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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 23
Using 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.
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).
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.
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.
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…
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.