Just curious. He obviously a great player, but he seems to have a number of dry spells. Is he as accomplished as the legends of years past were at this age?
You’d have a dry spell, too, if you had a doubly broken leg and a totally shredded knee ligament. 
He is well ahead of Jack Nicklaus’ record for both tournaments won and major tournaments won at comparable ages. No one else in the pantheon is even close in majors; only Sam Snead and Arnold Palmer really compare in the number of tournaments won, and I’m pretty sure he’s ahead of them, too, in that stat. I haven’t looked to see if he’s ahead of Kathy Whitworth at a comparable age, but I would guess so; the women’s greats tended to have longevity, but not a lot of early wins, simply because they played a much smaller yearly schedule back in the day.
As for dry spells, it should be noted that Tiger’s are generally no longer than those suffered by other well-known golfers. Jack Nicklaus, for example, went from the 1967 U.S. Open to the 1970 Open (British) without winning a major, a span of 13 major tournaments (he was 27 to 30 at the time). Tiger has had no comparable period of major championship “suckitude,” though he cam close with his drought between the 2002 U.S. Open and the 2005 Masters (11 tournaments).
Nicklaus, by the way, was 37 when he completed his Triple Grand Slam of majors. Woods had managed it by age 32.
He brought in crowds at tournies like no one ever did. The TV ratings soar when he plays.
He has made remarkable shots under enormous pressure. More pressure than other players have to carry.
He has been hurt a couple times. The last is just the worst. But he is moving up rapidly to breaking all the records. I do not know who argues anymore that he is not the best and that he will break all the records.
I think the only possible way in which he is not clearly #1 would be longevity. If he suffered a career-ending injury today or simply chose to walk away, you’d have to give Nicklaus the nod in terms of career. But if he hangs around another 5-10 years, he’ll have that in the bag as well.
Meanwhile, I’m enjoying reading newspaper articles that mention him only to note “Tiger is 9 strokes back…”
So - is Lefty gonna get 'er done this afternoon?
There’s no comparing in the pantheon. Tiger is the best. Jack is closest, or 1b if you prefer, but it’s Tiger and then that’s it.
Nope. As I said, Tiger has by far the best beginning stretch of any golfer’s career. But he hasn’t finished it yet. To beat what Jack did over 30 years is going to take Tiger at least another 5 or 10.
It should be noted that Woods’ success is against a pool of golfers drawn from a worldwide field of golf pro aspirants probably 3 times as large as it was in the 60’s-80’s. Not to say Nicholas wouldn’t have accomplished as much if he was playing now, but to dominate the sport today is a more difficult feat than it was 30 years ago.
Tiger is, at WORST, the second greatest golfer of all time. ONLY Jack Nicklaus is even close. Nobody else belongs in the conversation.
And Tiger has been dominating the PGA to an extent that even Nicklaus in his prime didn’t.
Unless he completely collapses, I think it’s a safe bet he’ll stand alone as the greatest of all time, by a comfortable margin. And even Nicklaus won’t be inclined to argue the point.
Nicklaus himself proclaimed Woods the greatest ever several years ago already. That’s enough for me.
Yes, no other golfer has ever dominated the sport nearly as completely. Nicklaus and Hogan almost never seemed to make their competitors despair that they had any chance to beat them, but when Woods has his A game that’s what he does. The greatest players in any sport seemingly can actually make their competitors perform *worse *- Jordan is another example.
Woods is that rare performer who you can’t avoid watching whenever he’s on the screen, even when he’s out of contention. Who really cares about watching Mickelson chip even when he’s leading, for comparison?
I watched Mickelson win today. He is fun to watch. He takes risks and it makes good TV. I don’t care if he blows a win by doing something risky. it adds excitement.
By the way he chipped 4 in this weekend and missed a couple more by inches.
Tiger does not have dry spells. He’s by far the most consistently great golfer ever.
What other legends were playing good golf, and doing demonstrations in public and even on TV, at the age of 3?
He sure did, in the earlier part of this decade, for several years after dumping his longtime coach, and getting married FWIW. Remember all the “What’s wrong with Tiger?” stories?
It depends how you define “dry spells.”
When Justin Leonard or Retief Goosenis in a “dry spell,” he misses cuts and doesn’t finish in the top ten for a year.
When Tiger is in a “slump,” he regularly finishes in the top ten, just a few strokes off the lead.
When people were asking “What’s wrong with Tiger,” he wasn’t stinking out the joint! He was just coming up a tad short in the majors.
Most golfers DREAM of slumps like Tiger’s!
OK. Show me. In his career, he finished 24th on the money list in his first (partial) season, then first eight times, second twice, and fourth twice. Where’s the “dry spell”?
Me-ME-ME!
I very much enjoyed yesterday’s Mickelson/Watney duel. From Watney’s chip-in at 9, thru their birdie/eagle on 10, to both of them hacking the hell outta 12. Had no need for nor interest in the cut-aways to Tiger.
If nothing else, the media overload has bred over-familarity. You know exactly how he is going to respond every time, having been inundated with his every exclamation and mannerism. And his caddy is the only caddy on tour I have a negative opinion of. What a dick.
It is an interesting comparison - the depth of today’s international pool of players. You often hear it said that Tiger lacks a competitor as the greats of previous generations. Jones/Hagen/Sarazen, Hogan/Nelson/Palmer, Nicklaus/Trevino/Player/Watson. . . (Historical groupings off the top of my head - not intended to be exclusive or accurate.) But as someone above said, I think it very likely that in any generation, Tiger would have made his competition look as bad as today’s. Weird to think that he would have dominated Jones or Hogan, isn’t it?
It really would be nice if someone stepped up to challenge Tiger. Lefty’s win yesterday tied him with Veej for the most wins w/ Tiget in the field - 12. And I think Tiger has 65. Through the years player after player has failed to step up consistently over time. Els, Goosen, Sergio, Scott, Duval . . . Would be nice if Villegas or Kim turn out to be the real deal. Or maybe Ogilvy . . .
It’s a relative term. For Tiger, it’s not winning a major.
Yeah, and if he won two majors a year then you could claim he was in a dry spell when he only won by 4 strokes. If you tailor the meaning to each player it’s a meaningless term.
With respect, Tiger’s “dry spells” are exactly comparable to Nicklaus’ “dry spells.” Scarily so. So either Tiger has them, as Nicklaus did, or Nicklaus didn’t have them, as Tiger doesn’t. Either way…
Honestly, I think a better question is whether Tiger is, in fact, the most dominant athlete in any sport. I mean, has any player ever completely owned the field in a way that Tiger has, and stood so consistently ahead of everyone else through their career?
It’s hard to compare golf to team sports, of course, but for sheer impact I’m hard pressed to think of anyone else. (Jordan, maybe? Ruth?)