Why there can't be a Tiger now

[Roadking2003]

The media was the one who started the push for 18 jazz not Tiger.

 

I don't think so. I recall Tiger saying his target was Jack's majors record even while he was a kid.

[bscinstnct]

I've not read the whole 14 pages but the stuff in the OP is the same kind of thing that was being said in the late 80's-early 90's about why no one will ever dominate like Nicklaus and we all know how that worked out. It might take another 10yrs but someone will come along and dominate.

 

Golf is unique in that you need a relatively odd combination of skills combining power and finesse.

 

Nobody, not even Jack, had the same level of ability in every facet of the game as TW. Jack was not the best wedge/sand player, for example.

 

That's why you have Jacks contemporaries on record saying,

 

"Tiger's better"-Lee Trevino

 

"He's the best"-Tom Watson.

 

Now, there should, in theory, be another TW in about another decade or so. Should be.

[Shilgy]

We see your point but you don't seem to see ours. Look the kid is good and did a COUPLE of things younger than TW. Would you like me to list the things Tiger did before JS? Because I promise that is a much longer list.

 

FYI I'm not a Tiger fanboy. But you are comparing one of the most dominant, if not the most dominant player in golf history to a kid who has more missed cuts at age 23 than TW has missed in his entire career. Common man. Woods has missed 15 cuts at age 40 and Spieth has missed 17 at age 23.

 

 

Well you got me there.

 

 

 

 

 

BUT...if we quantify the greatest of all time - the greatest to ever play - we flat out judge them on MAJOR VICTORIES. And that was where I was coming from all along...Spieth won his first two at an eariler age than Mr. Woods, and he won two (almost three, of course, he fell short at St. Andrews) in one single year three years before Tiger ever did it.

 

 

We will judge Jordan Spieth - when it's all said and done - by his major victory tally...and as it stands currently he is on a better pace than Tiger.

Actually it is a dead heat right now-correct? Jordan has 2 at the age of 23 as did Tiger. Jordan just needs to win three next year to keep even. :)

 

If you want to split hairs, Spieth has 3 more chances at age 23, while Tiger got his second at his last "age 23" major.... so Spieth is ahead. But then the tsunami starts.

Spieth is ahead if he wins #3 within the next three majors.

[Shilgy]

As far as the majors are concerned. I recall reading Tiger had all of Jacks records on his bedroom wall as a kid. And the age Jack accomplished them. Tiger wanted to beat all of them and faster. He got the wins with 79-71 individual wins but not the majors.

[dlygrisse]

This era reminds me a lot of of the late 80's to late 90's.

 

Seve

Norman

Faldo

Lyle

Woosnam

Couples

Strange

Azinger

Kite

Langer

JMO

 

 

Lot's of really good talent, but none that were extraordinary.

 

Rory reminds me a bit of Watson, who overlapped the Jack/90's era, but he couldn't sustain it. Maybe Rory is a bit more like Seve, great for a while then nothing.

 

I will be surprised if any of the current players win more than 5 or 6 majors. But someday, there will be someone. Maybe he is a kid in China, or Michigan, or Russia. But someone will come along, it happens every 25 years or so.

[Joe85]

The media was the one who started the push for 18 jazz not Tiger.

it's indisputable that the major record was Tiger's most sought after goal. I've heard him refer to it a number of times over the years. He will not even tie Jack now. It's unlikely Spieth will but we should at least see what he does in his prime (which he hadn't even reached yet) before we say how well he'll fair in that department.

 

I don't think so. I recall Tiger saying his target was Jack's majors record even while he was a kid.

's indisputable that the major record was Tiger's most sought after goal. I've heard him refer to it a number of times over the years. He will not even tie Jack now. It's unlikely Spieth will but we should at least see what he does in his prime (which he hadn't even reached yet) before we say how well he'll fair in that department.

[Undershooter30]

The media was the one who started the push for 18 jazz not Tiger.

it's indisputable that the major record was Tiger's most sought after goal. I've heard him refer to it a number of times over the years. He will not even tie Jack now. It's unlikely Spieth will but we should at least see what he does in his prime (which he hadn't even reached yet) before we say how well he'll fair in that department.

