How many majors would Tiger have won...

[Roadking2003]

If so, would Tiger have won as many majors against today's field?

 

No. Maybe 8.

[bscinstnct]

Here is some timeless perpective on how standards in the game rise:

 

"The great Byron Nelson saw Woods a couple of years ago and couldn't wait to get to a phone. Nelson called his ward, the great Tom Watson. "I've seen Ben [Hogan] and Jack and you. I've seen 'em all," said Nelson. "Tom, this young fellow has no weakness.""

 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/tiger-grass-181542%3Famp%3D1

 

 

Byron Nelsons assessment of TW at 17 years old, I think.

 

Comparing athletes across generation is subjective.

 

But the tide keeps rising. And thats a good thing.

[youdamantiger]

Here is some timeless perpective on how standards in the game rise:

 

"The great Byron Nelson saw Woods a couple of years ago and couldn't wait to get to a phone. Nelson called his ward, the great Tom Watson. "I've seen Ben [Hogan] and Jack and you. I've seen 'em all," said Nelson. "Tom, this young fellow has no weakness.""

 

https://www.google.c...ss-181542?amp=1

 

 

Byron Nelsons assessment of TW at 17 years old, I think.

 

Comparing athletes across generation is subjective.

 

But the tide keeps rising. And thats a good thing.

 

And there are plenty of other legends of the game, including Tom Watson and Gary Player who maintain that Nicklaus was the greatest. You're right, comparing players across generations is entirely subjective, which necessitates using some sort of objective yardstick, otherwise the debate devolves into an exercise in circular logic and rehashed arguments. Objective yardsticks are the only thing that cannot be open to interpretation. Since the days of Jones and Hagen, that yardstick has been major championships. I say that as a guy whose favorite players are Hogan and Tiger, but I don't consider either of them the GOAT. If a guy collapses 50 yards from the finish line, I think it's unfair to grab the finish line and move it back 51 yards.

 

And I don't know if the tide keeps rising, especially as it regards golf. The human body has finite limits. Two decades from now there might be a sprinter who's a tenth of a second faster, but there won't be a sprinter who takes to the air like Superman and flies across the finish line. Roger Bannister broke the four minute mile but you can't seriously argue that, in the entire history of the world, of all the billions of people who lived before him, that there was never someone somewhere who couldn't have done it also. And golf is a highly specialized talent anyway, one that is not nearly as reliant on physicality and athletics as other sports. If it were, the distance leaders on Tour wouldn't be such a motley collection of different body types. Fat, thin, short, tall, lanky, muscular. There is not one particular body type that can be said to be "perfect" for golf. There's too much physical diversity on Tour to believe that being "fit" or "athletic" really means all that much to a golfer. For instance, a few years ago 59 year old Tom Watson nearly won the British Open, but 59 year old John McEnroe would never make it to the finals of WImbledon. It would be an impossibility. Ditto 59 year old Magic Johnson leading the Lakers to the NBA Finals. A 65 year old four handicap golfer could go out and beat a 25 year old four handicap golfer and no one would be shocked. That could never happen in any other sport.

[bscinstnct]

Here is some timeless perpective on how standards in the game rise:

 

"The great Byron Nelson saw Woods a couple of years ago and couldn't wait to get to a phone. Nelson called his ward, the great Tom Watson. "I've seen Ben [Hogan] and Jack and you. I've seen 'em all," said Nelson. "Tom, this young fellow has no weakness.""

 

https://www.google.c...ss-181542?amp=1

 

 

Byron Nelsons assessment of TW at 17 years old, I think.

 

Comparing athletes across generation is subjective.

 

But the tide keeps rising. And thats a good thing.

 

And there are plenty of other legends of the game, including Tom Watson and Gary Player who maintain that Nicklaus was the greatest. You're right, comparing players across generations is entirely subjective, which necessitates using some sort of objective yardstick, otherwise the debate devolves into an exercise in circular logic and rehashed arguments. Objective yardsticks are the only thing that cannot be open to interpretation. Since the days of Jones and Hagen, that yardstick has been major championships. I say that as a guy whose favorite players are Hogan and Tiger, but I don't consider either of them the GOAT. If a guy collapses 50 yards from the finish line, I think it's unfair to grab the finish line and move it back 51 yards.

