Is Tiger REALLY 'the greatest player who has ever played the game'?

Once you got passed Trevino, Palmer, Watson, Player Kite, Couples, Seve, Faldo, Norman, Weiskopf, Millar, Floyd, it was easy :) Showing my age here lol
Click to expand...

Tiger only has Phil, Padraig, Vijay, Furyk, Goosen, Cabrera, Love, Ernie, etc etc etc.......all major winners + loads more quality in the fields top to bottom.

These arguments are great as there isn't, and never can be, a definitive answer, I read an interesting article about this very comparison where it fell in the favour of Jack.

The reason behind it was down to the losses!! Jack had 19 2nd places in a major as well as all his wins which is pretty damn impressive. Or from HNJ's perspective, Jack gave up on many more chances than he actually took!! :rolleyes: :D
Click to expand...

I think you have trouble with the concept of giving up, and to make a comparison with Jack on 19 second places is probably the silliest comment in defence of Tiger. Surely that just ads to Jacks impressive record, that not only did he win more, but very nearly won another 19 of them....are you thinking yet?
 
Ok HNJ you've got me, I never thought I'd be drawn into trying to belittle someone on a forum that is all about opinions but you really are incapable of any informed debate so your opinion and input is effectively worthless....and you have the gall to question someone else contribution earlier in this thread!! :D

Try reading it again or get your carer to help, the author of the article sided with Jack as the best ever. His reasoning was not down to the amount of wins but to the fact that Jack had been right in there and "lost" on 19 other occaisions, he also finished 3rd another 20 or so times (can't recall exact figures)........let me know if you are incapable of finding out that info and I will write it in crayon for you. :p

It is the author's opinion on this, not necessarily one I agree with but a point for consideration in this debate.
 
Re: Is Tiger REALLY 'the greatest player who has ever played the game'

COOL
my first proper thread/discussion/debate

Does this mean i am accepted?
 
Re: Is Tiger REALLY 'the greatest player who has ever played the game'

I have to say its sad that whenever there is a debate on whatever subject (shorts, GPS Woods etc) there are one or two on here that cannot accept the fact that this is a forum and that others are entitled to a polarised opinion which is just as valid and have to resort to belittling other peoples opinions. I think if you cannot be adult about what you post on here then you are either a) on the wrong forum or b) to intransigent in your views) or c) unable to develop a constructed response.

This was/is a very interesting topic so lets try and keep it civilised. For what its worth, I think the fact that Nicklaus was in the mix so often is a key factor in why he is still a greater champion and whilst there are more potential winners for Woods to conquer, I don't think any of the current crop performed with the same level of consistancy over such a long periods as Palmer, Watson etc. Don't forget Nicklaus won over three decades.
 
I think that in general the feild is stronger today than it was in Jacks day, yes there was Tom Watson, Lee Trevino Gary Player etc but once you got past those the standard dropped off, I would say today almost the whole field is good enough to win as seen this year with Cink and Glover so I think that argument actually works in Tigers favour.
Click to expand...

I think Jack would agree with you. He wrote:-

"In 1930, there were perhaps ten golfers, pro or amateur, who might defeat Bob Jones when everything was right for them."

And, "After my first few years as a pro, there were maybe 30 guys who could beat me if I wasn't playing my best. If I were out there today (1996), that number would be tripled."

If Jack thought that in 1996, I don't think you can argue that Tiger's not competing against great players.

Tiger's effectively half way through his career in the top flight. Jack's great period of pre-eminence came between 1962 and 1980, in those 19 years he won 17 majors. Tiger's been at the top for 13 years and won 14 majors. He's a little ahead on the time scale, but not by as much as many would think. There's every reason to believe he'll continue to break Jack's records, and no doubt this debate will continue even if he does, but the facts as I see them are that there have been 7 truely great players over the last 50 years. Arnie, Jack, Garry, Lee, Tom, Nick and Tiger. At the start of 1960 Arnie and Garry had already won one major each, since then these 7 players won a third of all majors, 66 in total. This is how I'd rank them, what do you think?
1 - Jack - 18
2 - Tiger - 14 - (Can he win into his 40s?)
3 - Garry - 8 - (Plus The Open in 1959)
4 - Tom - 8 - (Open specialist but never won USPGA)
5 - Arnie - 6 - (Plus Masters in '58 but never won USPGA)
6 - Lee - 6 - (Never won The Masters)
7 - Nick - 6 - (Never won US Open or USPGA)
 
Re: Is Tiger REALLY 'the greatest player who has ever played the game'

Oooh, a tasty argument.
For
Tiger has more players to beat than the old gods ever did.
Tiger has a stunning record in wins/cuts for every start
Tiger has a superb ability to play "every type" of shot, probably more repertoire than the old boys ever had.
Against
I don't like the way he plays; he seems less of an artist than Jack or even Seve.
The game is different now (just like with Tennis, I guess) and the power/technology argument renders comparison almost impossible. If Tiger was hitting mid-irons in to long holes and 3 shots to par 5s, would he score so well?
He's not the straightest player, but is just about able to power his way around and not falter...give him sight of the flag from short range and he's killer. He's not even close to the top of any stats like accuracy/putting/sand etc. and yet altogether is the best.....how come?

