Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Jack's Era Vs. Tiger's Era  
User currently offlineHuskyAviation From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1152 posts, RR: 4
Posted (6 years 11 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1174 times:

This topic has been bandied about in a couple of other threads, but given Tiger's latest major victory, I put the question directly: which is/was better, Jack Nicklaus' era or Tiger Woods' era?

I myself am in Jack's camp. I believe Jack's competitors especially in the 1970s were much tougher and less subject to intimidation than the golfers today. Jack had to compete against Arnold Palmer, Ray Floyd, Johnny Miller, Hale Irwin, Hubert Green, Tom Watson, Lee Trevino, Gary Player, Ben Crenshaw, Tom Weiskopf, among others. That is an awfully strong lineup, guys that knew how to win, could beat the best coming down the stretch, and played to win. They had guts.

The guys today are great golfers, don't get me wrong. But the current challengers to Tiger simply aren't in that class. Vijay, Phil, Ernie, Retief, Furyk, Sergio, etc. are more moneymakers in my opinion that true winners. These guys have shown an inclination to fail to bring their best against the best, which is evidenced in their spotty major record (the most anyone has won besides Tiger is 3) and their failure to play great golf when going up against Tiger. They don't have to beat him head-to-head, but I don't think any of them has played a brilliant round of golf when in contention against Tiger when it really mattered (ie, a major). The fields are deeper now, but the top 20-25 players of today just don't come close with comparing with the past.

It is almost undisputed that the greatest collection of golfers ever assembled for a Ryder Cup/Presidents Cup team occurred at the 1981 Ryder Cup (American side):
1. Tom Watson (8 majors, 39 Tour wins)
2. Jack Nicklaus (18 majors, 73 Tour wins)
3. Lee Trevino (6 majors, 29 Tour wins)
4. Larry Nelson (3 majors, 10 Tour wins)
5. Jerry Pate (1 major, 8 Tour wins and would've been more except for shoulder problems in '83)
6. Raymond Floyd (4 majors, 22 Tour wins)
7. Hale Irwin (3 majors, 20 Tour wins)
8. Bill Rogers (1 major, 6 Tour wins)
9. Ben Crenshaw (2 majors, 19 Tour wins)
10. Tom Kite (1 major, 19 Tour wins)
11. Johnny Miller (2 majors, 25 Tour wins)
12. Bruce Lietzke (0 majors, 13 Tour wins playing basically part-time).

That is a real murderer's row of golfers--46 total majors, and about 280 Tour wins. Those were Nicklaus' contemporaries (and Palmer, Green, Boros, Littler among others weren't on that team as they were older by 1981) and I'd put that up against any Tiger-less team that could be put together today, including players from every country around the world and not just the United States.

Thoughts?

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSlovacek747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1171 times:

I don't think one can really say for sure. Both era's have players that are exceptionally good.

Slovacek747


User currently offlineDeltaGator From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 6341 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1160 times:

Quoting Slovacek747 (Reply 1):
I don't think one can really say for sure. Both era's have players that are exceptionally good.

It is tough to compare the different eras. There isn't a good statistic like ERA and batting average in baseball available to golf. Add to that the changes in the equipment over those years while the baseball bat has remained pretty much the same.

Players were different, courses were different, transportation between courses was different, and the list goes on and on. I think we can both agree Tiger and Jack are great golfers. I suppose we could look at their winning percentage, times finishing in the top 10, times cut, etc. over their careers to compare but it is still a suspect stat at best given the differences between periods.

It's like comparing the NFL, NBA, and NHL of today versus the days of old...there is just too much difference between times to compare accurately.



"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
User currently offlineHuskyAviation From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1152 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1158 times:

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 2):
It is tough to compare the different eras. There isn't a good statistic like ERA and batting average in baseball available to golf. Add to that the changes in the equipment over those years while the baseball bat has remained pretty much the same.

I agree that it is kind of like comparing apples to oranges--but it's a fun debate and a hot one in the golf world these days. I just wanted to see what people thought--and to explain what I thought about the subject.


