Why do so many people feel the need to compare this season for Vijay to Tiger? I think most will agree that Tiger's 2000 season is better than Vijay's 2004 season. Tiger's run was amazing. Vijay's current run is great, too. It's one of the best runs in recent memory so I'll give him the credit he deserves. When Tiger made his run in 2000, I did the same.
That's a good way to put it. I think it's more important to compare Vijay's 2004 with other seasons by 41 year old players of the past. It might be top 5 all time in that category.
Vijay has 9 wins this season. Only 6 golfers in history have ever accomplished that feat, Tiger Woods included. I believe he and Tiger are the only two "modern" golfers to have done it. Neither Jack nor Arnie, and I'm not trying to take anything away from those two greats, ever did this. One question I am interested in hearing from the rest of you is if you think Vijay will make the career Grand Slam. He has the Masters and PGA. He needs the U.S. and British Opens.
Doesn't matter except that as i have said before, vijay is out there week in and week out, tiger may have a lower stroke avg, but in how many events vs. vijays how many?
They will continue to tout Vijay's accomplishments because tiger continually doesn't enter tournaments. now if tiger had played the same number as vijay, and had a stoke lower ang then it would be something. But as we all know tiger will never play in more than he wants to play in......thats what happens when you have the sponsership money he has, he does not have to play to make a living.
Any of them could retire now. I'm not sure I see your point...
Tiger's stroke average holds up, I think. After all, just because you play in certain events doesn't mean you guarantee a low stroke average for the week, especially when you play in the tougher events (like majors) a higher % of the time (as Tiger does).
One of the all-time greats? Uh, nah. If he can do this for another five years, sure.
I did say arguably.
But Vijay's record speaks for itself. This will be Vijay's seventh consecutive season finishing in the top five on the PGA TOUR's money list. Once you get past Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, Tom Watson and Tiger Woods, you'd be hard-pressed to find another guy who has done that. Especially in the modern age, which I think started in 1960.
Furthermore, Vijay now has 24 career PGA TOUR victories; and he seems a lock for, at least, 30...a number accomplished by only 16 men.
And, lastly, only the most legendary of champions have ever posted more wins, in a single season, than Vijay's nine, this year.
But Vijay's record speaks for itself. This will be Vijay's seventh consecutive season finishing in the top five on the PGA TOUR's money list. Once you get past Arnold Palmer, Jack Nicklaus, Tom Watson and Tiger Woods, you'd be hard-pressed to find another guy who has done that. Especially in the modern age, which I think started in 1960.
Furthermore, Vijay now has 24 career PGA TOUR victories; and he seems a lock for, at least, 30...a number accomplished by only 16 men.
And, lastly, only the most legendary of champions have ever posted more wins, in a single season, than Vijay's nine, this year.
Nick Price, Greg Norman, Tom Lehman... the list is really a lot larger than you might think. They may not have had seven years in a row, but they've been up there that long or longer. I think Mark O'Meara, Tom Kite, etc. are way up there too. Solid players, sure, but "one of the all time greats?" My list of all-time greats is limited to about ten, and there's no room for Vijay Singh in that group yet.
And Vijay's 24 wins is 16 shy of Tiger, who is 13 years younger. Plus, he may not be a lock for 30. When he gets there, we'll talk.
a couple things to think about. In 2000 tigers stroke average was that low while playing in that few tournaments. Why do I say that few? All the majors are geared towards being the most difficult tournaments, therefore producing high scores. With less tournaments the majors weigh more towards stroke average. But then again he did shoot a combined total of 53 under par.
Also, 17 of 20 tournaments in the top 10 and the other three were 11th, 18, and 23. Tiger plays in few tournaments but also plays mostly tougher courses.
a couple things to think about. In 2000 tigers stroke average was that low while playing in that few tournaments. Why do I say that few? All the majors are geared towards being the most difficult tournaments, therefore producing high scores. With less tournaments the majors weigh more towards stroke average. But then again he did shoot a combined total of 53 under par.
Also, 17 of 20 tournaments in the top 10 and the other three were 11th, 18, and 23. Tiger plays in few tournaments but also plays mostly tougher courses.
well, you could make the point that Vijay just loves golf more and needs to play in more tournaments, so you shouldn't hold it against him. But then Vijay has to perform, meaning his top 10 % should be better then 17/28 which it is now. Even in 2004, Tiger has a better top 10%. Of course, Vijay has a better top 3 % this year.
October 31st, 2004, 10:19 PM
Linear Mode
Similar Threads
