The Greatest Ever

[preppyak]

This Tiger Woods discussion made me think of this...but, are we so desperate for heroes, so wanting of the "next big thing" that we have decided to prematurely call people "the greatest ever" in their sports.

They are doing it now with Tiger, despite only being about 2/3 of the way to Jack, I know comparisons are being made for LeBron and D-Wade, and there are more I am missing (Tom Brady/Peyton as best QB's, etc).

For the Tiger discussion, I know we are being pre-mature in calling him the greatest ever...he hasn't even left his physical peak, he still has many struggles ahead. I mean, I fully expect him to become the greatest, but at the moment, he's not even top 3 by the statistics.

My reasoning for that is what I call "Terrell Davis" syndrome...In 1998, when he had 2008 yds in that season and was Super Bowl MVP, if I had told you that his next 3 seasons would tally just over 1000 yds, you would have called me crazy. Maybe TD wasn't being called the greatest ever, but I do remember him getting mentioned within those heights at times...3 years later, he's done.

I'm just wondering if my feeling is shared...that maybe we should wait til the end of a career to determine greatest...or, at least until a career is well past 1/2 over (Tiger will probably play the senior tour, etc, another good 20 yrs+) before we determine it's place in history. And for the sake of the discussion, ignore the fact that ESPN needs any story they can get, and thus will never allow it to be so...consider this an ideal world.

[LeftWideOpen]

as far as tiger goes, he isnt the greatest ever until he passes nicklaus as far as im concerned.

i dont think we should be annointing people as the greatest ever until they've actually eclipsed all the records of those before them. tiger hasnt done that.

[thejetstolehome]

This Tiger Woods discussion made me think of this...but, are we so desperate for heroes, so wanting of the "next big thing" that we have decided to prematurely call people "the greatest ever" in their sports.

They are doing it now with Tiger, despite only being about 2/3 of the way to Jack, I know comparisons are being made for LeBron and D-Wade, and there are more I am missing (Tom Brady/Peyton as best QB's, etc).

For the Tiger discussion, I know we are being pre-mature in calling him the greatest ever...he hasn't even left his physical peak, he still has many struggles ahead. I mean, I fully expect him to become the greatest, but at the moment, he's not even top 3 by the statistics.

My reasoning for that is what I call "Terrell Davis" syndrome...In 1998, when he had 2008 yds in that season and was Super Bowl MVP, if I had told you that his next 3 seasons would tally just over 1000 yds, you would have called me crazy. Maybe TD wasn't being called the greatest ever, but I do remember him getting mentioned within those heights at times...3 years later, he's done.

I'm just wondering if my feeling is shared...that maybe we should wait til the end of a career to determine greatest...or, at least until a career is well past 1/2 over (Tiger will probably play the senior tour, etc, another good 20 yrs+) before we determine it's place in history. And for the sake of the discussion, ignore the fact that ESPN needs any story they can get, and thus will never allow it to be so...consider this an ideal world.

agreed. when all is said and done, tiger will be the greatest. but we should wait until all IS said and done to call him that.

[bigmike]

he's had the best 10 year stretch in golf ever. He's not the greatest golfer ever, but he's been the greatest from age 20 to age 30.

[preppyak]

he's had the best 10 year stretch in golf ever. He's not the greatest golfer ever, but he's been the greatest from age 20 to age 30.
No doubt...by the stats and reality, that's not even debatable...it's a lock.
i dont think we should be annointing people as the greatest ever until they've actually eclipsed all the records of those before them. tiger hasnt done that.
Agreed...and even if they don't neccesarily eclipse records (Jordan for instance comes to mind in some aspects), you can't determine they are better until you've seen a body of work in my mind. This is the point I think someone on ESPN made, Jordan didn't score like Wilt, or rebound like Russell, but within his body of work, overall, it's better.

Either way, that 2 of 4 people wanted to call Tiger the greatest golfer ever now on PTI just kinda made me wonder about this.

And I'm still trying to think of others we want to put that tag on...the "Greatest ever".

