Tiger today

[baddog]

Oh please oh great seer, show me any 'facts' you have produced. Your comment was well deserving of my short answer because that's what it was.

[bullets13]

tiger beats ray floyd in his prime 8 out 10 times, IMO. 

[Guest nostradamus]

It is no different than any of your arguments.  You keep saying that Ray Floyd wouldn't give up a 5 shot lead to Tiger on the final day because he wouldn't be intimidated by Tiger.  How do you know that?  Ray Floyd never had to stare down Tiger with a 5 shot lead.  Ray Floyd NEVER played in front of the types of galleries that Tiger does on a regular basis.......and I still contend that courses today are tougher than they ever were back then........they sure weren't "Jack-proofing" courses like they "Tiger-proof" them today.

[Guest spinks]

Bad dog..............you are living in a dreeeeeeeeeeeam world!  It is so much harder to dominate in golf today because there are so many great players.  I get so sick of the older generation saying Tiger has no challengers. We can look back 20 years ago and  you pretty much knew that one of about 15 or 20 was going to win EVERY WEEK.  That did not make those guys better than today's top golfers but it simply means it was easier to win a golf tournament then.  When todays PGA Tour players tee it up each week there are 160 guys who can win at ANY given time.  The talent today and the talent then is two different worlds. Golf is 20 fold as far as popularity goes compared to 10 or 15 years ago and the game shows it.  Tiger shot 67 on what will be the hardest non major golf course this year.  There has NEVER been a presence in golf like Tiger Woods and Ray Floyd would fold like a flour tortilla if Tiger were staring him down.  Period!

[Guest stevenash]

Baddog, then you are one of those who thinks that  Michael Jordan wouldn't have his rings if he had played against George Mikan, Paul Arizin and Bob Cousy ?  You must also believe that Joe Louis would have beaten Muhammed Ali and that Bill Tilden would have beaten Rafael Nadal.  Tiger is so far above the rest of the competition that nobody else has a chance to get a foot hold.  When Jack, Arnie, and Gary played, each of them did well because none of the three could consistently dominate the others whereas Tiger can.

[Guest nostradamus]

Spinks,

Ray would be like a stale flour tortilla.........he wouldn't fold......as soon as there was any pressure at all he would break right in half.

[baddog]

Spinks,

Ray would be like a stale flour tortilla.........he wouldn't fold......as soon as there was any pressure at all he would break right in half.

BS again. You need to have watched Ray Floyd before making a remark like that. It's just not true. Floyd was the toughest to catch, even Jack said that. Give Raymond a lead, and he didn't choke.

Taking Michael Jordan from a team sport and playing him against individuals does not really fit this scenario. Playing the Jordan led Bulls against the 50s-60s Celtics would be interesting though. Cartwright against Russell would be no contest. Russell wins that one easily. Remember, Jordan was a great player in his own right before he won any championships, but he didn't win one until Scottie Pippen stepped up. Ahhh, team sports.

Ali was the best. Whether Louis could have beaten him, I would be willing to listen to someone who saw him fight. Louis' records still stand today. That's a tough one.

I get sick of the younger generation thinking that sports happened while they were alive. That's a dream world. None of the past champions could match today's athletes. If that's not the biggest bunch of malarkey, I don't know what is.

O'hair could have won that tournement had he not choked on Saturday with bogey finishes and followed that on Sunday with too many bogeys. This kid has won twice in four years with no majors. Not really much competition for Tiger, yet he had a huge lead and blew it. If you want to give Tiger credit for that then go ahead, but some people fold under the simple pressure of winning. Ray Floyd did not.

Tiger, Garcia, Els, Singh, all could have won playing in Jack's day. However, Jack squeezing out 18 major wins while playing in such a group is what impresses me.

These are my opinions, of which no one can produce any 'facts' to discredit them. Just because someone disagrees with me, does not make them right.

[bullets13]

but tiger might "squeeze out" 30 or 35, and on a whole, the entire tour is more competitive.

[Guest nostradamus]

Younger generation??  What makes you believe I have never seen Arnie or Jack play?

[Guest nostradamus]

Yeah....the fields aren't deeper or better now.....

Angel Cabrera who won the US Open...what?  2 years ago I believe........is the 66th ranked player in the world!!!

