Unbeatable

miseeire

I honestly thought Padraig was going to bring Woods to heel and rid the golf world of this arrogant,but brilliant golfer.If last weekends result is anything to go by,it has worked in reverse and Padraig has been reduced to a.n.other.Why can't any other golfer join Woods at the top for a length of time?I bet against him each time and lose each time.Who do you think will be the next golfer to beat Woods?

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

miseeire

I dont think even the golden bear could equal that.

NITFBY

miseeire wrote: »

Why can't any other golfer join Woods at the top for a length of time?

Because Woods is just too good. When he is on his A game he does what he did last Sunday and wins by a mile. On his B game he will still win, just by the odd shot. So he needs to be off form to give the rest a chance. My opinion anyway

Grey Fox

miseeire wrote: »

I honestly thought Padraig was going to bring Woods to heel and rid the golf world of this arrogant,but brilliant golfer.If last weekends result is anything to go by,it has worked in reverse and Padraig has been reduced to a.n.other.Why can't any other golfer join Woods at the top for a length of time?I bet against him each time and lose each time.Who do you think will be the next golfer to beat Woods?

Tiger is the perfect golfer. He is the mentally strongest and the physically most talented player ever. Not only that but he works harder than anyone else which means the chance of him being overthrown by anyone else is almost zero. He has consistently more than double the world ranking points than the No. 2 ranked golfer. The guy could take a year off and still be No. 1 when he came back!!

In my opinion Rory McIlroy has the best chance of challenging Tiger or taking over his No. 1 spot when Tiger retires(Tiger himself called Rory a future world no. 1). However at the moment I think Rory is too nice. I would love to see him a bit more fired up on the golf course, mad to win. Maybe his unassuming nature suits his game or whatever but I would love to see the sort of focus and fire of Tiger in Rory.That's why the English think Poulter is so great, cos he's very fiery even though the likes of Justin Rose(before his slump) and Ross Fisher are far better golfers but too mild mannered to win anything.

soundsham

http://www.officialworldgolfranking.com/players/bio.sps?ID=5321&name=Tiger&Rank=1&TotalPts=641.68889

this shows tigers last 23 tournaments
he won 11 of 23 ........47.8%
his career winning percentage is about 27%.....i doubt too many other current players are close to 10% in their career,(phil mickleson reached 9.5% when he got a win last year)

if you think any one can challenge him at the moment week in week out your off your trolley

if p.h. are any other wins 2-3 events its a huge season for them he does that and more every year,he has over double the second ranked player in the worlds ranking points

total points 16.04 versus 7.94 and his total points are divided by 40 events the minimum over 2 years, even though he has only played 23 due to injury, so if in fact he was fit, chances are he'd be possibly have 3 times the second guy's points or more

enjoy watching him,cause you won't see another like him for a long time if ever

One Cold Hand

miseeire wrote: »

I honestly thought Padraig was going to bring Woods to heel and rid the golf world of this arrogant,but brilliant golfer.If last weekends result is anything to go by,it has worked in reverse and Padraig has been reduced to a.n.other.Why can't any other golfer join Woods at the top for a length of time?I bet against him each time and lose each time.Who do you think will be the next golfer to beat Woods?

Do you really think he's arrogant? i think you're mistaking confidence for arrogance. He is extremely confident in his own ability, but this doesn't make him arrogant.

Kevinmarkham

soundsham wrote: »

enjoy watching him,cause you won't see another like him for a long time if ever

This is a fascinating thread and great points are being made, but who knows what the future holds. Jack Nicklaus won how many tournaments?? He was runner up in 19 majors, never mind all the ones he won. Surely they said at the time that there would never be another like him - and yet here's Tiger. Tiger has inspired a new generation of young golfers so there will be someone in there who will start to do what Tiger has done. It's a question of when.

And it's not just golf

Tennis: Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg, Pete Sampras... and now Roger Federer

You can pick almost any sport and there is someone who is 'the greatest' and will, undoubtedly, be surpassed. That's the nature of sport, technology and fame (and money).

I think even Jack agrees that Tiger is the greatest golfer, but someone else will come along - I hope it's Rory.