 

I don't think so. I recall Tiger saying his target was Jack's majors record even while he was a kid.

's indisputable that the major record was Tiger's most sought after goal. I've heard him refer to it a number of times over the years. He will not even tie Jack now. It's unlikely Spieth will but we should at least see what he does in his prime (which he hadn't even reached yet) before we say how well he'll fair in that department.

Its funny you are so quick to write off one and say that the other is not even in his prime. Technically Rory wasn't "in his prime" when he had most of his success. Some guys just win young and sputter out. I think the kid will end up with plenty of majors but to get 12 more is asking alot. 16 more is asking for more than alot.

[whr]

The media was the one who started the push for 18 jazz not Tiger.

it's indisputable that the major record was Tiger's most sought after goal. I've heard him refer to it a number of times over the years. He will not even tie Jack now. It's unlikely Spieth will but we should at least see what he does in his prime (which he hadn't even reached yet) before we say how well he'll fair in that department.

 

I don't think so. I recall Tiger saying his target was Jack's majors record even while he was a kid.

's indisputable that the major record was Tiger's most sought after goal. I've heard him refer to it a number of times over the years. He will not even tie Jack now. It's unlikely Spieth will but we should at least see what he does in his prime (which he hadn't even reached yet) before we say how well he'll fair in that department.

 

Per Tiger Woods interview:

 

Q: You sound like you’re not driven as much by records as we might think. Yet you had Jack’s 18 majors on your bedroom wall as a kid. Is there a misconception about what drives you?

 

Tiger: O.K., here’s the major misconception that people have all gotten wrong. It’s what was posted on my wall, about Jack’s records. It was not the majors, O.K.. There was one on there. It was the first time he broke 40, the first time he broke 80, the first golf tournament he ever won, first time he ever won the state amateur, first time he won the U.S. Amateur, and the first time he won the U.S. Open. That was it. That was the list. It was all age-related. To me, that was important. This guy’s the best out there and the best of all time. If I can beat each age that he did it, then I have a chance at being the best.

 

Q: Have you beaten most of those?

Tiger: I beat them all. I beat them all. [Note: Woods never did win the California Amateur championship.]

 

Q: So the one left isn’t the one that was on the wall, the 18 majors.

Tiger: No, just what I told you, all age-related, the first time he did this, this, this and this. His first major win was the U.S. Open. Mine was the Masters.

[Man_O_War]

the reason why there can't be another Tiger in these modern times ...is because there is still a Tiger :) . He will be back.

 

This record though is going to be brutal to beat. Not sure any one can :

 

 

14 -- Major championships, second only to Jack Nicklaus’ 18

 

79 -- PGA Tour wins, second only to Sam Snead's 82

 

142 -- Most consecutive cuts made, longest streak in tour history

 

11 — Most Player of the Year honors

 

10 — Most money titles

 

9 — Most season scoring titles

 

860 — Most weeks as No. 1 in the Official World Golf Rankings

[Joe85]

The media was the one who started the push for 18 jazz not Tiger.

it's indisputable that the major record was Tiger's most sought after goal. I've heard him refer to it a number of times over the years. He will not even tie Jack now. It's unlikely Spieth will but we should at least see what he does in his prime (which he hadn't even reached yet) before we say how well he'll fair in that department.

 

I don't think so. I recall Tiger saying his target was Jack's majors record even while he was a kid.

's indisputable that the major record was Tiger's most sought after goal. I've heard him refer to it a number of times over the years. He will not even tie Jack now. It's unlikely Spieth will but we should at least see what he does in his prime (which he hadn't even reached yet) before we say how well he'll fair in that department.

 

Per Tiger Woods interview:

 

Q: You sound like you’re not driven as much by records as we might think. Yet you had Jack’s 18 majors on your bedroom wall as a kid. Is there a misconception about what drives you?

 

Tiger: O.K., here’s the major misconception that people have all gotten wrong. It’s what was posted on my wall, about Jack’s records. It was not the majors, O.K.. There was one on there. It was the first time he broke 40, the first time he broke 80, the first golf tournament he ever won, first time he ever won the state amateur, first time he won the U.S. Amateur, and the first time he won the U.S. Open. That was it. That was the list. It was all age-related. To me, that was important. This guy’s the best out there and the best of all time. If I can beat each age that he did it, then I have a chance at being the best.

