The best OF HIS time

[limpalong]

Originally Posted by Sandpiper3

This thread is in no way means to take away from Tiger's talent to be able to wipe competition off the face of the earth at his whim, just to voice my opinion that you can't justifiably call him "The best golfer ever".

I tend to agree with you. Tiger will probably go down in the books as "The best golfer ever". That claim, however, will be justified by numbers and statistics. Running a 100 yard dash today or 20 years ago was the same distance and was against a clock. It is different with golf!

Tiger is the most fundamentally sound golfer ever. His athleticism, his mental conditioning, his domination of the competitors of today is astounding. Tiger has driven the gravey train that has brought huge purses and endorsement contracts to this sport. That blessing also contains the curse that, in my opinion, nullifies a strict statistical qualifying criteria for "The best golfer ever."

As Hogan, Snead, Nelson, Palmer, Trevino, Nicklaus played this game the purses and endorsement contracts were minimal. Players traveled tourney to tourney in their personal cars. No one had private jets or could afford to charter planes. Purses were small and the real money was made through some of the betting pools that accompanied the tournaments. The players needed every penny they won to get to the next tourney or to pay rent. The strong scratched their way to the top. The competition was fierce!

Today's professional golf environment is uniquely different. Huge endorsement contracts allow the top 100 to live quite well. Large purses saw the top 80 or so win over $1 million this year. That'll pay rent and hotels for a while! The competition, today, is different. The competition today is to stay in the top 100, or so, and maintain your lucrative lifestyle. You don't have to be in the top 3 or 5 to eek out a living.

Does that lessen the accomplishments of Tiger and Phil and Chris and Ernie? Certainly not! To stay in the top 25 today takes a talent not before known on this earth. Yet, it is simply a different environment than Hogan knew.

Today, Tiger may well have earned the title of "The best golfer of all time". Yet, those who place the crown on his head will certainly hear the arguments that there are others just as deserving. In my opinion, it is impossible to qualify the best golfer of all time due to the transition this game has undergone. I would much rather hear people crown the best golfers of various generations, or decades, or eras. "...all time..." is a fairly large mouthful on which to chew.

[demon]

Originally Posted by limpalong

I tend to agree with you. Tiger will probably go down in the books as "The best golfer ever". That claim, however, will be justified by numbers and statistics. Running a 100 yard dash today or 20 years ago was the same distance and was against a clock. It is different with golf!

Tiger is the most fundamentally sound golfer ever. His athleticism, his mental conditioning, his domination of the competitors of today is astounding. Tiger has driven the gravey train that has brought huge purses and endorsement contracts to this sport. That blessing also contains the curse that, in my opinion, nullifies a strict statistical qualifying criteria for "The best golfer ever."

As Hogan, Snead, Nelson, Palmer, Trevino, Nicklaus played this game the purses and endorsement contracts were minimal. Players traveled tourney to tourney in their personal cars. No one had private jets or could afford to charter planes. Purses were small and the real money was made through some of the betting pools that accompanied the tournaments. The players needed every penny they won to get to the next tourney or to pay rent. The strong scratched their way to the top. The competition was fierce!

Today's professional golf environment is uniquely different. Huge endorsement contracts allow the top 100 to live quite well. Large purses saw the top 80 or so win over $1 million this year. That'll pay rent and hotels for a while! The competition, today, is different. The competition today is to stay in the top 100, or so, and maintain your lucrative lifestyle. You don't have to be in the top 3 or 5 to eek out a living.

Does that lessen the accomplishments of Tiger and Phil and Chris and Ernie? Certainly not! To stay in the top 25 today takes a talent not before known on this earth. Yet, it is simply a different environment than Hogan knew.

Today, Tiger may well have earned the title of "The best golfer of all time". Yet, those who place the crown on his head will certainly hear the arguments that there are others just as deserving. In my opinion, it is impossible to qualify the best golfer of all time due to the transition this game has undergone. I would much rather hear people crown the best golfers of various generations, or decades, or eras. "...all time..." is a fairly large mouthful on which to chew.

Arnold Palmer, Nick Faldo, Jack Nicklaus, Paul Azinger, and many more have already bowed down and stated that he will be the best of all time. I would strongly disagree with you that some of the tour players just want to stay in the top 100 to live a life of luxury. I would bet serious money that they love golf as much as the many of us on this board and try there hardest to win day after day. When you have a guy that has so much talent that he wins over 35% of the time he enters a tournament and most of the other times he is lurking at the top ten it is very demoralizing but you still want to win. If I were lucky enough to ever get to play a round with Tiger or anyone on the top 10 world rankings I would try my hardest to beat them in that round of golf even if it were a hopeless cause, after all most of the guys on tour are winners since it is so difficult just to get on tour.

