golfrewind.com

I believe his presence and his status make people fold a bit. Heck i fold when i tee it up in the city tourney. Id fold shaking hands with Tiger or eating dinner with him. Even though these guys are trained and play in front of people his aura does have a huge affect. Thats what i mean.

You're also not a pro with hundreds of hours to hone your game and build confidence in it...and you probably don't have the capability of shooting 65 or lower at any point in that city tournament. Tiger himself causes no one to fold...however, when he makes runs at the beginning of the tournaments, the other guys feel a bit more urgency than they might when other players make a run. As such, a 2 shot cushion can turn to 4 or 5 easily for him because players might get overaggressive trying to make up shots.

Reminds me of the famous J.C. Snead quote.

"When you play Jack you know he is going to beat you. Jack knows he is going to beat you, and Jack knows that you know that Jack is going to beat you"


brianf

Nope i cannot shoot 65 your right. But ill stand firmly behind my point that his aura and presence causes some to fold. Theres tournament golf and thens theres Tiger golf. Its a different world and Riley proved that yet again when he played with Woods. The guy was nervous and i bet at times scared. It happens to more guys than you think when paired with Tiger. Glover folded at the Buick you could tell. So his presence means a ton.

Jack used to have the same effect on all but a few guys. You may not be old enough to remember some of the quotes... JC Snead - "Jack knew he was going to beat you. You knew he was going to beat you and he knew that you knew he was going to beat you." Bobby Jones on Jack - "He plays a game with which I'm not familiar"... etc. My contention is that there were more guys who didn't shrivel up at the prospect back then than there are now. Riley ??? Glover ??? Donald ??? ... please

It's apples and oranges...both were great players, but interesting that those who have never seen past greats (including myself) play in their prime make such a strong arguement for Tiger...I believe he will get the records, but who can say...best of an era is still just that...

Personlly All this Tiger-Jack whos best stuff is apples and oranges.Each is the best of their times(with Tiger still at his prime).Records will fall for every era.I liked Arnie and saw Jack take over,down the road someone will replace Tiger.It will be exciting to see someone in the future try to beat Tigers records and it most likely will be done.

There's absolutely no doubt Tiger is the greatest of his era.
Jack Nicklaus was the greatest of his era.

The modern PGA pro in the top 50 has such an easy life and is wealthy beyond his wildest dreams - where's the incentive?

30 years ago there were a lot of guys who were hungry to win and who, dare I say it, had guts. I think it had a lot to do with who their Dads were - most had lived through the depression and WW2 and Korea and came from much more difficult circumstances. They impressed the importance of never giving up on their kids.

With the exception of Tiger whose Dad trained him like a soldier and made him as mentally tough as he is, which other modern hero really had it tough? I'm not suggesting that there aren't any guys out there from disadvantaged backgrounds but most seem to have had a fair start. Many with great talent (Daly is a prime example) got too much too soon and just wasted their gifts - that didn't happen in Palmer, Player, Trevino's day.

When the records are finally written Tiger will go down as the best - maybe he'll even get 7 British Opens to pass Harry Vardon's record of 6.

I had this discussion on another board a little while ago and someone was saying that the very top was stronger in Jack's day than it is now. I don't believe this to be the case. The thing that is not fair is that everyone is comparing Jack's rivals at the end of their careers with Tiger's in the middle of theirs. Here are my facts to back this up:

Nicklaus won 17 of his majors and was I think widely regarded as competitive from 1962 to 1980. Taking this period, we have the following players and major wins (numbers in brackets are total majors in career where that's different):

Nicklaus 17 (18)
Palmer 3 (7)
Player 7 (9)
Boros 2
Charles 1
Venturi 1
Lema 1
Nichols 1
Thompson 1 (5)
Marr 1
Casper 2 (3)
Geiberger 1
Brewer 1
Di Vicenzo 1
January 1
Goalby 1
Trevino 5 (6)
Archer 1
Moody 1
Jacklin 2
Floyd 2 (4)
Stockton 2

Up to here are players who won majors while Jack was Tiger's age or younger. Although keep in mind that at this stage Trevino had won 1 and Player had won 5. Thereafter we have:

Coody 1
Aaron 1
Miller 2
Weiskopf 1
Irwin 2 (3)
Lou Graham 1
Watson 4 (8)
Pate 1
Green 1 (2)
North 1 (2)
Mahaffey 1
Zoeller 1 (2)
Seve 2 (5)
David Graham 1 (2)

So, during Nicklaus's competitive playing career up to the age of 30, only Gary Player won more than 3 majors. Only Palmer won 3 and only Jacklin, Casper and Boros won 2. Everyone else won one each by the time that Nicklaus was Tiger's current age. Compare that with Vijay and Phil who have won 3 and Retief, Ernie and O'Meara who have won 2 in Tiger's major winning career. Doesn't strike me as particularly different from the figures from Nicklaus's peers.

Fair enough, some of those players went on to win quite a few more, but the thing is that the players around now aren't finished yet. Mickelson might yet win six or seven. Els could win some more. A player like Geoff Ogilvy could turn out to be quite something. Plus, there's a good chance that someone will turn up and win five or six in the next ten years who haven't won anything yet.

It is also something to bear in mind that as fields are stronger now than they were then (I think most would agree with this) it should be harder now to win majors than it was 30-40 years ago.

For reference, everyone else who has won a major since 1997 has won one. They are:

Leonard
Love
Janzen (out of 2)
Stewart (out of 3)
Lawrie
Olazabal (out of 2)
Duval
Toms
Beem
Weir
Furyk
Curtis
Micheel
Hamilton
Campbell
Ogilvy

I tend to agree with a lot of the argument that Tiger plays in an era of soft players. The money they make (due quite a bit to him, at least according to Mickelson and pretty much every guy that's been asked about it) just gives them no incentive to truly fight like they NEED to win.

That being said, Jack himself is on the other side of this. Whereas in the past he has said similar things to what many of us think about how he had to deal with more great, tough players, he said Sunday that Tiger is just "that good."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14443720/

jack the man until tiger gets to 18 then it will be the other way around, tiger is at this time the sole peron in the #2 spot, but give it time what made jack is that he did it for so long its not a sprint its a marathon.