 

Q: Have you beaten most of those?

Tiger: I beat them all. I beat them all. [Note: Woods never did win the California Amateur championship.]

 

Q: So the one left isn’t the one that was on the wall, the 18 majors.

Tiger: No, just what I told you, all age-related, the first time he did this, this, this and this. His first major win was the U.S. Open. Mine was the Masters.

 

 

 

Annnnnnnd, I remember Jack (on Ferety maybe) say "I never had records on my wall" and that if he hadn't been such a family man he could have won more (majors and even regular tournaments).

 

 

Remember "Nicklaus holds the record for most runner-up finishes in majors with 19."

 

JACK was the greatest of all time, PERIOD.

[Joe85]

Tiger has 14 majors and Tiger had six runners-up. Jack has the 18 and 19 friggin runners-ups. I rest my case.

 

 

Nevertheless....I am going off topic.

[bscinstnct]

Tiger has 14 majors and Tiger had six runners-up. Jack has the 18 and 19 friggin runners-ups. I rest my case.

 

 

Nevertheless....I am going off topic.

 

Phil has 6 Major runner ups too

 

Ask him if he is happy about this stat ; )

 

And, honestly, you think Jack wins 18 majors in the TW/modern era?

[Stubaka]

Rofl!

 

Weak fields? Lets look at who just owned the Big 4....

 

Phil is older than TW and Stenson the same age.

 

And TW was kicking their butts in their prime.

 

 

I would like to see Tiger do what both Stenson and Phil just did at the Open (from here until Tiger hits Phil's age)...he will not ever be able to perform the way Phil just performed at his age.

 

 

Tiger's history.

 

 

Spieth is the new Tiger...already has beat a couple of Tiger's records (he had a sophomore slump, sure)...

The fact that they had to do that after he left

Tiger has 14 majors and Tiger had six runners-up. Jack has the 18 and 19 friggin runners-ups. I rest my case.

 

 

Nevertheless....I am going off topic.

 

19 runner-ups, equate to weaker fields more than greatness. i.e.. Jerry west. Lost in the NBA finals 8 times. And up until this year people talked about lebron losing in the finals. Losing doesn't make you greater than anyone else. What tiger has accomplished, in the timeframe he did it in, makes him great.

[johnseg]

I am always amazed that people use number of runner-ups to further define a players greatness. It is impressive to think Jack could have won 19 additional major titles but he didn't. When people talked about the great year Fowler had because he was top 5 in all four majors, I didn't get that either. Being in competition you want to be in contention to win during the event. After the event does 4 place really matter other than $$$?

[Shilgy]

I am always amazed that people use number of runner-ups to further define a players greatness. It is impressive to think Jack could have won 19 additional major titles but he didn't. When people talked about the great year Fowler had because he was top 5 in all four majors, I didn't get that either. Being in competition you want to be in contention to win during the event. After the event does 4 place really matter other than $$$?

Ya mean when all is said and done we won't be oohing and aahing over the legend of Rickie Fowler? 8 wins 0 majors but 30 top 5's in majors? :) I agree with you 100%. Is Jack the best closer or the worst? When he was in position he failed more often than succeeded.

[Bad9]

I am always amazed that people use number of runner-ups to further define a players greatness. It is impressive to think Jack could have won 19 additional major titles but he didn't. When people talked about the great year Fowler had because he was top 5 in all four majors, I didn't get that either. Being in competition you want to be in contention to win during the event. After the event does 4 place really matter other than $$$?

 

With you 100% on that one.

[puttingmatt]

Tiger has 14 majors and Tiger had six runners-up. Jack has the 18 and 19 friggin runners-ups. I rest my case.

 

 

Nevertheless....I am going off topic.

 

Phil has 6 Major runner ups too

 

Ask him if he is happy about this stat ; )

 

And, honestly, you think Jack wins 18 majors in the TW/modern era?

