Tiger's Press Conference....

[MtlJeff]

[quote name='Pepperturbo' timestamp='1341341959' post='5211630']
Tigers demeanor and facial expressions appeared different from the past; almost reflecting what's really there... especially his last comment. Even though he might win more tournaments, and will have moments of golf brilliance, he's not worth knowing or having in my ideal four some.
[/quote]

in a nutshell that's a great post. I've always felt that way about Tiger. I gotta admit i missed watching him play during the dark years after thansgiving gate. It was almost refreshing to see him hit that great flop shot a few weeks back and win the tournament. You just don't see golf like that every day...

but yeah, i've never really felt like rooting for him. I've never really felt like i'd want to hang out with him. He just looks miserable all the time. Like every part of his job gives him total contempt. I know the media can beat you down, but Jordan never let it show that much. Even Mickelson could've sunk into a Sergio like depression but always put on the smile for the camera.

Tiger is just a robot, a fantastic golfing robot.

[PGArox]

Gee, when they say Tiger moves the needle, they aren't joking.

[spitfisher]

[quote name='rustyputterguy' timestamp='1341419938' post='5216238']
[quote name='spitfisher' timestamp='1341411628' post='5215696']
So when will the topic of the true number of wins that Sam Snead has come up, in regard to the record?

What?

Because of poor record keeping and no true archive of press and results, there is a strong indication that sam has well over 100 wins, some say over 110 back in the day. My guess this subject will be come more and more popular.

John Finestein, love him or hate him will likely dig and investigate a true number, tiger would likely prefer the 82 wins.
[/quote]
There's no doubt Snead was one of the greats, but I just have a hard time comparing Jack and Tiger's total number of wins to Sneads. The 40's and 50's had a handful of all time great golfers, but the competition just couldn't of been as deep as what Jack or Tiger have faced. There just weren't the number of touring pros as there are today.
[/quote]

There really weren't any touring pros to speak of, most were instructors or golf professionals from CC in the off season. But the fact remains it was the best against the available best, a win is a win. The brith of the usga, pga, Marc McCormicks IMG kind of changed everything.

[rustyputterguy]

[quote name='spitfisher' timestamp='1341425285' post='5216540']
There really weren't any touring pros to speak of, most were instructors or golf professionals from CC in the off season. But the fact remains it was the best against the available best, a win is a win. The brith of the usga, pga, Marc McCormicks IMG kind of changed everything.
[/quote]
That's where we disagree. A win isn't a win, not against that competition. It's comparing apples and oranges.

[f5joe]

[i]"Tiger is NOT the best player ever by his own admission. Tiger said that Jack Nicklaus is the best player ever because he (Jack), has won 18 majors. [b]Those are Tiger's own words[/b]. If you disagree, you'll have to take it up with Tiger."[/i]

Yes, heard it myself from TW.

[bscinstnct]

Article, on fox sports I think

Tiger was 5 when he first met and played a few holes with Sam Snead. And after that they had "countless" dinners and talks together.

Imagine Sam Snead looking at 5 year old Tiger, wonder if he though this kid would challenge his record.

Also, tiger comments on blowing the US Open. Said he was fractionally off and paid the price out off the rough. Says he wasn't far off.

"I did a lot of things right"

Say what you want, but we could all learn from Tigers attitude. Assess objectively but with a positive slant. Be proud of what you did right. Keep working.

As opposed to say, Sergio, for example...

[albatrosser]

funny, I can't think of one single time where Jack embarrassed himself playing the game, Tiger seems to do so regularly. Tiger will win plenty of more events but NEVER another major. every piece of his game appears to be back to where it was EXCEPT the putter. That will keep him from ever eclipsing Jack's record.

[spitfisher]

[quote name='rustyputterguy' timestamp='1341426483' post='5216596']
[quote name='spitfisher' timestamp='1341425285' post='5216540']
There really weren't any touring pros to speak of, most were instructors or golf professionals from CC in the off season. But the fact remains it was the best against the available best, a win is a win. The brith of the usga, pga, Marc McCormicks IMG kind of changed everything.
[/quote]
That's where we disagree. A win isn't a win, not against that competition. It's comparing apples and oranges.
[/quote]

So the world series played and won in 1918 does rate as the same win that it is today? A stanley cup win isn't rated as highly as a win today? I know its not golf, but back in sneads days he wn against the best competition the game had to offer here, traveling to europe was tougher back then, the game of golf was not as global as it is today. A win back then is a win, provide he wasn't playing against abunch of 4 graders. I am not sure what you basing your opinion on.