I'm guessing that the 66th ranked player in the world in Jack and Arnie's day didn't SNIFF a major.

[Guest spinks]

The fields are so much more deeper today than they were before it is not even funny.  Do you know that only 4,000 people applied to play in the 1980 US Open?  Do you know that over 10,000 will apply to play this year?  Now tell me the fields are not deeper.  Do you know that there is now not just 3 stages of qualifying school that there is a pre qualifier to get into the first stage of q school.  Your argument is that Tiger does not have the top tier players to beat.  Mickleson will end up having twice the career that Floyd had.  He already has 14 more career wins than floyd and 1 less major.  There are more people that can win each week and the above proves it.  Here are more stats.

In 1970, Jack Nicklaus was the No. 1 ranked golfer in the world; Player was No. 2, Casper No. 3, Palmer No. 4, and Trevino was ranked fifth. Aside from Jack Nicklaus, Player, Casper, Palmer, and Trevino won nearly 18 percent of PGA Tour events.

In 1972, the best year of Nicklaus’ career; a year that saw him win three out of the four majors, Nicklaus was ranked No. 1, Player No. 2, Trevino three, Bruce Crampton four, and Palmer five.

In 1972, Player, Trevino, Crampton, and Palmer won 16 percent of PGA Tour events.

In 1999, the start of the "Tiger Slam," Tiger Woods was ranked No. 1 in the world, he was followed by David Duval, Colin Montgomery, Davis Love III, and Ernie Els.

In 1999, aside from Tiger Woods, the remainder of the top-five ranked players in the world won only 10 percent of PGA Tour events.

In 2000, other than Tiger Woods, the remainder of the top-five ranked players in the world won 11 percent of PGA Tour events.

In 2007, aside from Tiger Woods, the remaining members of the world’s top five won just 10 percent of PGA Tour events.

So what does this mean?

It basically means that whereas in Nicklaus’ era the top few players in the world won a significant number of PGA Tour events, in Tiger Woods' era there is far more parity which can be statistically seen in the lower percentage of events won by the top five golfers in the world.

During the best part of Jack Nicklaus’ career, his main competitors were Tom Watson, Gary Player, Arnold Palmer, Lee Trevino, and Billy Casper.

Nicklaus’ main competitors won 29 percent of all major championships played during the prime of Nicklaus’ career.

During Tiger Woods' career, his main competitors in majors have been Phil Mickelson, Ernie Els, Retief Goosen, Vijay Singh, and Jim Furyk.

Woods’ competitors have won 22 percent of all majors during Woods’ career, again showing that the number of players with the ability to win a major has been far greater during Woods career than it was during Nicklaus’ career.

Clearly, Woods has a larger number of legitimate competitors to worry about each week than Nicklaus did.

[Guest nostradamus]

"Jordan fades back......SWISH.........AND that's the BALL GAME!!"

[Lazeek]

Spinks,

Ray would be like a stale flour tortilla.........he wouldn't fold......as soon as there was any pressure at all he would break right in half.

BS again. You need to have watched Ray Floyd before making a remark like that. It's just not true. Floyd was the toughest to catch, even Jack said that. Give Raymond a lead, and he didn't choke.

Taking Michael Jordan from a team sport and playing him against individuals does not really fit this scenario. Playing the Jordan led Bulls against the 50s-60s Celtics would be interesting though. Cartwright against Russell would be no contest. Russell wins that one easily. Remember, Jordan was a great player in his own right before he won any championships, but he didn't win one until Scottie Pippen stepped up. Ahhh, team sports.

Ali was the best. Whether Louis could have beaten him, I would be willing to listen to someone who saw him fight. Louis' records still stand today. That's a tough one.

I get sick of the younger generation thinking that sports happened while they were alive. That's a dream world. None of the past champions could match today's athletes. If that's not the biggest bunch of malarkey, I don't know what is.

O'hair could have won that tournement had he not choked on Saturday with bogey finishes and followed that on Sunday with too many bogeys. This kid has won twice in four years with no majors. Not really much competition for Tiger, yet he had a huge lead and blew it. If you want to give Tiger credit for that then go ahead, but some people fold under the simple pressure of winning. Ray Floyd did not.