Really, Do you think Tiger wins 14 majors in the Nicklaus era ??

See what I did there ? For what its worth, why not enjoy what both men have accomplished

with respect for their timelines in history.

 

[Santiago Golf]

To the fact Jack finished second in 19 majors. I really like to know the average difference in those 19. How many were losing by 1-4 shots. Because then he lost those majors. When your the best player ever you don't lose majors. He lost one by 5+ shots, he got beat. Doesn't matter if he played great, the other player out played him.

 

When Tiger won at Pebble in 2000. He won by 15 shots. The guy who finished second, didn't lose that major, he got beat.

 

Tiger closed out 14 for 15 sunday leads in majors. I still don't know if that impresses or sad that he never came from behind to win.

 

 

I have always said Tiger was the best golfer ever, Jack won the most majors, Snead/Roberto De Vincenzo was most victorious.

 

Roberto won 280+ professionals tournaments.

 

You can also look at this way.

 

Jack won 6 times at Augusta and they kept the course pretty much the same.

 

Tiger won there what twice and they then deiced to add rough and make the course longer. And then he won two more times.

 

Will there ever be another Tiger? No

 

Will there ever be another great player? Yes.

 

When you say they are the next "whoever", you effective limiting their success. Why can't they just be themselves

[Joe85]

lol at all these silly Tiger fanboys, Jack said it himself, he would/could have won more if he wasn't more of a family man. Tiger was at the major venue EVERY TIME the week prior, studying those courses and so forth...I highly doubt this was a strategy of the family man Jack, and yet he still destroyed records.

 

 

Tiger fanboys, LOL

 

Really, Do you think Tiger wins 14 majors in the Nicklaus era ??

See what I did there ? For what its worth, why not enjoy what both men have accomplished

with respect for their timelines in history.

 

 

HELL NO.

[Shilgy]

Tiger has 14 majors and Tiger had six runners-up. Jack has the 18 and 19 friggin runners-ups. I rest my case.

 

 

Nevertheless....I am going off topic.

 

Phil has 6 Major runner ups too

 

Ask him if he is happy about this stat ; )

 

And, honestly, you think Jack wins 18 majors in the TW/modern era?

Really, Do you think Tiger wins 14 majors in the Nicklaus era ??

See what I did there ? For what its worth, why not enjoy what both men have accomplished

with respect for their timelines in history.

Nope-no chance. 18-20 would have been my guess. Of course back then the media would not have jumped all over his issues as they do now. They would likely have covered up and protected him. And he probably would not have instructor hopped as he did either. So maybe 20-25? See what I did there?

[Joe85]

Tiger has 14 majors and Tiger had six runners-up. Jack has the 18 and 19 friggin runners-ups. I rest my case.

 

 

Nevertheless....I am going off topic.

 

Phil has 6 Major runner ups too

 

Ask him if he is happy about this stat ; )

 

And, honestly, you think Jack wins 18 majors in the TW/modern era?

Really, Do you think Tiger wins 14 majors in the Nicklaus era ??

See what I did there ? For what its worth, why not enjoy what both men have accomplished

with respect for their timelines in history.

Nope-no chance. 18-20 would have been my guess. Of course back then the media would not have jumped all over his issues as they do now. They would likely have covered up and protected him. And he probably would not have instructor hopped as he did either. So maybe 20-25? See what I did there?

 

 

 

You probably believe that too. The best swing in the history of the game came not from Tiger or Jack, but even before them in either of Jones, Snead or Hogan.

 

 

Stop being so sophomoric.

 

 

Jack's the greatest though...his record proves it.

[tannyhoban]

I am always amazed that people use number of runner-ups to further define a players greatness. It is impressive to think Jack could have won 19 additional major titles but he didn't. When people talked about the great year Fowler had because he was top 5 in all four majors, I didn't get that either. Being in competition you want to be in contention to win during the event. After the event does 4 place really matter other than $$$?

 

Actually yes, it does. If Jack or Tiger missed the cuts instead of placing top ten or better would that not be noticed?

[Shilgy]

Rounds and round we go...