Benicetomonty

One Cold Hand wrote: »

Do you really think he's arrogant? i think you're mistaking confidence for arrogance. He is extremely confident in his own ability, but this doesn't make him arrogant.

I think its a fine line. When you're that dominant it becomes difficult not to be arrogant. Having said that, I consider Woods to be a class act in almost every way considering the amount of media scrutiny he's under day in day out.

"You can pick almost any sport and there is someone who is 'the greatest' and will, undoubtedly, be surpassed. That's the nature of sport, technology and fame (and money)."

I'm not so sure. Before Tiger came along, Nicklaus' haul was 7 beyond that of the next most prolific major winner (Walter Hagen). I have no doubt Woods will beat Jack's record and no matter what figure he ends up amassing, I can't see it being bettered. In my opinion we are truly seeing history in the making.

heavyballs

miseeire wrote: »

I honestly thought Padraig was going to bring Woods to heel ,Who do you think will be the next golfer to beat Woods?

Do you really think Paddy is capable of this,come on he's played more consistently over the last 5 weeks than anyone other than Tiger,won nearly 2 mill inthe process but is not in the same league.
I don't think you can compare Woods and Jack btw,there were far few real opponents for Jack than Tiger has on a weekly basis,the technology issue is all relative,we will not see anyone better than Woods in or lifetime.

mag

heavyballs wrote: »

Do you really think Paddy is capable of this,come on he's played more consistently over the last 5 weeks than anyone other than Tiger,won nearly 2 mill inthe process but is not in the same league.
I don't think you can compare Woods and Jack btw,there were far few real opponents for Jack than Tiger has on a weekly basis,the technology issue is all relative,we will not see anyone better than Woods in or lifetime.

harringtons long game has been pretty sketchy in these tournaments yet he's performed well. if and when he sorts out his long game he is the front-runner in challenging woods, simply because mentally & in the short game he is up there with his imho.

Benicetomonty

heavyballs wrote: »

I don't think you can compare Woods and Jack btw,there were far few real opponents for Jack than Tiger has on a weekly basis,the technology issue is all relative,we will not see anyone better than Woods in or lifetime.

Are you kidding?! Jack played in the same era as Hogan, Palmer, Trevino, Player Watson....etc, all of whom have won at least 5 majors. Tiger is up against 3 time winners such as Mickelson Els Harrington and Singh.
You could say that Tiger is so dominant that nobody really has a look in, but thats becoming less and less applicable since it is becoming increasingly likely that while Woods probably will beat Nicklaus' record, he's certainly not going to obliterate it!

BombSquad

Benicetomonty wrote: »

Are you kidding?! Jack played in the same era as Hogan, Palmer, Trevino, Player Watson....etc, all of whom have won at least 5 majors.

Are you kidding? The reason why all of those guys won 5 majors is the same reason why Jack won 18. There was much less competition then for all of them. There's a lot more competiton now and that's why guys are winning less majors. That just makes Tiger's record all the more impressive.

ant043

heavyballs wrote: »

Do you really think Paddy is capable of this,come on he's played more consistently over the last 5 weeks than anyone other than Tiger,won nearly 2 mill inthe process but is not in the same league.
I don't think you can compare Woods and Jack btw,there were far few real the opponents for Jack than Tiger has on a weekly basis,the technology issue is all relative,we will not see anyone better than Woods in or lifetime.

I totally agree with this. Just think what a global sport golf has become and it's widespread popularity now. Today anyone in the field is capable of winning on any given week. When Nicklaus played Golf wasn't played to the same level it is today.

miseeire

I occasionally like to back a little on golf but with the exception of Woods,anybody can win any tournament.If he is in the mood,the rest can go home.Im not a fan but I admire brilliance.

heavyballs

ant043 wrote: »

I totally agree with this. Just think what a global sport golf has become and it's widespread popularity now. Today anyone in the field is capable of winning on any given week. When Nicklaus played Golf wasn't played to the same level it is today.

with the rewards of making it to the main tour or even the nationwide tour so huge these days the competition in the college scene in the states must be crazy.Needless to say there must be some pushy parents with the dollar sign eyes

Grey Fox

I don't agree that Nicklaus had it easier than Tiger, in fact Jack probably had mentally stronger opponents- certainly Watson was a tough cookie (and if you want to compare generations just look at Watson's Open performance this year), not to mention Johnny Miller, Trevino etc etc. Compare them to Tiger's closest rivals... Mickelson and possibly Harrington. Mickelson is a class act but he's not the same threat to Tiger that Watson was to Nicklaus.