 

And I don't know if the tide keeps rising, especially as it regards golf. The human body has finite limits. Two decades from now there might be a sprinter who's a tenth of a second faster, but there won't be a sprinter who takes to the air like Superman and flies across the finish line. Roger Bannister broke the four minute mile but you can't seriously argue that, in the entire history of the world, of all the billions of people who lived before him, that there was never someone somewhere who couldn't have done it also. And golf is a highly specialized talent anyway, one that is not nearly reliant on physicality and athletics as other sports. If it were, the distance leaders on Tour wouldn't be such a motley collection of different body types. Fat, thin, short, tall, lanky, muscular. There is not one particular body type that can be said to be "perfect" for golf. There's too much physical diversity on Tour to believe that being "fit" or "athletic" really means all that much to a golfer. For instance, a few years ago 59 year old Tom Watson nearly won the British Open, but 59 year old John McEnroe would never make it to the finals of WImbledon. It would be an impossibility. Ditto 59 year old Magic Johnson leading the Lakers to the NBA Finals. A 65 year old four handicap golfer could go out and beat a 25 year old four handicap golfer and no one would be shocked. That could never happen in any other sport.

 

Enjor your posts. And keep in mind that I rarely read a post more than 5 sentences long ; )

 

Couple things.

 

One, Michael Phelps.

 

Two, you are aware the both Trevino and Watson said, "Tiger's better"/"He's the best", in comparing TW to Jack?

 

^5 sentences, if you can call them that ; )

[tsecor]

TW would probably be in the range of Phil with 6....maybe have 10 tops which is still amazing!!. Its no secret his competitors were well below the era of Jack and when you compare their careers side by side, you really see where the advantage goes to Jack. Tiger is the 2nd best of all time to me, but he is a step below Jack. total majors, total 2nd place in majors, total top 5 in majors.....ect......its all jack. He stands alone, but in todays game I could see tiger winning 10 with some luck.

[AC in TX]

All things considered, if he stays healthy, etc. he has 20 - 25 majors. All things considered and with a few bounces in his favor, Jack has 20 - 25 majors.

These two guys shared what few golfers had - they made competitor pro golfers either man up or wilt under their intense game pressure ... they mostly wilted - hall of fame golfers included.

I think if Jack and Tiger played at the same time with similar gear (60's to 80's; 90's to now) they would have taken turns winning - majors, match play, whatever ... so dominant!

[tsecor]

Nicklaus was close to winning 30 majors in my opinion......also has 8 senior majors....his 2nd place finishes were by 1 or 2 shots mainly......just so dominant...

 

Victories: 20

Second Place: 19

Third Place: 9

Top-Three Finishes: 48

Top-Five Finishes: 56

Top-10 Finishes: 73

 

how come nobody ever mentions Walter Hagen? 11 majors......

[llewol007]

If Tiger would have stuck with the Butch Harmon swing he had at the 2000 US Open at Pebble he would have won 25 majors.

Tiger ended up being his worst enemy. I really thing the loss of his Dad probably played a role in him finding refuge in others who had the right idea but wrong intentions. Easy to play what ifs. Like only if I picked the the last 2 numbers of the Power ball what if. So going off the question, I say the domination Tiger had back in the end of the 90's into 2000, he would have at the minimum, broken Jack's record and probably would have settled at about 25+ majors. Mind you, even the injury to Tiger was self inflicted so even taking that into consideration, I would imagine he would of played through that a lot better than he is now. It is hard to say never but, I dont thing we will see another player come close to Tigers accomplishments or hold the number 1 seat for as long as he did. In terms of the game of "GOLF" Tiger is my idol and why I got into the game. Sad to see his current condition. Kinda like hoping Evil can make one more jump just to see it happen.

[tsecor]

I think the HGH and the golf club to the face really limited tigers chance to break the record, but he would probably would still be in 2x digits in any era.....

[drbonesvt]

If he started playing in 2010 or around there?