[rustyputterguy]

[quote name='spitfisher' timestamp='1341432552' post='5216956']
[quote name='rustyputterguy' timestamp='1341426483' post='5216596']
[quote name='spitfisher' timestamp='1341425285' post='5216540']
There really weren't any touring pros to speak of, most were instructors or golf professionals from CC in the off season. But the fact remains it was the best against the available best, a win is a win. The brith of the usga, pga, Marc McCormicks IMG kind of changed everything.
[/quote]
That's where we disagree. A win isn't a win, not against that competition. It's comparing apples and oranges.
[/quote]

So the world series played and won in 1918 does rate as the same win that it is today? A stanley cup win isn't rated as highly as a win today? I know its not golf, but back in sneads days he wn against the best competition the game had to offer here, traveling to europe was tougher back then, the game of golf was not as global as it is today. A win back then is a win, provide he wasn't playing against abunch of 4 graders. I am not sure what you basing your opinion on.
[/quote]
It's ok, I don't agree with what you're basing your opinion on either, though I do understand your point (other than comparing team sports with golf). But you kind of spelled out my point. You said at one point that Snead played against mostly instructors and club pro's and then said he played against the best competition the game had to offer at the time. If he was playing against people who ran clubs and gave lessons (I don't know that for a fact, but you mentioned it so I'll run with it), those pros couldn't spend the time honing their games like the touring pros of the day and modern day tour players. The fields and number of players with the potential to win each week was weaker, so personally I just don't value a high number of wins then as much as a high number of wins now.

I'm not taking anything from Snead, he beat who he played and is an all time great, I just don't think he played against the same quality competition as Jack or Tiger so it's difficult to compare any of them based on number of wins. Just my opinion. Its difficult to compare golfers of different eras. I don't think you can definitively prove who was better, just enjoy what each has brought to the game.

[blwallace5]

[quote name='albatrosser' timestamp='1341430041' post='5216782']
funny, I can't think of one single time where Jack embarrassed himself playing the game, Tiger seems to do so regularly. Tiger will win plenty of more events but NEVER another major. every piece of his game appears to be back to where it was EXCEPT the putter. That will keep him from ever eclipsing Jack's record.
[/quote]

That's a bold statement to make, and one I hope you are incorrect about...

[mptiesko10]

i could care less about Tiger's personnel life but I enjoy watching him play golf and the extraordinary shots he hits.

[turtleback]

[quote name='Wood511' timestamp='1341400128' post='5215218']
I'd like a normal answer. Think about what almost any other pro golfer would say...like Furyk or Phil.

How about... "While I recognize the importance of OWGR and certainly it would be great to be #1 in the world, I have a lot of commitments and obligations in my life right now. My kids, my game, my charities and many contracted appearances at various events keep me from playing as many venues as I would like. In order to be the best I can be, I have found that I need to maintain that balance in my life. I want to try and win every single event that I play and hopefully the rankings will take care of themselves."

It's only a burden because he makes it a burden.

Having a career like his should be a joyous, wonderful experience comparable to nothing in the world. Sadly, it appears as if he is not enjoying it at all.
[/quote]

It is a stupid questoin and yours is a stupid answer.

The real answer in his head is, "I had no trouble getting to #1 in the past, playing a limited schedule, and if I play well I will have no trouble getting bck to #1 playing a limited schedule."

The answer he has given literally hundreds of times before is "My goal is not getting the #1 ranking it is winning tournaments. If I do that rankings will take care of themselves.."

[turtleback]

[quote name='spitfisher' timestamp='1341411628' post='5215696']
So when will the topic of the true number of wins that Sam Snead has come up, in regard to the record?

What?

Because of poor record keeping and no true archive of press and results, there is a strong indication that sam has well over 100 wins, some say over 110 back in the day. My guess this subject will be come more and more popular.

John Finestein, love him or hate him will likely dig and investigate a true number, tiger would likely prefer the 82 wins.
[/quote]

Yes, but those were not PGA wins and that is what we are counting. If you want to count everything then Roberto Di Vicenzo is clearly #1 with over 200 wins.

But if we want to look at Snead's PGA wins, what is indisptable is that his 82 wins include 10 wins that would never count under today's rules. 5 were partnership events and 5 were events with fewer than 20 players.

4 Inverness Invitational Four Balls (twice with Jim Ferrier, once with Ralph Guldahl, once with Vic Ghezzi)
These also had less that 20 entrants. For 3 of them there were 8 2-man teams and in one there were 6 2-man teams

1 Miami Biltmore International Four Ball w. Ralph Guldahl 16 2-man teams

5 Goodall Palm Beach Robin Robin (15 entrants)

These are all counted in Snead's 82 wins. They add victories when they change the criteria - as in the change in lifetime totals for PGA wins when they decided to retroactively count the British Open. But they don't take away victories when they change the rules and those victories would no longer count. If they did Tiger would already be #1 in tour victories.

For the record, Nicklaus' 73 wins includes 2 team victories - the 1970 and 1971 National Team Championship with Arnold Palmer as his partner.