MisterAnarchy

ant043 wrote: »

When Nicklaus played Golf wasn't played to the same level it is today.

In some ways yes,in others no.
Todays golfers are pampered with highly engineered equipment that can mask huge flaws in their swings and techniques.
Custom fitting,oversized heads,hybrid clubs,error correcting golf balls etc etc.
Back when Jack was at his peak you needed to be an excellent ball striker to be a top pro.
The likes of JB Holmes wouldnt even be a scratch golfer 30 years ago.
Some pros now dont even carry a 3 or 4 iron because they deem them too difficult to hit.
Modern golf ,especially the USPGA is all about putting,thats what it comes down to .

As for the person who said Nicklaus had it easier than Tiger,I disagree.
Nicklaus played against some of the greatest golfers and competitors of all time,legends.
Player,Watson,Trevino,Palmer,Ballesteros among a few.

It would be great to see Tiger and Nicklaus compete againt each other in their prime.
I think Nicklaus would be more than a match mentally for Woods .
Nicklaus won 8 of his majors coming from behind on the final day ,Tiger has never won any when behind after 54 holes.

Too many of Tigers competitors in tournaments disintegrate on the final day,psychologically they are weak.They are beaten before they go out onto the golf course.
YE Yang wasnt fazed by Tiger at the USPGA and he stood up to the challenge.One of very few.

heavyballs

this one could go on all night.It can't be proved either way.I don't see how anyone can say that Jack had it tougher than Tiger,how many possible winners where there in those days,look at the archives it's the same names all the time.A handfull of very good competitors and then a load of also rans,you can't honestly say that nowadays.
To be fair we should only compare both players to players they compete against.
In 2000 in Pebble beach Tiger decimated the field by 15 shots ,biggest ever major victory,check out that field.

BombSquad

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Todays golfers are pampered with highly engineered equipment that can mask huge flaws in their swings and techniques.
Custom fitting,oversized heads,hybrid clubs,error correcting golf balls etc etc.

Yeah, and everybody has access to the equipment so it's a level playing field. Also, the guys in the 60's had way better equipment than those in the 20's. Nothing new here.

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Back when Jack was at his peak you needed to be an excellent ball striker to be a top pro.
The likes of JB Holmes wouldnt even be a scratch golfer 30 years ago.

The same JB Holmes who played Walker cup and has 2 tour victories and almost beat Tiger in the matchplay last year? There are plenty of amateurs out there who hit it as far as JB. They don't have his record though.

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Some pros now dont even carry a 3 or 4 iron because they deem them too difficult to hit.

Tiger doesn't carry a 2 iron anymore. He uses his 5 wood because he can hit it higher. Same as the other guys who aren't as powerful. It's about stopping the ball on the firmer greens around today not because they can't hit them. Same with wooden drivers. They use titanium because it goes further and is easier to hit, not because they can't hit persimmon.

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

I think Nicklaus would be more than a match mentally for Woods.

Why? The statistics show that Tiger is far more clinical than Nicklaus was in finishing off tournaments in a far more competitive era.

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Too many of Tigers competitors in tournaments disintegrate on the final day,psychologically they are weak.They are beaten before they go out onto the golf course.

Typical blanket generalization you'll hear on the internet or in the pub. How much professional golf experience do you have?

Benicetomonty

BombSquad wrote: »

Are you kidding? The reason why all of those guys won 5 majors is the same reason why Jack won 18. There was much less competition then for all of them. There's a lot more competiton now and that's why guys are winning less majors. That just makes Tiger's record all the more impressive.