[bames]

Originally Posted by demon

... If I were lucky enough to ever get to play a round with Tiger or anyone on the top 10 world rankings I would try my hardest to beat them in that round of golf even if it were a hopeless cause, after all most of the guys on tour are winners since it is so difficult just to get on tour.

Maybe this is what hurts their scores! Did you see the article in Golf Digest this month about playing with Tiger? They compiled data for something along the lines of 400 rounds that charts his playing partner vs. Tiger. Pretty interesting.

[Sandpiper3]

Theres a difference between the way people are "going up against" Tiger, and wat im sure demon means about trying his hardest to beat the best players. I agree fully and i would do the same thing as demon.

What he probly means is that even though in the back of his mind he or I would have to play lights out with help from them, theres still a chance and he'd give his all and play to the best of his ability.

Am i right/rightish?

[bames]

Originally Posted by Sandpiper3

Theres a difference between the way people are "going up against" Tiger, and wat im sure demon means about trying his hardest to beat the best players. I agree fully and i would do the same thing as demon.

What he probly means is that even though in the back of his mind he or I would have to play lights out with help from them, theres still a chance and he'd give his all and play to the best of his ability.

Am i right/rightish?

Sarcasim is difficult at times to portray with the written word! I fully believe that any one of us would try and play to the best of our ability (well except for Ezra, he would probably just try and ho Tiger's clubs off him the whole round ). What I was referring to is that I wonder if players try too hard and lose their normal game when playing with/against Tiger. Either to impress, prove something, or try to be David to the PGAs Goliath.

[limpalong]

Originally Posted by demon

Arnold Palmer, Nick Faldo, Jack Nicklaus, Paul Azinger, and many more have already bowed down and stated that he will be the best of all time. I would strongly disagree with you that some of the tour players just want to stay in the top 100 to live a life of luxury. I would bet serious money that they love golf as much as the many of us on this board and try there hardest to win day after day. When you have a guy that has so much talent that he wins over 35% of the time he enters a tournament and most of the other times he is lurking at the top ten it is very demoralizing but you still want to win. If I were lucky enough to ever get to play a round with Tiger or anyone on the top 10 world rankings I would try my hardest to beat them in that round of golf even if it were a hopeless cause, after all most of the guys on tour are winners since it is so difficult just to get on tour.

I do not disagree with anything you say. Sports Illustrated had a great article a month of so ago about Johnny Unitas. When U quarterbacked the Colts, every player on the team had a "real job" to pay their bills and still played professional football. The married players rented small duplexes. Many of the single players roomed together to save on expenses. Football was their life... their passion... their calling... but the money available at the top level did not allow total commitment to the game.

We moved into our first home with running water in 1951. I know what a 'thunder pot' is and when you used it. I know what it was like to help drag the bath tub in on the back porch and wait for Mom to heat water so we could take turns bathing. Today's generation has no less character simply because technology has allowed them some luxuries the earlier generations did not enjoy. Likewise, today's golfers are no less skilled because of the forerunners. Anyone, however, who makes an attempt to lump ALL generations of golfers together and crown a single one of those as the "best" MUST take into consideration the differences in the game of 1956 and the game of 2006. Just my opinion.

[emc]

The thing with the pros is, they go 'up against' Tiger and try to outplay Tiger instead of playing one shot at a time, playing the course

[Wildbore]

Tiger is no doubt the best of HIS time. However, Tiger is not the best ever. People can keep saying that if they want, but its a pile of rubbish until he actually passes Jack's records. There is still tons of doubt that Tiger will even make it to Jack's 18 majors, or Snead's 80+ wins.

We know Tiger can have off years, who knows when he will string together a set of off years. Having a child could do that to him. As he ages, he could just get more inconsistant in general. Plus as his schedule gets more slack, as it constantly does, he will have less chances to win more.

Also, we saw Vijay, Ernie, Retief were all off their games last season. All three of those players normally win 3-5 events. No wonder Tiger had one of his best years ever, when the other top players are injured or finding their game, its not hard to pocket tons of tournaments. In 2007, Tiger would be lucky to do half of what he did last season.

Plus the young talent is only starting to rise to the top. Guys like Immelman, Scott, Donald, Garcia, once those players mature, they will start giving Tiger more competition. I can't tell you when they will mature, but until they do, obviously Tiger will feast on more events.

[sssmokin]

We're all very fortunate to be able to watch one of the greatest sports athletes of all time do his thing. When his career is over, there will be no doubt that he's the best golfer ever. I think the competition that he faces each week is much more talented than those other great golfers of the past went up against, except for Nicklaus. It goes beyond his fantastic talent to the mental game, and that's what seperates the greats from the other equally talented golfers.