Tiger, Garcia, Els, Singh, all could have won playing in Jack's day. However, Jack squeezing out 18 major wins while playing in such a group is what impresses me.

These are my opinions, of which no one can produce any 'facts' to discredit them. Just because someone disagrees with me, does not make them right.

I as well get tired of the "older generation" saying that their time was better than the younger time.  I am 35 and have seen plenty of both of the times.  I have witnessed it in person carrying a bag with several of the all times greats in the group that I was in and not just watching it on the TV.  I was a Jack believer until the last year or so.................the title has changed hands and now Tiger is on top.  May be his for a long, long time as well.

Just ask NOS he and I have had numerous arguements about Tiger verses Jack and I always backed Jack.......but no longer!!!!

[baddog]

"Jordan fades back......SWISH.........AND that's the BALL GAME!!"

You sure weren't the ''go to'' guy in this discussion. I thought you would have seen that coming nostradamus.

[baddog]

Gee spinks, as bright a guy as you seem to be, I think you have proven my point even further.

You said this...

''It basically means that whereas in Nicklaus’ era the top few players in the world won a significant number of PGA Tour events, in Tiger Woods' era there is far more parity which can be statistically seen in the lower percentage of events won by the top five golfers in the world.''

I have to counter with not so much parity, as the top five aren't as good, and Tiger is taking more titles because of it. This argument is like whether the glass is half full or empty.

You brought up some good stats, now look at the list of past major winners and you will see a repetition of names alright.....more than the few you mentioned for sure though.....and that's just the majors. Really, you left out so many name it ain't even funny. Please look at the list of past winners.

My opinions can only play out as the years go by. Lots of you have said you liked Jack and have changed your minds. It is simply that I haven't. It still does not make me wrong.

[Guest nostradamus]

Not the "go to" guy eh.....BS!

[Guest nostradamus]

Gee spinks, as bright a guy as you seem to be, I think you have proven my point even further.

You said this...

''It basically means that whereas in Nicklaus’ era the top few players in the world won a significant number of PGA Tour events, in Tiger Woods' era there is far more parity which can be statistically seen in the lower percentage of events won by the top five golfers in the world.''

I have to counter with not so much parity, as the top five aren't as good, and Tiger is taking more titles because of it. This argument is like whether the glass is half full or empty.

You brought up some good stats, now look at the list of past major winners and you will see a repetition of names alright.....more than the few you mentioned for sure though.....and that's just the majors. Really, you left out so many name it ain't even funny. Please look at the list of past winners.

My opinions can only play out as the years go by. Lots of you have said you liked Jack and have changed your minds. It is simply that I haven't. It still does not make me wrong.

 

I was pretty sure you would try to spin it your way.  You choose to interpret it the wrong way.  What it means is Besides the top 5 guys in the 70's no one else won because they simply were not as good as todays players.  It just is not even close.  That is fine.  It is your opinion and I respect that.  However, it is simple another senior just not wanting to admit that a young black man has taken over the game of golf and that this generation is far and above generations of the past.  You will see the light soon!

[ST413]

OK guys,  I feel that Tiger is the man now.  But my question is can he be competitive at the top as long as Jack?  Deeper fields could prevent this but will he win a major at 46 years old?  Not questioning his ability he has proved that just his longevity.

[bullets13]

OK guys,  I feel that Tiger is the man now.  But my question is can he be competitive at the top as long as Jack?   Deeper fields could prevent this but will he win a major at 46 years old?  Not questioning his ability he has proved that just his longevity.

i honestly do.  look at the shape he keeps himself in.  he's good enough to win on a torn ACL, and also in his 2nd tourney back from ACL surgery.  he's good enough to win with his "C" game.  i find it hard to believe he won't still winning (at least occasionally) late into his 40's, if he chooses to play that long.

[Lazeek]

I predict that Tiger will move on from golf before he turns 46 and it will not be because he will not be able to compete.  He will move on like Norman has to the business side of the golf world.  He may play in a few events that will pay him millions just to show up world wide, but by then he will own his own golf business and end up one of the richest sports figures in the world.

[Guest tigersvoice]

I predict that Tiger will move on from golf before he turns 46 and it will not be because he will not be able to compete.  He will move on like Norman has to the business side of the golf world.  He may play in a few events that will pay him millions just to show up world wide, but by then he will own his own golf business and end up one of the richest sports figures in the world.