Completely disagree there's more competition than when Jack was playing. Back then you HAD to win to make good money, nowadays you can finish top 30 every week and be a multi-millionaire. Players worked themselves to the bone to get where they did to an extent that is matched only by a very select few in the 21st century; Harrington, Singh, Furyk and of course Woods himself spring to mind. Modern players are better because of equipment and probably better understanding of the golf swing, it has almost nothing to do with talent. Until Tiger wins 19 majors, Nicklaus will always be the best; at that level, major victories define a players ability. Woods himself would concede to that.

BombSquad

Benicetomonty wrote: »

Completely disagree there's more competition than when Jack was playing. Back then you HAD to win to make good money, nowadays you can finish top 30 every week and be a multi-millionaire. Players worked themselves to the bone to get where they did to an extent that is matched only by a very select few in the 21st century; Harrington, Singh, Furyk and of course Woods himself spring to mind.

The world's population has doubled since Nicklaus started playing in the 60's so there are way more people, way more golfers and therefore much more competition around. Who did Nicklaus beat? For most of the 60's and 70's it was Americans and Gary Player. He didn't have to compete with the much wider range of international players that are around today.

Benicetomonty wrote: »

Modern players are better because of equipment and probably better understanding of the golf swing

So modern players are better then?

Benicetomonty wrote: »

it has almost nothing to do with talent.

Strange comment.

Benicetomonty wrote: »

Until Tiger wins 19 majors, Nicklaus will always be the best; at that level, major victories define a players ability.

So if Tiger has 18 Majors, far more tour wins, more international wins, more amateur wins he's still not as good as Nicklaus?

By your rationale the only reason Nicklaus is better is because he played for longer. Up to this point in his career Woods is ahead of Nicklaus against far deeper fields at all points in his professional and amateur career.

heavyballs

Benicetomonty wrote: »

Completely disagree there's more competition than when Jack was playing.

you must be joking,yes it's easier for pro's to make money if they make it to the tour but to get there is so much harder than it was in Jack's day.Why not have a vote on this to settle it.
Tiger for me every time

G1032

Perhaps Tiger is the greatest, mabye it's Nicklaus. It'll be a never ending debate. But why not throw Bobby Jones into the equation??

He is still today the only man ever to win the Grand Slam. He also has 13 majors to his name, and for an amateur that is some going. Obviously we can only go on what we read about him now, but by all accounts he was as pure a ball striker as you'll ever find.
And Jones won all of his majors before the age of 28. He retired after winning the Grand Slam.

Tiger or Nicklaus have never won the Grand Slam. Does is count for nothing?

Benicetomonty

"So if Tiger has 18 Majors, far more tour wins, more international wins, more amateur wins he's still not as good as Nicklaus?"

No, because he'll have won 18 majors, he will be as good as Nicklaus. You could argue about Ryder Cup records, international wins, yadda, yadda,yadda till the cows come home, but the only way Tiger measures himself against Jack or anyone else is by the majors.
When he wins 19, he'll be better. And I truly believe he will. But, as I said, he's not going to obliterate the record, even if it looked like he would for a spell there in the early part of the 21st century. This alone is testament to the legacy of Jack's brilliance.



"The world's population has doubled since Nicklaus started playing in the 60's so there are way more people, way more golfers and therefore much more competition around. Who did Nicklaus beat? For most of the 60's and 70's it was Americans and Gary Player. He didn't have to compete with the much wider range of international players that are around today."

The worlds golfing population hasn't doubled, of that I assure you. The population explosion that has occured in third world countries has had little to no affect on todays major players. How many African players (outside of the British colonised South) are in the top 50 of the world? How many Chinese players are there? Bugger all. Golf has always been and remains a game for the priviliged, in addition to a few very talented but very lucky individuals. Angel Cabrera and James Kampte I would list as such examples; even Tiger had opportunities these guys never had.