User currently offlineHPLASOps From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1156 times:

What makes Jack's era better than Tiger's was the nature of the tour and the players within. Back in those days, the top players played more tournaments on the schedule. In addition, the players didn't travel by corporate jet, only the biggest of names even travelled by plane, and players quite often doubled up in the same hotel rooms. The comrarderie and bonding was much more prevalent in that time period than it is now. Rivalries developed much more naturally and became more genuine amongst the top players. Vijay and Furyk are the 2 guys in the top 10 that most resemble the type of rival that Nicklaus had to deal with. Els is very committed to the game of golf, but like Gary Player, is very committed to playing around the world and on as many tours as he can. I respect Els and his committment to his golf and his family, but unfortunately, that makes it harder for him to be the rival for Tiger that everyone desires. Mickelson is quite often more of a head case than Daly is. If Phil would stop obsessing over the shit that doesn't matter and just start playing golf he'd be a better rival.

BTW, calling Tom Weiskopf and Hubert Green as rivals to Nicklaus is a real stretch. They might have had one or two tournaments where they contended with him, but they were hardly rivals to Jack. Of course, Weiskopf won't admit that - in his mind he was the greatest player ever that cocky sonofabitch. Also, Ben Crenshaw and Ray Floyd hit their primes after Jack was past his.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26376 posts, RR: 76
Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1154 times:

Quoting HPLASOps (Reply 4):
Mickelson is quite often more of a head case than Daly is. If Phil would stop obsessing over the shit that doesn't matter and just start playing golf he'd be a better rival.

Would help too if he got into shape.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineHuskyAviation From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1152 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1138 times:

Quoting HPLASOps (Reply 4):
BTW, calling Tom Weiskopf and Hubert Green as rivals to Nicklaus is a real stretch. They might have had one or two tournaments where they contended with him, but they were hardly rivals to Jack. Of course, Weiskopf won't admit that - in his mind he was the greatest player ever that cocky sonofabitch. Also, Ben Crenshaw and Ray Floyd hit their primes after Jack was past his.

I didn't say that Weiskopf and Green were guys that were primed to knock Nicklaus off, but they were better-caliber players at the top of the second tier during that era than are for instance Weir and Garcia. By Nicklaus' own admission Weiskopf had one of the hottest stretches of golf ever in 1973 (incl. winning the British Open) and probably had more raw talent than almost anyone (although he was a head case and had a temper problem). Green has a pretty solid record too--19 wins, 2 majors, 15 top-10s in majors (including a T2 in the '78 Masters, and a distant 3rd in the '77 British). That is pretty tough competition coming from the second ranks that I don't think exists on Tour now.

Floyd and Crenshaw may have won more in the mid to late '80s after Jack's prime (I think Jack's prime was over by 1982) but Crenshaw was 2nd to Nicklaus in money in 1976, was 2nd at the '76 Masters, '78 British (behind Nicklaus), '79 British, and '79 PGA (in a playoff). Crenshaw was considered to be the one of the guys that would bump Nicklaus off before Watson ended up doing so but he was definitely a budding rival to Jack, almost in the way Charles Howell III was when he came on Tour to TIger, but has amounted to virtually nothing since. Floyd won 13 times between 1975-1982 along with 2 majors, and had 11 top-10s in majors during that span, so I don't think you can say he wasn't at least a consistent top challenger during Nicklaus' era. The guy knew how to win and was capable of red-hot golf when he was on.


User currently offlineHuskyAviation From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1152 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 6 days ago) and read 1131 times:

Quoting HPLASOps (Reply 4):
What makes Jack's era better than Tiger's was the nature of the tour and the players within. Back in those days, the top players played more tournaments on the schedule. In addition, the players didn't travel by corporate jet, only the biggest of names even travelled by plane, and players quite often doubled up in the same hotel rooms. The comrarderie and bonding was much more prevalent in that time period than it is now. Rivalries developed much more naturally and became more genuine amongst the top players. Vijay and Furyk are the 2 guys in the top 10 that most resemble the type of rival that Nicklaus had to deal with. Els is very committed to the game of golf, but like Gary Player, is very committed to playing around the world and on as many tours as he can. I respect Els and his committment to his golf and his family, but unfortunately, that makes it harder for him to be the rival for Tiger that everyone desires. Mickelson is quite often more of a head case than Daly is. If Phil would stop obsessing over the shit that doesn't matter and just start playing golf he'd be a better rival.

