I am only a little more than a casual tennis fan and have been since the Connors/Evert days.
It is not a question of Rosewall’s and Court’s Grand Slam wins were being denigrated it just that no one ever did. Those wins stood on their own merit. And despite probable more competition in the Graf and Sampras era, no Graf or Sampras felt the need to denigrate those wins.
Graf and Sampras (and later Federer) win out an broke those Grand Slam records because that is who they were. Their fans did not make excuses or possible reasons why they didn’t break those records.
Not true. There were multiple articles and shows that talked about the fact that “back in the day” the defending champ at some majors automatically played in the final the next year. Further for Wimbledon specifically, you have the Amateur Era and the Open Era issue to deal with.
Rules, equipment, and eligible players change over time. Makes era-to-era comparisons a no-win situation.
TonySinclair, really, REALLY well-written posts! Much food for thought in there.
It’s not denigrating a win to look at the circumstances; it’s just being aware of history. Young Tommy Morris gets credit for a major win as the 1872 Open Champion, but nobody with any knowledge of golf history equates it to a modern Open, because there were only 8 players in the field, and they were all local club pros. It’s possible that Tommy could have beaten Tiger with modern equipment, but that’s not the way I’d bet.
My opinion about field strength has nothing to do with Tiger. If I’m still alive 40 years from now, and half of the world’s top 100 golfers are Asian, then I will cheerfully admit that the fields of 2053 are much stronger than the fields were back in 2013, and that some kid who has compiled 40 wins and ten majors against those fields might well be the best of all time. I’d have to look at his entire career before making that judgement, though.
And by the way, Tiger’s career needs no excuses. He’s ahead of Jack’s pace in every significant category, including major wins. He’s already blown by Jack in career wins, getting his 73rd ten years younger than when Jack got his, even after a two-year slump, and he might even break Snead’s record this year.
The upcoming US Open will be Tiger’s 62nd attempt to win a major since he turned pro. Jack won his 15th major in his 67th attempt. Vegas is taking bets that Tiger won’t win any majors this year. If you think he won’t continue to beat Jack’s pace, you should grab some of that easy money.
Introducing Young Tom Morris into the argument is not relevant. Reductio ad Absurdum. No one is saying that Young Tom is one of the all time greats, nor is anyone saying that Abner Doubleday is on of the all time greats of Baseball.
As far as Tiger being on pace to break Jack’s majors, all I can say, if he breaks his records he breaks the records. Extrapolation is a poor statistical technique. He was well ahead of that pace 59 months ago and has done nothing but stall since June 2008. He has not finished closer than 3 shots of the lead since August 2009 only been a serious threat in a final round one time since he got a nine iron to the back of the head.
Sampras, Federer and Graf beat the Grand Slam records of Rosewall and Court. Tiger has had almost 5 years to notch #15 and he has yet to do it.
BTW, Court and Rosewall did not pad their Grand Slam victory total by being seeded automatically into the Championship match.
Why are you denigrating his wins? And speaking of denigrating wins, do you remember when you wrote this about the WGC’s?
So a field of 80, all from the world top 100, is a joke to you, but a field of 90 (which was the field size for the 1959 Open), with no Americans, one Australian, and probably no more than 30 others from the world top 100, is to be spoken of only in hushed reverence.
OK.
Wait, when did extrapolation become a great statistical technique?
And can you really not see an improvement in his play when you compare this year to 2010-12?
This is completely off-topic, but since all the golfers are in this thread, I’ll ask it here:
Whatever happened to PING? In the 80’s and 90’s, PING equipment was everywhere, first with putters but later all clubs. It was the most innovative equipment company and it’s name was everywhere, on the pro’s bags and hats. Now it is nearly non-existant. You used to see the company’s founder, that Colonel Sanders looking dude, at tournaments all the time. (He may be dead.)
I think the only guy with a PING bag now is Angel Cabrera, and that might be wrong. It’s as if the company just shut down some time in the 00’s.
A couple of the pros use their putters -I saw one quite similar to mine last week. And I think a couple of the last few winners had some PING in their bags. But you are right - others have stolen old Karsten’s thunder.