[chemboy2]

Originally Posted by sssmokin

We're all very fortunate to be able to watch one of the greatest sports athletes of all time do his thing. When his career is over, there will be no doubt that he's the best golfer ever. I think the competition that he faces each week is much more talented than those other great golfers of the past went up against, except for Nicklaus. It goes beyond his fantastic talent to the mental game, and that's what seperates the greats from the other equally talented golfers.

Today's round was just another example of the mental side of this game. The two younger guys both mental breakdowns at the start of the back 9. Mean while, Tiger makes a couple of huge par saves in clutch and then clinches with a birdie on 17. (not to mention a clutch up and down on 18)

Some folks might argue that the leaders came back to him. Well, I would agree with them if Tiger got the win by shooting a 70 but he went out and carded a 66!

[Fourputt]

Just as an example of how different it was, out of 26 appearances in Jacks 1st season on Tour in 1962 he won 3 times, finished 2nd twice and 3rd four times, was ranked 3rd and his total winnings for the year: $61,868. His best year on Tour was 1972 with 19 official tournaments played, 7 wins, 3 seconds, ranked 1st overall... total season winnings $320,542. These days that's chump change for 3rd or 4th place in one tournament.

Not trying to take anything away from Tiger... I'm a fan and like many others, I rarely watch the Tour on weeks when he isn't in the field. But you just can't compare apples to watermelons. In Jack's day there was truly an incentive to excel. If you didn't finish fairly high, you wouldn't even earn the entry fee for the next week, much less living expenses. Let's face it, a lot of today's players are satisfied with making a good living and couldn't really care less about winning. If it happens fine, but they aren't going to take a risky shot when sitting one shot up on 3rd or 4th place when that shot could cost them $200,000. In Jack's day, you only got endorsements for high achievment, now as long as they make an occasional TV appearance they get sponsorship to cover most, if not all, of their expenses, with plenty left over. Right now, one month into the season, everyone in the top 100 has already made just on tournament winnings what I did last year in my base wage. Most of them have also got sweet endorsement deals too, so where does the real incentive come from?

Today's PGA Tour is a field of journeyman type players with a half dozen at the top who truly want to to win, and set their goals on that. The rest know that they have a chance to make really good money for 15-20 years, as long as they just play it smart and keep making cuts. And they get to do it while playing a game they love to play anyway... no downside unless they screw up.

It's a different Tour than the one Jack joined in 1962, and his Tour was different from the one that Hogan played in before that. So any comparisons will always be tainted by the way the game changes over the years. We have several players who are or were the best of their era, but I don't think there will ever be consensus on anyone for best ever, no matter what records are broken along the way.

[demon]

Originally Posted by chemboy2

Today's round was just another example of the mental side of this game. The two younger guys both mental breakdowns at the start of the back 9. Mean while, Tiger makes a couple of huge par saves in clutch and then clinches with a birdie on 17. (not to mention a clutch up and down on 18)

Some folks might argue that the leaders came back to him. Well, I would agree with them if Tiger got the win by shooting a 70 but he went out and carded a 66!

Dont forget about the eagle, how awesome was that?

[chemboy2]

Originally Posted by demon

Dont forget about the eagle, how awesome was that?

That was huge, however, at that same time Buckle went birdie-birdie on 9-10 and was showing no signs of slowing. Hell, Quinney was coming off a 4-under stretch on holes 6-8. I was actually starting to think that Buckle just may pull this one off. It was what Tiger did on the back 9 (and what he routinely does on Sunday back 9s) that sets him apart; he just kept making clutch pars with a couple of birdies throw into the mix.

Coming into 17 Buckle and Quinney were out of the picture but Howell was putting something together. What does Tiger do? He rolls in one last birdie to ensure Howell finishes no better than 2nd.

Now, had the putt on 13 dropped in for eagle; that would have just been crazy!

[sssmokin]

Fourputt said: These days that's chump change for 3rd or 4th place in one tournament.

You're talking about money as incentive............I think Tiger has all the money he'll ever need in his life. With him, it goes beyond money. He just wants to win. I think it was the same with Jack, and all the other great champions.

[demon]

Intimidation is the key to his victories, he can really turn it on when he has too and people know it. The Golf Channel was predicting that he was going to win because he was right on target to take it even though he was a good ways back on Friday. Did you guys see how he was monitoring Quinney and Buckle by watching the crowds reaction to the holes in front of him and behind him? He knows what he has to do by the reaction, and if he knows he has to step it up he does, this is scary since he has the ability to play great and is able to step it up to the point of being insanely good.