I think Federer is one they are trying to tag as "greatest ever" too...I may have heard that mentioned, but I don't watch enough tennis to know for sure

[Split2nd]

Slava Medvedenko is the greatest ever.


http://www.hoopsvibe.com/IMG/cache-240x240/arton21088-240x240.jpg

"Basketball is like circle"

[thejetstolehome]

Slava Medvedenko is the greatest ever.


http://www.hoopsvibe.com/IMG/cache-240x240/arton21088-240x240.jpg

"Basketball is like circle"

i can't find a good picture but: "ivan make basket!"

[KB3RG]

He struggles a lot. He needs to find his drive. Yes I know he can outdrive some without his driver and even won without using it. I agree that he should not be called the greatet ever. He is the best current icon and maybe the best global icon since MJ

[mikeford]

no one will ever be the best ever til they past Wilt Chamberlins 10,000 women

my 2 cents.

[Split2nd]

He struggles a lot. He needs to find his drive. Yes I know he can outdrive some without his driver and even won without using it. I agree that he should not be called the greatet ever. He is the best current icon and maybe the best global icon since MJ
I think Slava's drive right now could use some improvement, but the rest of his game is so good that he's fine just the way he is.

[preppyak]

I think Slava's drive right now could use some improvement, but the rest of his game is so good that he's fine just the way he is.

hahaha...well played

[hockey0001]

no one will ever be the best ever til they past Wilt Chamberlins 10,000 women

my 2 cents.


/thread

[FondestMemory]

the media gets bored. that's all it is.

they lack the drive and originality to create or find stories to interest people, so they try to pass everything off as watching history. if you don't watch him play, you're missing history. that kinda shit.

it gets old. but in reality, no matter how many times it's said, everybody knows harold miner isn't the next michael jordan, but shit, ya better watch anyway just to make sure you don't miss it if he is.

if that makes any sense.

[nfggc10]

In Tiger's case I like to look at it this way:

There's a difference between the greatest champion of all time and the greatest player. Nicklaus is the greatest champion obviously but I believe Tiger is the best player. His short game is light years ahead of Nicklaus' and that is agreed to upon by every professional I've ever heard speak about this that comparison. Tiger's ability to hit it long and fairly straight is pretty even with Jack and both hit their irons really well and were leading or near the top in greens in regulation. This leaves Tiger's chipping and putting skills as the swing department for this comparison. It's easy to look at a whole career's worth of wins and stats but when looking at actual skill I believe it's clear Tiger is better.

[justinevans]

different eras, that simple.

Technology influnces golf probably more than any other sport.

Tiger is the greatest of this era....and comparing swings, probably has the best swing.

[preppyak]

In Tiger's case I like to look at it this way:

There's a difference between the greatest champion of all time and the greatest player. Nicklaus is the greatest champion obviously but I believe Tiger is the best player. His short game is light years ahead of Nicklaus' and that is agreed to upon by every professional I've ever heard speak about this that comparison. Tiger's ability to hit it long and fairly straight is pretty even with Jack and both hit their irons really well and were leading or near the top in greens in regulation. This leaves Tiger's chipping and putting skills as the swing department for this comparison. It's easy to look at a whole career's worth of wins and stats but when looking at actual skill I believe it's clear Tiger is better.
Yeah...but I've always believed we measure our "best" by championships. Marino is great, but his lack of championships usually leaves him off the "greatest QB" discussion, etc.

Plus, if you go by skill-wise best, there are many players that never came close to their potential...doesn't mean I'd call them the best ever.

I think, in the end, you have to measure it by stats, for the most part, and in golf, that main stat used is tournaments and majors won. Right now...Nicklaus is in the lead, but, even if Tiger drops off a little, he will definitely surpass him. In 5-10 years, we should be having this conversation...but not right now

[FondestMemory]

Yeah...but I've always believed we measure our "best" by championships. Marino is great, but his lack of championships usually leaves him off the "greatest QB" discussion, etc.

Plus, if you go by skill-wise best, there are many players that never came close to their potential...doesn't mean I'd call them the best ever.