[Wood511]

[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1341452198' post='5218422']
[quote name='Wood511' timestamp='1341400128' post='5215218']
I'd like a normal answer. Think about what almost any other pro golfer would say...like Furyk or Phil.

How about... "While I recognize the importance of OWGR and certainly it would be great to be #1 in the world, I have a lot of commitments and obligations in my life right now. My kids, my game, my charities and many contracted appearances at various events keep me from playing as many venues as I would like. In order to be the best I can be, I have found that I need to maintain that balance in my life. I want to try and win every single event that I play and hopefully the rankings will take care of themselves."

It's only a burden because he makes it a burden.

Having a career like his should be a joyous, wonderful experience comparable to nothing in the world. Sadly, it appears as if he is not enjoying it at all.
[/quote]

It is a stupid questoin and yours is a stupid answer.

The real answer in his head is, "I had no trouble getting to #1 in the past, playing a limited schedule, and if I play well I will have no trouble getting bck to #1 playing a limited schedule."

The answer he has given literally hundreds of times before is "My goal is not getting the #1 ranking it is winning tournaments. If I do that rankings will take care of themselves.."
[/quote]

Why can't he say that instead of... "I can do math"?

[mwkbmw]

[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1341452838' post='5218450']
[quote name='spitfisher' timestamp='1341411628' post='5215696']
So when will the topic of the true number of wins that Sam Snead has come up, in regard to the record?

What?

Because of poor record keeping and no true archive of press and results, there is a strong indication that sam has well over 100 wins, some say over 110 back in the day. My guess this subject will be come more and more popular.

John Finestein, love him or hate him will likely dig and investigate a true number, tiger would likely prefer the 82 wins.
[/quote]

Yes, but those were not PGA wins and that is what we are counting. If you want to count everything then Roberto Di Vicenzo is clearly #1 with over 200 wins.

But if we want to look at Snead's PGA wins, what is indisptable is that his 82 wins include 10 wins that would never count under today's rules. 5 were partnership events and 5 were events with fewer than 20 players.

4 Inverness Invitational Four Balls (twice with Jim Ferrier, once with Ralph Guldahl, once with Vic Ghezzi)
These also had less that 20 entrants. For 3 of them there were 8 2-man teams and in one there were 6 2-man teams

1 Miami Biltmore International Four Ball w. Ralph Guldahl 16 2-man teams

5 Goodall Palm Beach Robin Robin (15 entrants)

These are all counted in Snead's 82 wins. They add victories when they change the criteria - as in the change in lifetime totals for PGA wins when they decided to retroactively count the British Open. But they don't take away victories when they change the rules and those victories would no longer count. If they did Tiger would already be #1 in tour victories.

For the record, Nicklaus' 73 wins includes 2 team victories - the 1970 and 1971 National Team Championship with Arnold Palmer as his partner.
[/quote]

Look. You guys are going to have to stay on topic. Well, at least on the second or third diversion from the original. Dang, what was the original topic?

[Pepperturbo]

[quote name='mptiesko10' timestamp='1341446383' post='5217932']
i could care less about Tiger's personnel life but I enjoy watching him play golf and the extraordinary shots he hits.
[/quote]

I agree. Tiger regularly goes for the heroic shot, while other players seldom trust they can pull them off. Yesterday watching Wimbledon Murray/Ferrer match, I said; neither player will stand up against Djokovic, as he regularly pulls off heroic shots, having a game that's beyond theirs. They might attempt them, but seldom pull them off.

Still - even though you and I don't care about his personal life, and enjoy watching him pull of the unusual, a large portion of youth pay very close attention to his every move, to the point of modeling him. Unfortunately, they don't understanding, just watching his shots, and ignore him as a whole. Sadly, they are impressionable, and want to be like him, or named thugs in basketball, baseball and football, among others.

[turtleback]

[quote name='Wood511' timestamp='1341496452' post='5220280']
[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1341452198' post='5218422']
[quote name='Wood511' timestamp='1341400128' post='5215218']
I'd like a normal answer. Think about what almost any other pro golfer would say...like Furyk or Phil.

How about... "While I recognize the importance of OWGR and certainly it would be great to be #1 in the world, I have a lot of commitments and obligations in my life right now. My kids, my game, my charities and many contracted appearances at various events keep me from playing as many venues as I would like. In order to be the best I can be, I have found that I need to maintain that balance in my life. I want to try and win every single event that I play and hopefully the rankings will take care of themselves."

It's only a burden because he makes it a burden.

Having a career like his should be a joyous, wonderful experience comparable to nothing in the world. Sadly, it appears as if he is not enjoying it at all.
[/quote]

It is a stupid questoin and yours is a stupid answer.

The real answer in his head is, "I had no trouble getting to #1 in the past, playing a limited schedule, and if I play well I will have no trouble getting bck to #1 playing a limited schedule."