 

First, TW would have "grown up" with the current driver/shaft set up and modern ball. Without question, the transition from the steel shaft driver he played as an amateur was very difficult, had a huge impact on his driving numbers and ultimately led to a sequence of events that had a big material impact on his career.

 

The unwillingness and poor handling of the driver transition may have even led to him leaving Butch>

 

"One of the reasons I believe Tiger felt he needed to change his swing was to increase his driving distance. When he first turned pro, Tiger drove it past everybody by a healthy margin. Davis Love III and John Daly were close, but no one consistently hit it as far and in as many fairways as did Tiger. When he needed to blast it past an opponent, he had that ability. Then, in about 2001, players started catching up with him. Ernie Els, Phil Mickelson and Vijay Singh all started hitting the ball close to, if not as long as, Tiger, and occasionally those players and others hit it by him. He never admitted it, but I believe that bothered him. He knew he generated more clubhead speed than anyone else out there, and he had gotten even faster since he'd started working out in his mid-20s, so being challenged off the tee was not something that was supposed to happen. When it did, I think he decided he needed to make some changes.

 

 

I believe that Tiger's perceived loss of distance (or the fact that the rest of the tour started catching up to him in the distance category) had more to do with his equipment than his golf swing. He insisted on staying with a 43 3/4-inch steel-shafted driver with a smaller head, while his fellow-competitors were playing 45-inch graphite shafts and jumbo titanium heads.

 

It's hard to question Tiger's reluctance to make a dramatic equipment change. He was the best player in the world. Tossing your driver when you're playing great is a tough thing to do. There were plenty of graphite shafts Tiger could have hit, but he took a cautious approach to change. No one can fault him for that decision.

But I think overhauling his golf swing was a mistake when putting a new driver in the bag would have done the trick."

 

http://www.golfdiges...608_harmontiger

 

 

 

 

 

So, we can start there. If TW had entered the tour in this "era", having come through the game playing 460/graphite, with a 125MPH+ swing speed and his ability, combined with his iron/short game, now you'd have a guy with Rory's driving/iron game, Phil's wedge game, and the best putting game.

 

No swing change and other BS

 

16-19 , he possibly catches jack sans all the consternation he brought on himself

 

16-19 is the number bc of the equipment; Above hits the nail on the head , equipment evolution brought his contemporaries closer, and later on , "the tiger effect" bread a whole new caliber of golfer into the game ; DJ , Day , etc

 

Had Jack in his prime had equipment revolution limit the premium of his power and ball striking by being his competitors closer to where he was, I feel he would have won less.

 

Just my opinion

[Joe85]

If Phil wins three of his 6 runners up US Open finishes (maybe even two of them) I believe Tiger's credibility goes up.

 

 

Jack said he believes that while the fields were deeper in Tiger's era, there were less legends/major championship caliber players/winners.

 

 

 

Most Tiger fanboys will come on here and throw a temper tantrum over old bitter Jackie saying that, but there is some truth to it.

 

 

Jim Furyk only won one major.

David Duval only won one major.

Luke Donald (another former world number 1) never won one

Westwood

Monty

 

 

You could go on and on with these elite golfers of Tiger's era who did little to nothing in majors.

[Finbarr Saunders]

The PGA helped tiger with the so called tiger proofing. How was making courses longer and cutting back the rough going to protect courses, the only thing that done was make it easier for him to build his legacy in an already weak era

[Chazb]

The PGA helped tiger with the so called tiger proofing. How was making courses longer and cutting back the rough going to protect courses, the only thing that done was make it easier for him to build his legacy in an already weak era

total BS

[joey2aces]

the question is fine in fantasyland but in theory it falls apart. Simply because you cannot give Tiger extra time without injuries or in a different era and keep everything else the same, period. You can't give Tiger's injuries back and not Duval's. You can't put Tiger in a different era and not Jack. You can't give Tiger new equipment and not everyone else. So, in short, Tiger was great and it couldn't have come at a better time for the sport. Now we have the likes of everyone we see today because of Tiger, which is cool.

 

If you cannot grasp what I am saying then go rent and watch "Sliding Doors".

 

For all we know, if Tiger comes out just 5-6 years later maybe we don't have Rory or Jordan or DJ etc.