If you want to make the argument that more established international players couldn't compete with Jack, I would agree to an extent. But there are reasons for this.
Peter Aliss admitted he'd been offered a number of invitations to play the Masters in his prime but rarely took them up, simply because it wasn't financially worth it. However his decisions were also attributable to the PGA Tour being overtly hardline as to who they afforded exemptions to, a stance that has really only began to change over the last few decades, even though it still needs some work (They lost out on McIllroy because they refuse to lower the obligatory number of tournaments players have to play). There was no point in the likes of Aliss going over because without tour status and the accompanying right to play a regular tour event as preparation, he had no feasible chance of acclimating to US conditions and actually winning the damn thing!
Of course there are exceptions in this instance, but very few. Gary Player took up residence in the States, that's why he bacame a household name. A European player could stay at home and make very good living even then. Not so in South Africa.

And if you want an idea of how good Jack's competitiors actually were, you need only look at where they were winning their majors. Tom Watson won the Open 5 times, consistently beating homegrown heroes in their own back garden over a 2 decade span, something none of Tiger's rivals have done mainly because they are unwilling to go anywhere outside of the US.

This is in contrast to players from relatively new golfing nations like Scandanavia and places like Japan and Korea who are willing to make this effort. But once again it is wealth and privilege combined with a simple increase in exposure to golf that has seen these countries produce world beaters, little or nothing to to do with global population increase.

"So modern players are better then?"

Because of better equipment, and increased understanding of golf technique and fitness. Because of the natural evolution of the game, modern players are able to perform more efficiently yes. Why do you think records are broken, in any sport? If you gave Hogan and Nicklaus the same tools and modern knowledge, they'd both give Woods a run for his money, of that I have no doubt.

Having said all that, the argument is pretty pointless. Tiger will never compete with the greats of the past on the same wavelength so I'll leave you with this to ponder;Woods will be better than Nicklaus when he says so. Which he never would. But since he has regularly referred to his goal of topping Jack's major haul, I think you can figure out exactly when he himself will believe it.

BombSquad

Benicetomonty wrote: »

The worlds golfing population hasn't doubled, of that I assure you.

I'd be shocked if you are right but I don't have any sure fire stats on this. What I do know is that China has gone from 0 to ~400 courses in the last 25 years. Golf has boomed in Asia and is starting to become more popular in eastern Europe and Russia. Courses are being built everywhere. Please don't suggest that the golfing population hasn't grown in the last 40 years.

Benicetomonty wrote: »

The population explosion that has occured in third world countries has had little to no affect on todays major players.

That's true about 3rd world countries but what about developed countries? At the moment the top 50 in the world includes golfers from Spain, Sweden, Columbia, Denmark, Fiji, Korea, India and Japan. Nicklaus never had to play against players from these countries. Show me a major that he won that had a Swede in the field.

Benicetomonty wrote: »

How many African players (outside of the British colonised South) are in the top 50 of the world? How many Chinese players are there? Bugger all. Golf has always been and remains a game for the priviliged,

That's less true now than it was in Nicklaus time in my opinion. The golfing boom in Ireland over the last 20 years is a prime example of this.

Benicetomonty wrote: »

If you want to make the argument that more established international players couldn't compete with Jack, I would agree to an extent. But there are reasons for this.

The reasons you list are obvious and true. You just help to prove my point that Tiger has more challengers now than Nicklaus had back in the day.

Benicetomonty wrote: »

And if you want an idea of how good Jack's competitiors actually were, you need only look at where they were winning their majors. Tom Watson won the Open 5 times, consistently beating homegrown heroes in their own back garden over a 2 decade span, something none of Tiger's rivals have done mainly because they are unwilling to go anywhere outside of the US.

Majors are for the most part played on the same courses as in Nicklaus time so Tiger's rivals are winning in the same places! Which of Tiger's rivals don't play the British Open? Els? Harrington? Singh? Mickelson? Goosen? All play the British and have won outside of the US... Even Mickelson has played more outside the US than he's given credit for. He has won in both Europe and Asia. He play's far more outside of America than the guys did in Nicklaus' time.

Benicetomonty wrote: »

Because of better equipment, and increased understanding of golf technique and fitness. Because of the natural evolution of the game, modern players are able to perform more efficiently yes. Why do you think records are broken, in any sport?

I don't see why a larger pool of talent isn't included in your list. Golfers seem to be too nostalgic to believe that anyone from the current generation could possibly be better than the past heroes even though they compete in much more competitive times...

Anyway.. it seems we're rehashing the same old argument...