I agree with you that Furyk and Vijay are the most genuine players and the most competitive rivals to Tiger. One of the differences with them compared to some of the other guys is they aren't as reliant on a swing guru as some of these over-programmed guys that worry more about mechanics than getting the ball in the hole. Almost all of the top players in Jack's era were much more reliant on themselves than they were on a team of experts. Jack had Jack Grout but once he reached his peak it was mostly for fine-tuning and tweaking rather than Grout being attached to Jack's hip. Watson had Stan Thirsk and later Byron Nelson but it was much the same relationship. And of course Trevino said it best, "I'll start listening to teachers when I can find one that can beat me." LOL

Mickelson is a mess--when he can finally see the light that playing smart is truly the way to be a better player, he can raise it up a notch. The talent is there. Once in a while he seems to buy into that, then falls back into his go-for-broke ways. It worked for Arnie, but it cost Arnie a lot of tournaments just as it has for Mickelson. To this day I can't understand why Bones doesn't grab him by the shirt and stop him from making the decisions that he does. He just stands there and hands Mickelson the rope with which to hang himself.


User currently offlineHPLASOps From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1117 times:

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 7):
To this day I can't understand why Bones doesn't grab him by the shirt and stop him from making the decisions that he does. He just stands there and hands Mickelson the rope with which to hang himself.

Because caddies know if you disagree with your player too much, you're going to get canned. A caddy is often relied upon as an on course psychologist as much as they are golf experts. Good caddies are supposed to stay positive when the player is down and say the right things when a player needs to hear them. Even if the caddy is right, disagreement with the player will only mess up that relationship and will not lead to long-term employment.

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 7):
Almost all of the top players in Jack's era were much more reliant on themselves than they were on a team of experts.

Thank you, I forgot to mention that. When my father played on tour, he didn't have any teacher. He raised me as a golfer to be much the same way. I've never taken formal lessons, but rather dug my own game out of the dirt and let him provide a few tips when appropriate. Before his generation, the top players would send their caddies out 200 yards away to shag their shots. The good players like Hogan and Nelson could hit 100 shots and not make their caddies move more than 1 step. Trevino was famous for going out to El Paso CC, hitting 500 balls in the morning and then schooling the club members for dinner money in the afternoon.


User currently offlineHuskyAviation From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1152 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1114 times:

Quoting HPLASOps (Reply 8):
Because caddies know if you disagree with your player too much, you're going to get canned. A caddy is often relied upon as an on course psychologist as much as they are golf experts. Good caddies are supposed to stay positive when the player is down and say the right things when a player needs to hear them. Even if the caddy is right, disagreement with the player will only mess up that relationship and will not lead to long-term employment.

I wouldn't recommend an average caddie doing that to a player, but Bones' relationship with Phil goes back to 1992, he's the only caddy Phil has ever had. At this point, Bones should have Phil's respect to try and at least talk Phil out of bad decisions. From what I've seen, he doesn't do that. Bruce Edwards frequently would tell Watson when he was wrong, and I remember Greg Norman's caddy at the '94 TPC (I think it was Tony Navarro) tell Greg it would be stupid to go for it on the 16th hole with a 5-shot lead from the right rough. Norman laid up and it was a shock that he would actually be conservative. There's a time and a place for it. Winged Foot was one of those places (on both the tee shot, 2nd shot).

Quoting HPLASOps (Reply 8):
Thank you, I forgot to mention that. When my father played on tour, he didn't have any teacher. He raised me as a golfer to be much the same way. I've never taken formal lessons, but rather dug my own game out of the dirt and let him provide a few tips when appropriate. Before his generation, the top players would send their caddies out 200 yards away to shag their shots. The good players like Hogan and Nelson could hit 100 shots and not make their caddies move more than 1 step. Trevino was famous for going out to El Paso CC, hitting 500 balls in the morning and then schooling the club members for dinner money in the afternoon.