 

Again, a 'fun' topic to be discussed in fantasy but everyone's opinion of what would happen is moot. Like mine, if Tiger was in the era of today he doesn't eclipse 10 majors or even 40-50 wins. If Tiger stays healthy he'd still be short of Jack...even if he stayed with Butch.

 

Also, if I kept my position in Netflix and not sell at $120, I would be much happier too.

[Shilgy]

If Phil wins three of his 6 runners up US Open finishes (maybe even two of them) I believe Tiger's credibility goes up.

 

 

Jack said he believes that while the fields were deeper in Tiger's era, there were less legends/major championship caliber players/winners.

 

 

 

Most Tiger fanboys will come on here and throw a temper tantrum over old bitter Jackie saying that, but there is some truth to it.

 

 

Jim Furyk only won one major.

David Duval only won one major.

Luke Donald (another former world number 1) never won one

Westwood

Monty

 

 

You could go on and on with these elite golfers of Tiger's era who did little to nothing in majors.

Don't the two go hand in hand? If the field is deeper there will be more one time major winners and fewer multiple winners aka legends? How does Phil winning more majors raise Tigers credibility? Did you know that there are just as many of Tigers competitors on the top 15 all time tour winners list as there are Jack's? Jack/Arnie/Capser and Tiger/Phil VJ. That is considering Watson to be the generation between Jack and Tiger.

Yes, that means 9 of the top 15 winners played over 70 or so years ago. Seems odd. I guess they had it toughest of all?

[tbowles411]

the question is fine in fantasyland but in theory it falls apart. Simply because you cannot give Tiger extra time without injuries or in a different era and keep everything else the same, period. You can't give Tiger's injuries back and not Duval's. You can't put Tiger in a different era and not Jack. You can't give Tiger new equipment and not everyone else. So, in short, Tiger was great and it couldn't have come at a better time for the sport. Now we have the likes of everyone we see today because of Tiger, which is cool.

 

If you cannot grasp what I am saying then go rent and watch "Sliding Doors".

 

For all we know, if Tiger comes out just 5-6 years later maybe we don't have Rory or Jordan or DJ etc.

 

Again, a 'fun' topic to be discussed in fantasy but everyone's opinion of what would happen is moot. Like mine, if Tiger was in the era of today he doesn't eclipse 10 majors or even 40-50 wins. If Tiger stays healthy he'd still be short of Jack...even if he stayed with Butch.

 

Also, if I kept my position in Netflix and not sell at $120, I would be much happier too.

This part makes me hurt for you! :(

 

That being said, you're right. Different eras, different equipment, different people, however the same mindset and formula made Jack and Tiger better than the rest. They were totally another level of player.

[powerpushfade]

He has 14, period. Part of being a great athlete is managing your body and your life. There are thousands of people who potentially threw away a potentially great career.

[AaronSmart]

He has 14, period. Part of being a great athlete is managing your body and your life. There are thousands of people who potentially threw away a potentially great career.

 

Fully agree.

 

Even if his same exact career played out and started in 2009 or 2019, he still wins in a similar fashion. The competition adjusted to Tiger 5-10 years AFTER he started to light it up on tour. If there was no Tiger, there would be no competition (or lack there of) of today.

 

If the next GOAT is a completely different style of player then what is on tour today and wins 4 majors in one season, then the tour players will adjust his skills accordingly.

 

 

Just like in the NFL where teams duplicate each other, or where the Golden State Warriors were making 500 three pointers a year, teams copied and adjusted. We know Cleveland lost in the finals, but they shot WAY more three pointers then they would of assumed they needed to do, compared to 3 or 4 years ago.

No Golden State Warriors in the NBA, might of given us another decade of teams with a Shaq as 90% of your offense.

Just like in the NFL where teams duplicate each other, or where the Golden State Warriors were making 500 three pointers a year, teams copied and adjusted.

[bscinstnct]

One

 

[Joe85]

If Phil wins three of his 6 runners up US Open finishes (maybe even two of them) I believe Tiger's credibility goes up.

 

 

Jack said he believes that while the fields were deeper in Tiger's era, there were less legends/major championship caliber players/winners.

