Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BPC
Tiger Woods has no peers, not in the sense that Nicklaus did.
You can make the case the fields are deeper, more players today are capable of winning tournaments and capturing a major. It's a world game now, tours run everywhere on the globe. All true enough, but how come none of the other players compare favorably to past greats?
Why is it that the best "duels" with Tiger have come from a 19 y.o. Sergio Garcia, and nobodies like Bob May or Rich Beem? (Interestingly, all in the PGA - maybe there is hope for next month.)
Dimarco has hung tough twice but couldn't close the deal. No one else has ever been able to go toe to toe with Tiger on a weekend in a major. Why can't ONE top ranked player hang with Woods just ONCE when he is leading?
I think part of it is the money.
Back in Jack's time you had to win to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle. Only the top 60 were exempt (instead of 125), and the money wasn't great outside the top 5 players. The Golden Bear seriously contemplated being a lifetime amateur. For the honor, to be like Bobby Jones? No, he got married after his junior year, and was making decent coin selling life insurance. That should tell you what the money was like back then.
Today you can make a boatload of cash with a couple top tens and making over half the cuts. Have you been taking Tom Pernice, Jr. in your fantasy league? I didn't think so, he hasn't won in five years. Missed 9 out of 23 cuts last year, but somehow cleared $1.5MM with TWO Top Tens.
The easy life is one thing, but the other thing is Wood's that much better, that much tougher mentally, and that much more focused on leaving his indeliable mark on history.
Comparing Woods with anyone else playing the PGA Tour is laughable. It is not even close.
|
Interesting points there, but a couple of things to point out about it.
1. Fields are significantly deeper than they were when Nicklaus was playing. The fact that all those around Woods have fewer victories is more to do with it being harder to win things now than it was 35 years ago.
2. The comparison isn't entirely fair because in the Nicklaus one, you have end of career figures, while in the Woods one, you have mid career figures.
Ten years ago, noone thought that anyone would ever get a sniff of Nicklaus's 18 majors. The game had changed and it wasn't possible to dominate the game like that any more. Simple reason being that there was so much strength in depth, so many more people playing the game. Now that Tiger is on target to do it, the pundits are talking about how much weaker the competition is now than when Jack played and how much easier it is for Tiger.
As to the original question, in 2001, Tiger had Duval and Mickelson breathing down his neck and I think they were world numbers 2 and 3 at the time. In 2002, Retief Goosen who was reigning US Open champion was right on his tail. Ernie Els finished 2nd twice in Tiger's 3 majors in 2000 (albeit some way back). He's rarely gone toe to toe with them I think because he doesn't let them get that close - certainly when he's playing well.