So now Tiger has a "mental capacity and work ethic" that didn't exist in Jack's day. Granted, Tiger works hard at his game, but his "work ethic" isn't even tops amongst his contemporaries. VJ is generally regarded to be the hardest worker. I bow down to all of you who are able to judge these intangibles such as mental capacity, desire, heart, "fire in the belly", not only Tiger's but all of those past, present & future. "This will never happen, that will never happen", some of you guys need to get a grip. The only thing garaunteed in this life is that it will end some day. The same sort of claims were made of MJ and guess what...he hasn't been retired for 5 years and there is already a guy playing in Cleveland who is better than Michael was at the same age. Time will tell whether he'll match Jordan's career success.
The same sort of claims were made of MJ and guess what...he hasn't been retired for 5 years and there is already a guy playing in Cleveland who is better than Michael was at the same age. Time will tell whether he'll match Jordan's career success.
Firstly, I'd point out that basketball's a team sport, not an individual one - statistics alone don't say necessarily who's "better." Also, LeBron joined the NBA 2 years earlier than MJ, so when they same age, 21, MJ was a rookie, LeBron had 2 full seasons of NBA experience.
Firstly, I'd point out that basketball's a team sport, not an individual one - statistics alone don't say necessarily who's "better." Also, LeBron joined the NBA 2 years earlier than MJ, so when they same age, 21, MJ was a rookie, LeBron had 2 full seasons of NBA experience.
Well I don't know how else you'd compare basketball players. MJ's teams didn't win anything until he was surrounded by some decent players and I doubt that Lebron will either. 21 is 21 and at 21 Lebron had more ppg, rpg, apg, but fewer steals.
There is absolutely ZERO question that not only will Nicklaus's record be broken by Tiger, it will be shattered. Tiger has the mental capacity and a work-out ethic that doesn't compare to Nicklaus's day and age. Saying that Tiger won't reach 18 majors to tie Nicklaus is foolish. I wouldn't be surprised is he reaches 25. By the way, he knows this.
Also, Nicklaus' 20 seconds is remarkable. Golf is not tennis where there is 1 winner and 1 loser.
I agree completely. The only way Tiger doesn't break the records is if he is injured.
You're also right about Jack's 2nd place finishes. High finishes in golf are an extremely good indicator of someone's ability. Jack didn't lack anything at all the weeks he came in 2nd. The winner simply had one or two more good bounces than Jack did that week. The difference between 1st and 2nd in golf is typically extremely small in terms of score and/or performance.
I know I will upset some, but I think Tiger's feats are already beyond that of Jack's due to (my opinion) greater depth of talent in the field. Golf has groomed a lot of talent in the last 20 years, more so then was around in Jack's day. The Junior Golf ranks (in the 8-14 yr old age level) have developed such a talent pool to feed the college ranks that I don't believe even existed in Jack's day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davehowe
I agree completely. The only way Tiger doesn't break the records is if he is injured.
You're also right about Jack's 2nd place finishes. High finishes in golf are an extremely good indicator of someone's ability. Jack didn't lack anything at all the weeks he came in 2nd. The winner simply had one or two more good bounces than Jack did that week. The difference between 1st and 2nd in golf is typically extremely small in terms of score and/or performance.
Anyways Tiger will probably break Jack's record i just dont see it happening again.
Tiger has made the game so much more popular that he's actually making it more difficult for someone to do anything remotely close to what he's accomplishing now. So many more kids are getting into golf. The money is much better now and the interest so strong that the competition is going to be even greater in the future. Someone will need to be much better than Tiger is now to dominate down the road as Tiger is now. He's going to get something like 25 majors by the time he's done (unless he's injured), but it's hard to imagine anyone following behind him doing any better.
It's impossible to say "never." It will be difficult for anyone to surpass 18 majors with the depth of fields today. I think Tiger will probably get there and someone, some day will probably beat whatever record he sets. It's just the nature of these things.
Leaguegolf, I think you missed my point, which was....there's soo many more players being groomed early now, compared to Jack's day (I didn't say there were none back then, but comparably....) that the depth of talent on the tour I feel is much stronger for someone to emerge as a winner today (than back then)....and the fact that Tiger has done it so consistently against what I feel is a stronger field, I feel he is better than Jack was in his day.
I know, there were the big names from Jack's day.....it's like becoming the 'star' runningback in a high school in a town of 20,000 people versus one in a town of 500,000 people.....the talent pool is much deeper and to emerge, you have overcome greater odds. I think you have to agree that the number of players being groomed in golf now must exceed that in Jack's day by 3-5x, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by leaguegolf
Your entitled to your opinion about Tiger but may I suggest you do some research on the college golf teams of the 50's. 60's, and 70's. You'll be surprised and the great names you'll find there.
League, I think part of the problem to simply go by "tour wins", or majors, in comparing today's players to yesterday's is that if my premiss is correct, that there is stiffer competition and higher overall caliber of players (or depth of field), then it makes it harder to win today then yesteryear. And the fact that Tiger does it so consistently, imo, places him in a special category (and I'm not a Tiger fan by any means, but I have to give credit to where it's due).
And today we not only have college teams, but lower tier college teams, Nationwide tour....and to develop all this talent we have AJGA tour and all the other junior tours....funneling how many talented kids towards college/pro ranks? Think about it....if you have unequal skill among 10 vs the remaining 90 players, the 10 will likely dominate most of the tournies?.....if there is a stronger skill set in the remaining 90, willl the top 10 be able to win as much/often?
Quote:
Originally Posted by leaguegolf
You'll get no argument from me that golf is more popular with young athletes today than back in Jack's day and therefore there are many more great young players. I'm not sure where all those great young American players are these days though and if you count the number of tour career tour wins by American players under the age of 30 you'll wonder too.
My point was that there was no Nationwide Tour in the 50's, 60's and 70's and most of the famous names in American golf played on some great college golf teams before making it on the PGA Tour.
There are lots of great young golfers under the age of 30. Where are all the winners? Are you saying that stronger fields prevent all but the top 10 from winning?
The fact that there are more good golfers now and the fields are deeper is completely irrelevant when in comes to winning tournaments if none of the young bloods are winning tournaments.... which they aren't. The Tiger factor can't even be used as an excuse. As superlative as he is, he still doesn't win 75% of the tournaments that he enters and only plays in about half the events available to him. That leaves a lot of opportunities for all of the allegedly great young talents to step up. The question is why haven't they ? This probably deserves its own thread. Unless some of these young guys step it up it's going to be even easier for Tiger to win in a few years as his main competition ages.
Last edited by wazmankg : August 7th, 2006 at 03:12 PM.
Leaguegolf, no not saying that. What I'm saying is that stronger fields are more likely to prevent repetitive wins by even very good golfers. The fact that many are competitive is why we see people breaking through making their 1st PGA win. Few are making multiple/repetitive wins demonstrating their high caliber and talent. The fact that Tiger can win repetively, and more often than most, is a testament to his abilities.
How about this....if you took away the guys with PGA rankings of 11 thru 50 and replaced them with whats on the nationwide tour, do you think the top 10will have more, or less, wins among than than with the current #11-50 ranked players? I think in Jack's day, that what the depth of field was probably like, or even worse....indeed, they were good/great players, but beyond the top 15-20, the caliber falls off more sharply than our current crop of players, imo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leaguegolf
There are lots of great young golfers under the age of 30. Where are all the winners? Are you saying that stronger fields prevent all but the top 10 from winning?
August 5th, 2006, 03:03 PM
Are you saying that stronger fields prevent all but the top 10 from winning? 
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
