golfrewind.com

Who is your fav player of all time from any generation. I am going to be plain and say Tiger Woods is mine. My reasons. The best player for his age. Still has a long way to go even though he is in a rut. (What is up with missing the cut at the Byron Nelson?) And also. Many people say I look like Tiger Woods. Lol. So I am inpartcial to that. What are your reasons for your pick?

Hogan. The wee ice mon was so far ahead of his time. If he was playing (in his prime) today, he would be (metaphorically) killing the rest of the field.

Byron Nelson would be a close second. There's a reason they called him "lord" Byron. Anyone who can win 11 consecutive events and 18 events in one year must've been doing something right. No one is even going to come close to touching these records in my lifetime.

I choose TIger because he smashed all the major championship winning margins at:

Masters
US Open
British

and set the PGA Championship scoring record for 72 holes

I think the word "smashed" is a bit out of line.

Masters - one stroke better

Low 72 Holes
270 (70-66-65-69), Tiger Woods, 1997
271, Jack Nicklaus, 1965
271, Raymond Floyd, 1976

US OPEN
Lowest Score, 72 Holes
272 ? -Jack Nicklaus (63-71-70-68), Baltusrol G.C. (Lower Course), Springfield, N.J., 1980
272 ? -Lee Janzen (67-67-69-69), Baltusrol G.C. (Lower Course), Springfield, N.J., 1993
272 ? -Tiger Woods (12 under par) (65-69-71-67), Pebble Beach G.L., Pebble Beach, Calif., 2000

British
lowest winning aggregates
267 (66, 68, 69, 64) Greg Norman, Royal St George’s, 1993

268 (68,70, 65, 65) Tom Watson, Turnberry, 1977; (69, 66, 67, 66) Nick Price, Turnberry, 1994

269 (67,66,67,69) Tiger Woods, St Andrews, 2000

PGA Championship

Lowest Under Par 72 Holes

18, under, Tiger Woods and Bob May, 2000

Of course there are lots of factors to consider when judging the various records and final scores. Except for the Masters, the other tournaments are played on rotating courses with varing conditions and varing par levels. Sorry, but I don't feel like doing that much research on the talent levels (top whatevers), weather conditions, etc. for all the tournaments to factor in that sort of stuff.

ummm, Tiger did smash the wnning margin at the US Open, he won by 15 shots, I bet the next best is 7.

Impressive as the margin of victory was.....history only counts how many. Not "by how much."

except if Tiger finishes with 18 majors, you have to say it's superior to Jack because he was more dominant in them.

That's a laugh! Get to 18.....then talk to me.

It's one thing to have a hero, and quite another to have no knowledge of golf history whatsoever. That's like saying Barry Bonds should have the home run record (when and if he ever ties Hammerin' Hank" at 755) simply because he may have hit his home runs further.

No one (except you apparently) cares about anything but the total. Ask your hero if he would feel "superior" to Jack if he ever ties his record. My money says he'll set you straight. :nodsmiley

It doesn't matter if Tiger doesn't "feel superior" if he finishes at 18 majors. Objective historians will examine the records and notice that aside from # majors won, Tiger holds every record that indicates dominance, like winning %, money/event, consecutive cuts, winning margins in majors, the Tiger Slam etc...

First off, throw the money out the window. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I'm guessing the $600,000 Billy Mayfair won today by FINISHING SECOND in an "everyday" tour stop is alot more than anyone even through the 70's and 80's WON for winning a major.

The consecutive cuts I'll give you, and no one is arguing Tiger's place among the all-time greats (at least so far), but the crowning him the greatest ever, when other golfers in other generations did some darn amazing things on the golf course is what gets to me. I find it interesting that once your argument about smashing major scoring records was debunked (and how!), you've fallen to the winning margin argument. And when other golfers have won the actual GRAND SLAM, I won't even comment on placing emphasis on the media-created "Tiger Slam".

it's not media created that Tiger won 4 majors in a row, never done before. Also winning margin is important in measuring dominance. It makes all the difference between making par in a playoff to win vs winning the US Open by 15 shots.

The money/event should be redefined as money/event adjusted for inflation in US currency and purse size. So I think it should be more like %/total purse which is an objective stat. I think Tiger is already #1 all time in that. The only area that Jack is still surpassing Tiger is a greater rate of top 3s in majors.

You woefully lack historical golf knowledge. First and foremost, money has absolutely nothing to do with dominating anything golf related. "Objective Historians" Now there's a group you have no chance of ever becoming a member of!

I looked in every "Record Book" I have and I can't seem to find a Dominance Section in any of them. Your Tiger scrapbook may be the only place to find such a thing.

are you telling me the record books don't contain largest margin of victory in each major? I bet they do.

I still don't buy the money argument. As much as inflation has nothing to do with it, it has nothing to do with it. As far as % of the total purse, you would need definitive proof that every tournament on tour gives the exact same percentage breakdown from first place to last place.

And while the media doesn't make the putts, or hit tee shots two fairways over for Tiger, they certainly have done their part to speed up the building of his legend, including getting people like yourself to believe he could walk on water, drop, and not have to take a penalty.

even they nay-sayers such as yourself admit that Tiger is at least 3rd greatest all time, so what else must he do to be #1 to you?