I agree with you, Lazeek, with a couple of provisions.  This is provided that he has posted a new "Majors Wins" mark, i.e. - passes the Bear.  And, unless his game is sharp (as sharp as it can be for whatever his age) he won't play at all.  He will do nothing on the golf course to embarrass himself and less than his best is an embarrassment to him.

[Guest tigersvoice]

I predict that Tiger will move on from golf before he turns 46 and it will not be because he will not be able to compete.  He will move on like Norman has to the business side of the golf world.  He may play in a few events that will pay him millions just to show up world wide, but by then he will own his own golf business and end up one of the richest sports figures in the world.

[baddog]

Gee spinks, as bright a guy as you seem to be, I think you have proven my point even further.

You said this...

''It basically means that whereas in Nicklaus’ era the top few players in the world won a significant number of PGA Tour events, in Tiger Woods' era there is far more parity which can be statistically seen in the lower percentage of events won by the top five golfers in the world.''

I have to counter with not so much parity, as the top five aren't as good, and Tiger is taking more titles because of it. This argument is like whether the glass is half full or empty.

You brought up some good stats, now look at the list of past major winners and you will see a repetition of names alright.....more than the few you mentioned for sure though.....and that's just the majors. Really, you left out so many name it ain't even funny. Please look at the list of past winners.

My opinions can only play out as the years go by. Lots of you have said you liked Jack and have changed your minds. It is simply that I haven't. It still does not make me wrong.

 

I was pretty sure you would try to spin it your way.  You choose to interpret it the wrong way.  What it means is Besides the top 5 guys in the 70's no one else won because they simply were not as good as todays players.  It just is not even close.  That is fine.  It is your opinion and I respect that.  However, it is simple another senior just not wanting to admit that a young black man has taken over the game of golf and that this generation is far and above generations of the past.  You will see the light soon!

Dude, there were more than 5 guys!!....which has always been my point. Look at the lists, and that's just the majors, then get back to me. Thanks for the respect, then you shoot me down. Which is it? I have never mentioned race. Must be your spin.

[Guest spinks]

Gee spinks, as bright a guy as you seem to be, I think you have proven my point even further.

You said this...

''It basically means that whereas in Nicklaus’ era the top few players in the world won a significant number of PGA Tour events, in Tiger Woods' era there is far more parity which can be statistically seen in the lower percentage of events won by the top five golfers in the world.''

I have to counter with not so much parity, as the top five aren't as good, and Tiger is taking more titles because of it. This argument is like whether the glass is half full or empty.

You brought up some good stats, now look at the list of past major winners and you will see a repetition of names alright.....more than the few you mentioned for sure though.....and that's just the majors. Really, you left out so many name it ain't even funny. Please look at the list of past winners.

My opinions can only play out as the years go by. Lots of you have said you liked Jack and have changed your minds. It is simply that I haven't. It still does not make me wrong.

 

I was pretty sure you would try to spin it your way.  You choose to interpret it the wrong way.  What it means is Besides the top 5 guys in the 70's no one else won because they simply were not as good as todays players.  It just is not even close.  That is fine.  It is your opinion and I respect that.  However, it is simple another senior just not wanting to admit that a young black man has taken over the game of golf and that this generation is far and above generations of the past.  You will see the light soon!

Dude, there were more than 5 guys!!....which has always been my point. Look at the lists, and that's just the majors, then get back to me. Thanks for the respect, then you shoot me down. Which is it? I have never mentioned race. Must be your spin.

I shoot you down because I disagree with you.  However, I respect your opinion.  There were not more than 5 dominate guys back then.  Sorry.  In fact there were not 5 who were dominate.  There were just the same 5 competing for the majors each time. 

Here is a question for you.  One of the ways this started is that you think that Tiger gets tournaments handed to him.  Therefore you gather the assumption that the players are not as good as players from the past because they did not fold like the players of today (yeah right.........norman).  With that said how many of Tigers Major victories have been come from behind wins?

[Guest nostradamus]

You know.......I don't ever recall there being bets (even in Vegas) where you can bet on Jack or "the field" at the Masters or any other major.

You can make that bet in EVERY major with Tiger.......him or the field.