The answer he has given literally hundreds of times before is "My goal is not getting the #1 ranking it is winning tournaments. If I do that rankings will take care of themselves.."
[/quote]

Why can't he say that instead of... "I can do math"?
[/quote]

Because they would jump up his butt even more if he did. And if he has given an answer literally a hundred times before why are they even asking the question?

[kellygreen]

[quote name='TheDarkOne' timestamp='1341329788' post='5210408']
[quote name='kellygreen' timestamp='1341329219' post='5210326']
But the fact of the matter, is that [b]anyone who looks at the two men's careers critically and objectively reaches that conclusion.[/b] Tiger has won more tournmanets, at a younger age, against deeper fields than has Jack. Jack tried to hold onto the notion that he had to contend with "better" (at winning majors) competitiors...but even he gave that up after playing for 2 days with Tiger (at the height of his powers) in the 2000 PGA Championship.
[/quote]

So by your statement above, anyone who thinks Jack is the best because he won more Majors is not being critical and isn't being object correct? I want to make sure I understand you 100% before I respond.
Also, is Sam Snead a better player than Jack? If no, why not?
[/quote]

1. Trying to compare athletes of different generations is an excersize that is about as pointless as debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You can make a case for ANY position you want.

2. The only meaningful comparison across the generational divide is to compare how thoroughly a player has dominated the compeitition that he faced....and what the quality of that competition was. By this yardstick, Tiger is the best player that the game of professional golf has seen. He has been the most dominant player, for the longest period of time, against the deepest fields. In an era where players who are essentially unranked..still have the ability to win the majors if they get hot the right week. Because the pool of talent is simply that deep.

3. Jack's record of 18 majors is a truly titanic record of LONGEVITY. You cannot compile a record of that stature without being a great player over a span of many DECADES. As a result it stands as one of the greatest accomplishments of sport. Imo, the only records that rival it are Dimagio's hitting-streak record, and Byron Nelson's consecutive win record.

4. As I mentioned in my previous post, Jack himself tried to hold onto the idea that he was a better player than Tiger was by arguing that he had to confront more players who were capable of winning majors than Tiger. However that line of self-defense on his part ended ABRUPTLY in 2000 when Jack was paired with Tiger for the first two days in his last appearence in the PGA Championship. It ended...and from that point forward Jack has been nothing but supportive of Tiger's chase after his record.

I suspect that it is because Jack is the man that he is...AND he got a up-close look at just how good Tiger was. Because every great player who has seen his game up close has walked away saying that Tiger can do things with a golf ball that no one else can.

[stiffdogg06]

Tiger might earn his first $100 Million dollars on tour this week.

[Ty_Webb]

[quote name='Wood511' timestamp='1341496452' post='5220280']
[quote name='turtleback' timestamp='1341452198' post='5218422']
[quote name='Wood511' timestamp='1341400128' post='5215218']
I'd like a normal answer. Think about what almost any other pro golfer would say...like Furyk or Phil.

How about... "While I recognize the importance of OWGR and certainly it would be great to be #1 in the world, I have a lot of commitments and obligations in my life right now. My kids, my game, my charities and many contracted appearances at various events keep me from playing as many venues as I would like. In order to be the best I can be, I have found that I need to maintain that balance in my life. I want to try and win every single event that I play and hopefully the rankings will take care of themselves."

It's only a burden because he makes it a burden.

Having a career like his should be a joyous, wonderful experience comparable to nothing in the world. Sadly, it appears as if he is not enjoying it at all.
[/quote]

It is a stupid questoin and yours is a stupid answer.

The real answer in his head is, "I had no trouble getting to #1 in the past, playing a limited schedule, and if I play well I will have no trouble getting bck to #1 playing a limited schedule."

The answer he has given literally hundreds of times before is "My goal is not getting the #1 ranking it is winning tournaments. If I do that rankings will take care of themselves.."
[/quote]

Why can't he say that instead of... "I can do math"?
[/quote]

I think what he meant by that is that he thinks he's the best in the world right now and that the rankings haven't quite caught up with him. If, however, he actually said that people would flip a lid over it, so he just says that. Those are my thoughts.

Incidentally, did you see the transcript of his interview yesterday? It was fairly repetitive because they kept asking him the same questions, but he was forthcoming about why he didn't score well. I think it's interesting to hear that sort of thing. What he thinks about the world rankings is something I can certainly live without knowing.

[Bob57]

I still think Tiger will break Sam Sneads total wins record a long time before he breaks Jack's majors record. He wants them tooo bad at this point. Occasionally plays very well at regular tournaments. But majors he always has a bad round or two.. Don't think he will ever get close to his own cuts made record ever again way to inconsistent..

Based on the way both were playing who would have guessed that Tiger is struggling to make the cut and Michelle Wie shoots lights out (for her) to be in second place in the woman's open..