I totally agree--my dad almost turned professional in the early '70s until my mom threatened to divorce him if he did LOL. I've gotten a few lessons when things went really south for me, but learning the golf swing on your own and understanding your own swing will make you a much better player. A lot of these guys in the old days had to do exactly what Trevino did--you play just to scrape out a living, hustling in the caddie yard, whatever. Most guys now are coddled--and much softer, and it shows. I would have loved to watch Hogan, Nelson or Snead hit balls in their prime--ball-striking is sort of a lost art after those guys.


User currently offlineSlovacek747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1109 times:

Say what you want about Phil but I enjoy seeing him take risks. He has proven his talent over the years and it is fun to watch him, not to mention the way he is a family man trumps everything he does it golf. There is nothing better than seeing him win and watch his girls and wife run out to the 18th green to see him. That is something Tiger will never do, even though I love him as a player. Phil is the best guy around, regardless of his sometimes reckless shots.

Slovacek747


User currently offlineSlovacek747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1087 times:

Can't complain about Mickelson's play today.. Damn good round if you ask me.

Slovacek747


User currently offlineHPLASOps From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1045 times:

Quoting Slovacek747 (Reply 11):
Can't complain about Mickelson's play today.. Damn good round if you ask me.

And now he actually won a tournament while playing with Tiger. Funny, because I don't recall selling him the hair off my ass to get it done.


User currently offlineHuskyAviation From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1152 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1043 times:

Didn't see the round, but saw the scorecards. Damn fine playing by Phil. 23 putts--that usually helps the score. At last Phil outplays Tiger head-to-head! (I'm not a Tiger fan).

User currently offlineHPLASOps From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1010 times:

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 9):
I wouldn't recommend an average caddie doing that to a player, but Bones' relationship with Phil goes back to 1992, he's the only caddy Phil has ever had. At this point, Bones should have Phil's respect to try and at least talk Phil out of bad decisions. From what I've seen, he doesn't do that.

Actually, from what I see of Phil, he doesn't make very many bad decisions. He tends to gamble and take more risks with shot selection than most, but I don't see him making many bad decisions. He puts a lot of thought into how he wants to attack a course. When Phil takes a chance and just doesn't excute, he gets blamed for a bad decision, and when he pulls it off, he's a wizard. You're right that Bones has been with Phil since the beginning and those two work well together. But Bones also knows what makes Phil click, and that's taking a little bit of a gamble when the time is right. Remember when the Ravens won the Super Bowl? Phil won about $600,000 betting on them. Phil loves playing the Las Vegas Invitational and it's not too uncommon for him to take out $100,000 markers when in town. Funny how Daly gets criticized for his gambling problem and Phil doesn't.

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 9):
I totally agree--my dad almost turned professional in the early '70s until my mom threatened to divorce him if he did LOL.

The tour pro lifestyle takes a firm commitment from both parties. I don't think my dad was 100% committed to the tour lifestyle and that's part of the reason he only lasted 2 years out there.

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 9):
Most guys now are coddled--and much softer, and it shows. I would have loved to watch Hogan, Nelson or Snead hit balls in their prime--ball-striking is sort of a lost art after those guys.

I believe one of the last great ballstrikers passed away not too long ago - Mr. Moe Norman. He lived in relative obscurity up in Canada, but that guy could put a ball in a teacup from 200 yards. No one, I mean, no one, repeated their swing better than Moe did.


User currently offlineHuskyAviation From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1152 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1002 times:

Quoting HPLASOps (Reply 14):
Actually, from what I see of Phil, he doesn't make very many bad decisions. He tends to gamble and take more risks with shot selection than most, but I don't see him making many bad decisions. He puts a lot of thought into how he wants to attack a course. When Phil takes a chance and just doesn't excute, he gets blamed for a bad decision, and when he pulls it off, he's a wizard. You're right that Bones has been with Phil since the beginning and those two work well together. But Bones also knows what makes Phil click, and that's taking a little bit of a gamble when the time is right. Remember when the Ravens won the Super Bowl? Phil won about $600,000 betting on them. Phil loves playing the Las Vegas Invitational and it's not too uncommon for him to take out $100,000 markers when in town. Funny how Daly gets criticized for his gambling problem and Phil doesn't.