Possibly the best ever, I guess we have to see how the next five years pan out.
 
Re: Is Tiger REALLY 'the greatest player who has ever played the game'

Intresting thoughts there Dave, and i for one agree 100%

To negate what has become teh Tiger factor - what is needed in my opinion are more fairway bunkers and i mean centre of fairways not on the edge - like our very own ST Andrews has.
That would negate the power driving and make course management more crucial.
 
Re: Is Tiger REALLY 'the greatest player who has ever played the game'

Tiger has made power part of golf but remember he played St Andrews in 2005 without finding one bunker. He then played Hoylake in 2006 hitting one drive the whole week.
That demonstrates that he has all the shots and doesn't rely on power alone.
I am not a massive Tiger fan for the petulance and frostiness aspect but when he is on like yesterday he has no equal, past or present in terms of sheer golf ability. For me that makes him the greatest golfer if not sportsman.
 
Re: Is Tiger REALLY 'the greatest player who has ever played the game'

...........I don't think any of the current crop performed with the same level of consistancy over such a long periods as Palmer, Watson etc. Don't forget Nicklaus won over three decades.
Click to expand...

....and that's where the comparison becomes even harder to make. There are fixed definates in the Nicklaus stats and career, the goalposts are still moving with Tiger and his contemparies and until his and their careers are over statistical comparisons are worthless.
 
2 - Tiger - 14 - (Can he win into his 40s?)
Click to expand...

He won't need to. Once he's beaten Jack's record he'll retire. There won't be a purpose to his golf anymore so he'll stop. And Tiger's record will stand and stand. Can't see anyone else getting close to it.
 
It will get broken eventually although I doubt I'll be around to see it. Most sporting records succumb eventually and there will be a day when golf produces another stand out performer taming 10,000 yard courses with ease with his 400 yard average drives and laser guided putter!
 
Tiger's record will stand and stand. Can't see anyone else getting close to it.
Click to expand...

People said that about Jack's record.

Assuming Tiger gets there, the only thing I can promise is that technology will improve. The players will improve physically and mentally, and in another 30 years my grandchildren will be having the same argument almost word for word.

For all those that talk about how Tiger has increased the ante distance wise.

Believe it or not, Jack was accused of that in the 60s as well. Then in the 70s the pack came back at him, and he was still strong enough to be the best.

This year, I think, is the defining year for Tiger.

He had the early burst of form, talent, success in the 90's and early /mid 2000s. Then he had his setback last year.

He could easily have slid back into the pack. It would have been totally understandable to come back to a slightly lower standard

But he still has the desire to keep on climbing those mountains, to keep on winning.

Forget the physical side of his game - there are many players that have/could get themselves into similar physical shape.

Champions are defined by their mental strength. THAT is what Tiger has shown this year.

But, and only imo, the GREATEST are defined by their mental stregth, and their character. Tiger still shows weakness with his character. He still has time to put it right, and I'm sure he will, at least, I hope he will.

Even the argument about his character is enough to put doubts against his all time standing. When someone close to him points that out, I'm sure we'll see an overnight change in him. He wants to be the greatest. His game deserves to take him there.

Give him 10 years, and we'll see. :cool:
 
My view is that in 20+ years time there will be so many more players capable of winning. They'll all be superfit, have the same coaching techniques, use the same Hi-Tech equipment and be able to hit the ball similar distances. The chances of anothe dominator like Tiger are very remote. Jack didn't dominate in the same way that Tiger does now or at least he had fewer top players to dominate.

At the end of the day, as Viscount says, you can't really compare Tuge or Jack to anyone except their peers. For example comparing Pele to Messi/Ronaldo is tainted with nostalgia. Those who saw Jack play in his prime will undoubtedly have the memories ingrained and will lean towards him. Those that didn't will lean towards their era. Generally!!
 
Did they fine you back then?
Trouble is these days a fine's no good unless its in the millions bracket for guys like Tiger. Penalise shots or restricting entry is the only way but they won't do that!
 
Up to this point he has proved to be an amazing golfer and i will always see him as an idol and a great player but i think the time has come when people say tiger woods they will remember his young day and his masters and i think it is time Mr Woods to hand down the number one spot
 
Up to this point he has proved to be an amazing golfer and i will always see him as an idol and a great player but i think the time has come when people say tiger woods they will remember his young day and his masters and i think it is time Mr Woods to hand down the number one spot
Click to expand...

Interesting viewpoint :D, why do you think that someone in their 30s with such a prolific win ratio should stand down?? Especially with Jack's major records still to beat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lucifer MorningStar
Best clubs of all time (Probably)
2 3
Replies
41
Views
2K
srixon 1
srixon 1
H
Tiger at 50
Replies
16
Views
677
Slab
Slab
H
Best player to have not won the majors
2 3
Replies
40
Views
599
kp17
kp17
H
Best player you’ve played with
3 4 5
Replies
80
Views
4K
Crazyface
Crazyface
A
First time with stranger.......
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
AndrewK
A
Top