 

 

 

Most Tiger fanboys will come on here and throw a temper tantrum over old bitter Jackie saying that, but there is some truth to it.

 

 

Jim Furyk only won one major.

David Duval only won one major.

Luke Donald (another former world number 1) never won one

Westwood

Monty

 

 

You could go on and on with these elite golfers of Tiger's era who did little to nothing in majors.

Don't the two go hand in hand? If the field is deeper there will be more one time major winners and fewer multiple winners aka legends? How does Phil winning more majors raise Tigers credibility? Did you know that there are just as many of Tigers competitors on the top 15 all time tour winners list as there are Jack's? Jack/Arnie/Capser and Tiger/Phil VJ. That is considering Watson to be the generation between Jack and Tiger.

Yes, that means 9 of the top 15 winners played over 70 or so years ago. Seems odd. I guess they had it toughest of all?

For example...

 

Tiger won three (at least) against guys that were essentially no namers.

 

Mediate, Dimarco and Bob May....

[cdnglf]

If Phil wins three of his 6 runners up US Open finishes (maybe even two of them) I believe Tiger's credibility goes up.

 

 

Jack said he believes that while the fields were deeper in Tiger's era, there were less legends/major championship caliber players/winners.

 

 

 

Most Tiger fanboys will come on here and throw a temper tantrum over old bitter Jackie saying that, but there is some truth to it.

 

 

Jim Furyk only won one major.

David Duval only won one major.

Luke Donald (another former world number 1) never won one

Westwood

Monty

 

 

You could go on and on with these elite golfers of Tiger's era who did little to nothing in majors.

Don't the two go hand in hand? If the field is deeper there will be more one time major winners and fewer multiple winners aka legends? How does Phil winning more majors raise Tigers credibility? Did you know that there are just as many of Tigers competitors on the top 15 all time tour winners list as there are Jack's? Jack/Arnie/Capser and Tiger/Phil VJ. That is considering Watson to be the generation between Jack and Tiger.

Yes, that means 9 of the top 15 winners played over 70 or so years ago. Seems odd. I guess they had it toughest of all?

For example...

 

Tiger won three (at least) against guys that were essentially no namers.

 

Mediate, Dimarco and Bob May....

 

Pretty sure he won those three and all the rest against the entire field.

[3jacker]

I think he won just as many as he would have otherwise, and no more/less.

 

He, like so many golfers of lesser ability, got caught up in playing golf-swing, swinging left, et cetera, etc.

Shoulda stuck to playing golf and sticking with what brung him.

[Shilgy]

If Phil wins three of his 6 runners up US Open finishes (maybe even two of them) I believe Tiger's credibility goes up.

 

 

Jack said he believes that while the fields were deeper in Tiger's era, there were less legends/major championship caliber players/winners.

 

 

 

Most Tiger fanboys will come on here and throw a temper tantrum over old bitter Jackie saying that, but there is some truth to it.

 

 

Jim Furyk only won one major.

David Duval only won one major.

Luke Donald (another former world number 1) never won one

Westwood

Monty

 

 

You could go on and on with these elite golfers of Tiger's era who did little to nothing in majors.

Don't the two go hand in hand? If the field is deeper there will be more one time major winners and fewer multiple winners aka legends? How does Phil winning more majors raise Tigers credibility? Did you know that there are just as many of Tigers competitors on the top 15 all time tour winners list as there are Jack's? Jack/Arnie/Capser and Tiger/Phil VJ. That is considering Watson to be the generation between Jack and Tiger.

Yes, that means 9 of the top 15 winners played over 70 or so years ago. Seems odd. I guess they had it toughest of all?

For example...

 

Tiger won three (at least) against guys that were essentially no namers.

 

Mediate, Dimarco and Bob May....

And Jack had his against Dave Ragan, Dave Thomas and Bobby Mitchell and Simon Owen and Tommy Jacobs. It would seem likely that Jack would have more "names" at the top. Even Jack himself has said that he only had 10-20 guys to beat rather than 50-100. Or don't you believe him now?

 

PS Mediate had 6 wins on tour-Dimarco 3.