I know Phil loves to gamble on and off the course, I just wish he knew when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em. The 2nd shot he hit at Winged Foot last year was a terrible decision. It's been beaten to death, but it was. But he has said that he gets bored playing conservatively and he probably does. There's no changing his ways, but maybe he'll listen to Butch. I don't think Butch will stick with him unless Butch thinks Phil is actually taking what he says to heart.

Speaking of Phil, he really pussied out in Chicago. I think the whole FedEx Cup thing is overhyped but one of the reasons they came up with this thing is because Tiger and Phil wanted a shorter season. To say that he isn't coming for "undisclosed reasons" is a cop-out and he's going to take a ton of heat for it.

Quoting HPLASOps (Reply 14):
I believe one of the last great ballstrikers passed away not too long ago - Mr. Moe Norman. He lived in relative obscurity up in Canada, but that guy could put a ball in a teacup from 200 yards. No one, I mean, no one, repeated their swing better than Moe did.

Good ol' Moe. He could hit drivers off the deck out of divots. Amazing stuff. I've heard that some of Moe's friends think he may have suffered a mild form of autism which explains his odd personality and unusual behavior. It might have been what made him so unique as a ball-striker, but might have also held him back from competing at a high level in the US. He couldn't handle attention or publicity well at all. I think he's the genesis of "Natural Golf" isn't he?


User currently offlineHPLASOps From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1001 times:

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 15):
I think he's the genesis of "Natural Golf" isn't he?

I know they used him to help endorse Natural Golf, and many of their teachings happen to fit his swing, but I don't think he had anything to do with the development of that teaching style.


User currently offlineDeltaGator From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 6341 posts, RR: 13
Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 955 times:

Here's an interesting tidbit from ESPN the Magazine that has nothing to do with this debate but shows the difference in money between today and Jack's time.

Tud Purdy, ranked 163rd on the PGA Tour this season, passed Jack Nicklaus on the career money list.



"If you can't delight in the misery of others then you don't deserve to be a college football fan."
User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 943 times:

Jack Nicklaus did an interview a few years ago on this very subject.

His comments boiled down to a few things.

First - Tiger is better than Jack ever was as a pure total golfer. Tiger's mental game when he came on the tour was better than anyone under 35 had ever been before. Add to that his physical game and skills.

Second - had Jack been as good, or almost as good as Tiger - he would have been able to dominate his competition just as Tiger did early in his career.

Third - the 'average' pro is better, tougher and harder to beat today than 20-30 years ago. As are the top members of the tour. Tiger has an advantage, but the advantage has been declining every year since his third year on the tour as others have gotten close to him.

From my observations - the 'top level' is a smaller group of golfers today than it was when Jack was in his prime. But that doesn't mean the competiton is easier.


User currently offlineHuskyAviation From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1152 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 940 times:

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 18):
First - Tiger is better than Jack ever was as a pure total golfer. Tiger's mental game when he came on the tour was better than anyone under 35 had ever been before. Add to that his physical game and skills.

This may be true--but I don't think there is a lot of difference between Jack and Tiger on the mental side. I think the big area in which Tiger is significantly better than Jack was around the greens. Nicklaus by his own admission was not a great chipper or wedge player.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 18):
Second - had Jack been as good, or almost as good as Tiger - he would have been able to dominate his competition just as Tiger did early in his career.

I don't really understand this comment. Nicklaus did dominate his competition in his early years, winning 7 majors from 1962-1967. He was also going up against Palmer, Player and Casper in their primes. Tiger didn't have anywhere near those giants to compete against.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 18):
Third - the 'average' pro is better, tougher and harder to beat today than 20-30 years ago. As are the top members of the tour. Tiger has an advantage, but the advantage has been declining every year since his third year on the tour as others have gotten close to him.