 

I wonder why Tiger won more events than Jack? Hmmm. Oh yeah, because Jack could have if he wanted to and played fewer events. Except of course he did not play fewer events. Must be that pesky lack of talent around Tiger again I guess. Made it easy for him. Hmmm. Back to the question I have asked before. Those guys of yore must have been the best.

If 19 of the top 37 in the most wins on tour list were born by 1915(over a century ago) and 8 more were born by 1940(before ww2) and 6 more by 1955 which leaves only 4 born in the last 60 years. I ask you, is it more likely that the players of the past win more often because there was less competition or were they that much better than today's player?

[bscinstnct]

ONE OF THE GREAT myths in golf is that Jack didn't practice very much. When he bought a house at Lost Tree in Florida in the mid-'60s, nobody saw him. He'd go out back behind his house and hit balls across those fairways all day long. He also built a putting green on land between his guest house and the tennis courts. He adjusted the speed of that green for whatever tournaments were in front of him. He wore that putting green out.

 

-Lee Trevino

 

Also, Jacks peers on TW vs Jack....

 

 

"Tigers better"

 

-Lee Trevino

 

"He's the best"

 

-Tom Watson

[cdnglf]

Yay, another Jack vs Tiger thread!

[JD3]

Rory assumed he was the next tiger but even though he's a long hitter he didn't have Tiger's length advantage over the field. Only one guy....Daly...could keep up with tiger off the tee and he was no where as consistent. So really tiger was in a class of his own. Rory is super long but these days there are like 20 other guys right there with him.

[bscinstnct]

Rory assumed he was the next tiger but even though he's a long hitter he didn't have Tiger's length advantage over the field. Only one guy....Daly...could keep up with tiger off the tee and he was no where as consistent. So really tiger was in a class of his own. Rory is super long but these days there are like 20 other guys right there with him.

 

JD flying by TW

 

 

[tannyhoban]

Rounds and round we go...

 

I wonder why Tiger won more events than Jack? Hmmm. Oh yeah, because Jack could have if he wanted to and played fewer events. Except of course he did not play fewer events. Must be that pesky lack of talent around Tiger again I guess. Made it easy for him. Hmmm. Back to the question I have asked before. Those guys of yore must have been the best.

If 19 of the top 37 in the most wins on tour list were born by 1915(over a century ago) and 8 more were born by 1940(before ww2) and 6 more by 1955 which leaves only 4 born in the last 60 years. I ask you, is it more likely that the players of the past win more often because there was less competition or were they that much better than today's player?

 

They were that much better. There will be another dominant player emerging, it's inevitable.

[Shilgy]

Rounds and round we go...

 

I wonder why Tiger won more events than Jack? Hmmm. Oh yeah, because Jack could have if he wanted to and played fewer events. Except of course he did not play fewer events. Must be that pesky lack of talent around Tiger again I guess. Made it easy for him. Hmmm. Back to the question I have asked before. Those guys of yore must have been the best.

If 19 of the top 37 in the most wins on tour list were born by 1915(over a century ago) and 8 more were born by 1940(before ww2) and 6 more by 1955 which leaves only 4 born in the last 60 years. I ask you, is it more likely that the players of the past win more often because there was less competition or were they that much better than today's player?

 

They were that much better. There will be another dominant player emerging, it's inevitable.

So golf is the only sport where players were better a century ago then today?

[tannyhoban]

Rounds and round we go...

 

I wonder why Tiger won more events than Jack? Hmmm. Oh yeah, because Jack could have if he wanted to and played fewer events. Except of course he did not play fewer events. Must be that pesky lack of talent around Tiger again I guess. Made it easy for him. Hmmm. Back to the question I have asked before. Those guys of yore must have been the best.

If 19 of the top 37 in the most wins on tour list were born by 1915(over a century ago) and 8 more were born by 1940(before ww2) and 6 more by 1955 which leaves only 4 born in the last 60 years. I ask you, is it more likely that the players of the past win more often because there was less competition or were they that much better than today's player?

 

They were that much better. There will be another dominant player emerging, it's inevitable.

So golf is the only sport where players were better a century ago then today?

 

They were that much better than their peers. But I'd love to see a young gun play hickory and gutta percha...