least half the time in whatever direction I'm going, but I almost never achieve a straight ball flight.

[dawson]

I caddied for him once during the Amana VIP Pro-Am back in the 70s. What a nice guy. And the apparent ease with which he consistently made phenomenal shots boggled this teenager's mind.

I recall the size of his "targets" was impressed me. Whereas I would aim at the green, or maybe a half or quarter of the green, he'd have a specific pinpoint he'd be trying to hit.


Many teaching pros advocate pinpointing a specific target as opposed to a large "area". I have found this particularly useful when putting. I can consistently roll more putts into a rock glass than say, a five litre pail.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

gonzomax and I went to the senior tournament in Deaborn, Michigan a few years ago. Nicklaus caught some fire on the weekend and was tied for the lead, so he was in the final group. We remember watching him hit on the range, every ball coming out exactly the same trajectory and we'd think that you could have put a bucked about 270 yards out and catch what he hit. The first tee, we went down the left side to watch (first hold is a slight dogleg right around a tree) and he yanked his drive. It landed in the rough right in front of us. This robot, after hitting 50 balls exactly the same pulls one literally right in front of our feet. He comes over, looking for his ball, so we pointed it out. He said "thanks", hit the ball, and went on his way.

Additionally, I worked security for the same tournament a couple of years before that. Some of the seniors are incredibly nice, especially in the practice rounds. Andy North is a dick, though.