golfrewind.com

At the end of 1970 (Nicklaus turned 30 in January 1970), here is how Nicklaus' top seven rivals stood as far as major victories:

Player - 4
Watson - 0
Palmer - 7
Trevino - 1
Floyd - 1
Casper - 3
Miller - 0

Total = 16
When you add Nicklaus' 8 majors at that time, that is 24

Tiger's top seven rivals to this point have 14, plus his 11 = 25

I think it's unfair for people to say that Tiger does not have great players to compete with. Maybe back in 1970, people suggested that Player, Trevino, Casper, etc were underachievers, but I doubt it. Watson was not even on the scene, and Miller came along, competed with Jack for a brief period, and faded.

We are going to see several more rivals for Tiger. It may be Sergio, Adam Scott, or some teenager we have yet to see. But for people to bash Tiger's current rivals is unfair, IMO.

Tiger is a phenom...that was evident when he was on TV @ 2YO....he's #1 because of a God-given talent,that was refined by a loving,yet pushing father. I admire Tiger for all he's done for the game. I also know that right around the corner, there's another Tiger...or 2..or more. kids' are being developed earlier..being pushed harder than when I was a lad. That goes for all sports,too. I believe $$ is the factor,I really do. too many young 'uns out there with a dream, and parents who'll push as hard as Earl did...there's always $$ available for the kids' if it's "important" enough... ya'll KNOW thats' true. I admire Tiger for showing the human side @ the BO...much needed in sports today.....as for Phil..I hear that he's an arrogant person off camera..I don't know this for a fact, as I've never met the man...BUT, if there's even a smidgeon of truth to it, then the collapse @ the open was needed. a good, world-veiwed humbling goes a long way to adjust an attitude,I'd think.....

The 3 commonalities I see between Jack and Tiger are these:

1)Superior length off the tee compared to most

2)Superior mental toughness(desire to win)

3)Will the ball in the hole when putting.

I really don't see all 3 of these attributes among the players today, but did see it in a few of the players in Jack's time, although they were not as constant as Jack, thus all of the major wins.

Gary Player had all these but #1 and still won many majors. He was very,very tough.

Tom Watson had all of these except #3 but yet he was very,very tough.

Lee Trevino was great and added much to the game. A fabulous shotmaker, but he had to be. He learned to win making bets with no cash in his pocket, now that's pressure.

I can remember Tom Weiskopf coming in 2nd to Jack so many times, that it's amazing he remained as good as he was. Tom was a great pro but for some reason just couldn't beat Jack. In a way, Phil reminds me of Tom.

I would venture to say that if there is anyone who will challenge Tiger, it will be a non-american player, but he better hurry up or it's overwith, just like the British Open when Tiger made the eagle putt on #18 last Thursday to go from minus 3 to minus 5. After that putt, it was history, they just had to finish the tourney.

all imho, lol

I don't think anyone is trying to make the case that Jack was better at 30 than Tiger. The facts prove otherwise. But the speculation that Tiger is going to have all of this young competition... aaannny minute now is just that, idle speculation and wishful thinking, IMO, given the utter lack of consistent success of anyone younger than him or even within 5 years older than him. After 30 & even before Nicklaus had Floyd, Irwin, Weiskopf, Lee, Watson, Miller, even Seve and the continued excellence of Gary Player to deal with. I just don't see that kind of talent amongst the young guns today. Sergio & Scott can't putt... at least in the big ones. Time will tell ... but to say that it is defintely going to happen... well, lend me your crystal ball , I'd like to play a couple of numbers today.

Yep, besides the current "young guns" on Tour, a lot of people expect an entire generation inspired by Tiger to come up and beat him. I don't see it happening, for the simple fact that all the bomber kids I've played with at golf courses don't have the desire at all to hang with Tiger. Their talent is tremendous no doubt, but it just seems like they don't have the same desire as a Watson or Player back in Jack's time. Tiger is the only guy probably in the history of golf who has the same level of desire as Jack had, and in fact Jack said in an interview recently that his desire probably wasn't as strong as Tiger's is for the simple fact that Tiger's entire life persuit is breaking that record. El Tigre is determined to not just break it, but on this pace he probably wants to shatter it.

Tiger is the only player that I think has a chance to win at any given point in a tournament, justifiably so or not...I was looking for him to make the cut and turn it around on the weekend at the US Open...he's not my favorite, but far and away the best (sorry Fred Couples)...

Sometimes his dominance makes the other players who are great today look bad. Its more Tiger than it is them. How does one hold all 4 of the major records in relation to par when how many men have teed it up and how many majors have been played? Is this seriously possible for him to own all four? I mean 1 would be great but come on now all 4!!!!!!!!!!! Won 4 majors in a row? Most consecutive cuts ever by a pro player.(Maybe his best record)...I mean the guy is unreal and his dominance has lowered the view of some outstanding players. Not mine because i respect their games and just understand how incredibly unworldly Tiger has been in his career. He is the best ever and he is making a great cast of players today look somewhat normal and maybe not up to par with other generations. I say this is wrong and Tigers dominance is overshadowing their massive talents. HES THAT GOOD FOLKS!!!!!!!!!!!

There is no doubt that Tigers run in and around 2000 was the best stretch of golf by anyone in modern times. He is definitely the best at 30 of anyone ever, IMO. But, your opinion that that Tiger's top rivals are as good as Jack's were is not shared by most not named "tigeroverjack".

If Tiger set the record in relation to par at the PGA, you have a scoop!

FWIW - Jack Nicklaus did set or tie both 18 and 72 hole records in all 4 majors (some have since been surpassed).

Tiger does hold the record at the PGA. He set it in 2000 with Bob May, did he not?

IMO, Jack and Eldrick both are great players. As of now, I still consider Jack as the greatest golfer of all time because he has the records. However, as long as Tiger can keep his drives going and doesn't get hurt, it will be just matter of time before he surpasses Jacks records and when that happens, I'll be saying "Tiger is/was greatest golfer of all time".

Yup. -18 according to golfonline, but they only go back to 1958 for the PGA for some reason. Perhaps that's when the went to stroke play ?

Yeah, I think so Waz. Who knows what they shot when it was match play, but I'm sure there were times when guys got going and lit it up. Match play can really yield some low scores because if two guys are both playing well, they have to keep up with each other and then before ya know it they're both -5 or -6 (or better).

Yes, exactly... 1958 is when it went to stroke play. Good call, Waz, I had to look it up.

Well I stand corrected.

I recalled Elkington's Riviera total still being the record all these years later, but just to be sure, I double checked with the official site of the 2006 PGA. Their site lists the incorrect record!

http://www.pga.com/pgachampionship/2...y_records.html

You are of course correct, Bob May and Tiger Woods each shot 270, -18, at Vahalla back in 2000.

Oops, my bad guys.