Bump. Five wins so far this year. One strong regular PGA event, one very strong regular PGA event, a Players, and two WGCs. He’ll be world #1 by nearly 6 points tomorrow, about the same as the difference between Graeme McDowell and me. Leads the tour in almost every important stat by such a large margin that just average play for the rest of the season will probably guarantee he’ll end up with the most wins, the money title, and the Vardon Trophy. Probably also Player of the Year, unless Phil, Adam, or Justin wins the PGA or the FedEx Cup.
His irons and short game looked very sharp this week. His distance control was superb. His driver was super long, and his missed fairways were by a couple of yards, rather than a different zip code like before.
Golf, and especially putting, is fickle. He might not win next week, because IMO he puts too much pressure on himself to win majors. But the ability to build up seven shot leads takes a lot of the pressure off.
No question that he is the best player in golf this year, has been the best through the span of his career, and is probably the best player ever. Only reason I say probably is because of the difficulty of such comparisons.
I am happy so long as he doesn’t win too many more majors, and was glad he didn’t get that 58 on Friday.
Gotta say, smart money would be on him to win the PGA. But I think I’d take the field, just because I prefer cheering against him.
He’ll soon enough have the record for most tour wins over Sam Snead. I think the days of the field versus Tiger being an even money bet are past us (unless the old Tiger returns…not likely), so I wouldn’t take him against the field. But I do think he is the favorite. I also wouldn’t bet on him passing Jack’s Majors record, although if I woke up ten years from now and he had done it I wouldn’t be amazed, either. One thing that is amazing about Nicklaus is that in addition to his 18 Majors he finished 2nd 19 times, Tiger has finished 2nd six times.
Just thought of another thing - which I’m sure has been mentioned above.
Tho I think Tiger an incredible jerk, have to acknowledge many/most old-time golfers benefit from the different media climate. For example, it was relatively recently that I learned freckle-faced Tom Watson had been a pretty hardcore drinker for many a year. And divorces aren’t exactly rare among tour members. Who knows how big of a jerk Old Tom might have been absent live coverage, extensive post-round video interviews, paparazzi, etc.?
I wouldn’t have taken Tiger against the field even in 2000. The fields are just too deep – almost anyone in the field can win if he has the week of his life. You only have to look at the PGA that year, when Tiger played spectacular golf, set the all time scoring record for most under par, and was still taken to a playoff by a relative unknown.
It was a far cry from the days when Jack could enter a PGA Championship that had over 110 club pros in the field, or a British Open with only half a dozen US pros in the field. No wonder he got so many seconds. Especially in that era, it would be like having a World Sumo Wresting championship with only a couple of contestants from Japan.
On the other hand, I would cheerfully take Tiger against the field if he has a seven shot lead after 36 holes, which he just proved he can do against the best players in the world. He seems to still be improving, so that scenario is not as far-fetched as it used to be.
Heard a tv talker on the Akron tourney last weekend say that had 48 of the top 50 players in the world were present. I recall reading that at a Brit Open that Jack won… perhaps his 1st, in 1966 they had just 1 of the top 25 players in the world competing. Why is that win considered a major?
Golf mag or somesuch had an article on both Snead’s and Wood’s total wins I saw in my doc’s office. Many of Snead’s were bogus that no one would consider a tourney win.
It’s a major because it’s the oldest tournament in the world and is often held in the home country of golf.
As for Snead’s wins, eh. Stuff changes over time. Richard Petty raced in an era when they had WAY more than 36 races a year. Babe Ruth faced fewer pitchers pitching WAY more innings per game. You can’t reset all the records every time the landscape changes a little, but add up 70 or 100 years of little changes and it’s a different game.
“Bogus” is pretty strong, but it’s true that some of his wins would not be counted today. If memory serves, there were five team events, with a very small number of teams.
On the other hand, Sammy was robbed of several years of his prime, when he joined the Navy during WW2.
On the third hand, during and shortly after WW2, the fields were so weak that he (and Hogan, and Nelson) racked up 10+ wins per season, which has never been done before or since.
No matter, Tiger is now just three behind Snead in official PGA wins. He could break the record this year, and it will be a major upset if he doesn’t have it by sometime next year. Given his strength of schedule, IMO it’s a greater feat than matching Jack’s 18 majors, but that is a distinctly minority opinion.