There is no doubt that this is true--from top to bottom the fields are deeper and tougher than they were 30-40 years ago. Technology has a lot to do with this, and I don't think it's helped the game any from a viewer's standpoint.


User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 929 times:

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 19):
Nicklaus did dominate his competition in his early years, winning 7 majors from 1962-1967.

He dominated in some events, but by his own comparison - he didn't dominate like Tiger did in his first few years on the tour.

The interview was on a local TV station in Dallas during a Byron Nelson tournament within a year or two of Tiger's first Masters win.

Jack was very clear and unequivocal - that Tiger came to the tour better prepared for the touring pro game mentally and physically than anyone Jack had ever seen - better prepared than Jack. The mental was HUGE in Jack's opinion.

He was also clear that while he was very strong - he (Jack) was no where near as far ahead of his competition in his prime than Tiger was ahead of his competition. Jack was excited about Tiger - taking the game to a level it had never been played before.

When we look back over Tiger's career - we see that the players in the field have improved, gotten better and gotten closer to Tiger's level of play. And Tiger's has slipped a bit a couple times and some of the risk taking which paid off so well for him a few years ago isn't there today. But he's still the class of the field.

It's been a wonderful decade for golf.


User currently offlineHuskyAviation From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1152 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 918 times:

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 20):
Jack was very clear and unequivocal - that Tiger came to the tour better prepared for the touring pro game mentally and physically than anyone Jack had ever seen - better prepared than Jack. The mental was HUGE in Jack's opinion.

Without question, Tiger was the most prepared and most groomed player ever to join the Tour and begin winning immediately. In his autobiography, Jack admits that in the 1960s he primarily relied on his power before he learned that most players would beat themselves under pressure and he merely had to hang around the lead and let others lose it. Jack got away with this because he hit the ball further comparatively than his peers than Tiger does today.

Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 20):
When we look back over Tiger's career - we see that the players in the field have improved, gotten better and gotten closer to Tiger's level of play. And Tiger's has slipped a bit a couple times and some of the risk taking which paid off so well for him a few years ago isn't there today. But he's still the class of the field.

Tiger is still head and shoulders above his competition--he's had several challengers like Duval in 1999 and Vijay in 2003-2004 and Phil in 2005-2006 (until the US Open debacle) but no one could sustain that level for very long. In my opinion, Jack had better top-tier competitors than Tiger has ever had.

I honestly find Tiger's domination boring--his major wins haven't resulted in a lot of thrilling finishes. The runaway wins for some reason get the highest ratings, but even as an obsessed golf-watcher, I tend to lose interest when I know the outcome is already determined. The Phil-Tiger battle at the Deutsche was what golf needs more of. When Tiger gets into his grind-it-out-and-I'm-going-to-win-by-5-shots-or-more mode, I'd rather be doing something else.


User currently offlineCALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 2198 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 892 times:

It would be nice to see how Tiger would do back in Jacks' era, equipment and all, and also to see how Jack would have fared in Tigers' era with all the equipment advances.


UNITED We Stand
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
End Of An Era: FCC To Drop Morse Testing posted Tue Dec 19 2006 02:52:20 by Queso
Remembering The Disco Era posted Wed Aug 16 2006 22:39:18 by Faustino927
Gotta Love A Republican Era posted Tue Aug 1 2006 21:57:20 by Matt D
End Of An Era - In My Life, That Is posted Thu May 18 2006 01:27:09 by Redngold
Friday's Stupid Thread - Your Favourite Music Era posted Fri Apr 7 2006 07:26:43 by LTU932
End Of An Era (Mothers Of The Dissapeared) posted Sun Jan 15 2006 01:24:22 by Derico
End Of An Era - Stardust Hotel/Casino To Close posted Wed Jan 4 2006 20:24:26 by EA CO AS
End Of The Bush Era posted Tue Sep 13 2005 16:50:53 by Rsmith6621a
Baroque Era Classical Music posted Fri Jan 21 2005 06:11:09 by Flybyguy
Halo 2: A New Era For Video Games posted Tue Nov 9 2004 02:40:29 by F9Widebody