A disgrace to golf

[ckay]

It was a comparison of Byron's field and Tiger's field. It is a justified comparison and not really a jab at Byron's feat. To me, I didn't perceive it as a jab, but really putting into light what Byron accomplished with 11 wins in a row and how much of an amazing feat it really is. It really did give me chills. I do think Tiger's field is more competitive and his 7 is amazing in its own right.

 

However, this is just my opinion and the way I perceived the segment. 11 wins is 11 wins. An 11 win streak is easily downplayed when you look at other sports but that segment really brought into light how much of an accomplishment ANY streak of wins is in professional golf. I mean, golfers spend the majority of their lives "losing"

[tigerwoods]

what more does tiger have to do to get some respect? now he could not compete with byron nelson? that is absurd. boys give it up. Your excuses are a little old.

[upndown1]

Here is an interesting article on Byron's 11 straight wins:

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/maga....nelson.streak/

[cjhenry01]

Not even in the same category. Nelson's record is & will remain the best of all time.

[DemolitionMan]

Here is an interesting article on Byron's 11 straight wins:

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/maga....nelson.streak/

 

Excellent! Thank you for posting the link.

 

As I stated before, by and large, the media is full of Idiots. And then there are the readers of such media acting like lemmings. This article is the exception.

 

It's pretty tough to compare eras. Tiger's accomplishments speak for themselves. Other than pursuing the record for most majors, there is no comparison between Tiger, Nicklaus, Palmer, Nelson, Hogan, Jones, etc...They played in different eras under different conditions.

 

That being said, Nelson's conditions were pretty darn tough. Perhaps the fields were not as deep. But consider the pressure. Nelson was determined to make enough money to buy a ranch and some cows. He counted birdies as a way to increase his buying power of a ranch. He played in a qualifier at the PGA Championship when he was already exempt because low round gets an extra $250.

 

After winning nine straight and a ton of pressure on him, he waxed Hogan and Snead by 11 strokes in the next tournament. We can lay to rest any notion of weak fields.

 

There is just no excuse for not paying respect to an incredible streak. Forget Tiger. If the media wants to make these comparisons just to shine some light on how great his streak of seven is, then they have a weak case. Tiger's streak is worthy of praise in itself without comparisons. To invite a comparison to Nelson only serves to show Nelson's accomplishment as that much greater. Think about it, are we going to praise Tiger for having he game and mental fortitude to put it all on the line and pull out a win with the pressure of 6 in a row lingering? If so, then what is it like to have that same pressure, only with 10 in a row on the line with no layoffs? Are we going to talk about how no one really challenges Tiger in R4 when he has the lead, the field just folds? Nelson didn't wait for the field to fold, he went out and shot 64s and 65s in R4 to cement a win and leave no doubt.

 

It's time for everyone to pay their respects to Nelson and leave Tiger out of it. When Tiger is retired there is no doubt he will get his respects and a ton of them for records that will probably never be broken.

[Punchy50]

First of all, I'm not a Tiger worshiper and am in no way trying to defend him. I think most of the bashing comes from the older generation and it is difficult for them to accept that he is the best player in the world today, was the best yesterday, and will be tomorrow...and before you know, he'll be the best of all time if not already. What amazes me about his accomplishments is that he picks the tournaments with the strongest fields and dominates most of the time. Not to mention the crazy shots he pulls off in pressure situations. It's harder to win on the present day tour because of course conditions and the advancements in technology usually benefit the guys behind Tiger. During any given tournament, anyone in the field has a chance to win. Back in the days, we could only expect a handful of players to win. Hate all you want, but it is impossible to compare today's game with the past...can't we all get along? ;)

[gregflat9]

To me, it boils down to the world ranking... Tiger is so far ahead, with a greater depth of competition that it's hard for me to accept that Byron Nelson could have matched that difference.

 

Don't get me wrong what Lord Byron Nelson did was special, but week in week out Tiger has the stats to say... "I am way out in front".

 

I'd love to see someone compute the world rankings from Byron's day... then we would have an objective measure. Until then, it's my word or anyone else's against yours. We could go on forever...

[Guillotine007]

if Tiger went back in time to 1945 and borrowed Sam Snead's clubs...I would bet my first born son that he would have dominated the competition. I'd say the same thing for 1965, 75, 85, etc.