I think, in the end, you have to measure it by stats, for the most part, and in golf, that main stat used is tournaments and majors won. Right now...Nicklaus is in the lead, but, even if Tiger drops off a little, he will definitely surpass him. In 5-10 years, we should be having this conversation...but not right now

even then though, i honestly think nicklaus had tougher competition. he wasn't leaps and bounds above the field like tiger was for most of his earlier years.

i just think it's all silly, comparing eras and crap. just like wilt wouldn't put up the kind of numbers he did against today's competition and so on.

but, fuck it. gives everybody something to do.

[xbrokendownx]

Slava Medvedenko is the greatest ever.


http://www.hoopsvibe.com/IMG/cache-240x240/arton21088-240x240.jpg

"Basketball is like circle"




haha that just makes me think of stephen A saying his name, over and over...

[LeftWideOpen]

Yeah...but I've always believed we measure our "best" by championships. Marino is great, but his lack of championships usually leaves him off the "greatest QB" discussion, etc.

Plus, if you go by skill-wise best, there are many players that never came close to their potential...doesn't mean I'd call them the best ever.

I think, in the end, you have to measure it by stats, for the most part, and in golf, that main stat used is tournaments and majors won. Right now...Nicklaus is in the lead, but, even if Tiger drops off a little, he will definitely surpass him. In 5-10 years, we should be having this conversation...but not right now

plus you have to consider the advances in strength training and equipment that Tiger is privleged to. You can't really compare the two unless they were in identical situations and that just isnt possible in sports. So what we have to go by is success and championships. That is, after all, the goal in athletics.

[bigmike]

the media gets bored. that's all it is.

they lack the drive and originality to create or find stories to interest people, so they try to pass everything off as watching history. if you don't watch him play, you're missing history. that kinda shit.

it gets old. but in reality, no matter how many times it's said, everybody knows harold miner isn't the next michael jordan, but shit, ya better watch anyway just to make sure you don't miss it if he is.

if that makes any sense.
yeah, be the media is talking about a kid coming out of college into the NBA and being compared to mike. This is like if Lebron's career stays the way it's been going, and in 10 years from now when/if he's got half as many rings as Jordan, the comparisons are coming. i think, in this case, it is warranted and something that needs to be looked at.

I'm not willing to call him greatest of all time but there's a great case to be made for it, already. However, his 10 year stretch is by far the greatest, IMO, hands down.

[Scott Weber]

Tiger gets that hype because he IS that dominant and he's still winning. I think he can be called best ever in some senses because nobody, not even Nicklaus, dominated the game for a period of time like he has. He will most likely break all of Jack's records to technically deserve it, but I don't think the claims are unfounded.

[nfggc10]

even then though, i honestly think nicklaus had tougher competition. he wasn't leaps and bounds above the field like tiger was for most of his earlier years.
Alot of people bring this up but I never understand it. It's true that there were more great pressure players such as palmer, player, trevino, and watson but the people capable of winning majors right now is way higher. The courses are actually set up much more difficult now. It was alot easier for Nicklaus to over power these 68-6900 yard courses than it is for Tiger to over power these 74-7600 yard courses. With the amount of rough around the greens and the firmness and speeds of the actual greens themselves, they make Tiger's short game look even more amazing that he can pull off any shot.

I still don't get the "we measure players by championships" argument. The Marino argument would be like saying Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer were better because they each have a ring. Tiger is clearly a better all-around player than Jack was and his major championship total just needs time in order to reflect that. In addition, he's ahead of Jack's pace when he was 30 on every key winning stat including majors.

[nfggc10]

Yeah...but I've always believed we measure our "best" by championships. Marino is great, but his lack of championships usually leaves him off the "greatest QB" discussion, etc.
It's also too hard to compare team sports players to individual players. Marino's numbers speak for themselves and regardless of how great he was, he can only do so much as one player.

[we are cured]

even then though, i honestly think nicklaus had tougher competition. he wasn't leaps and bounds above the field like tiger was for most of his earlier years.

i just think it's all silly, comparing eras and crap. just like wilt wouldn't put up the kind of numbers he did against today's competition and so on.

but, fuck it. gives everybody something to do.

Tougher competition? No way dude. First of all, there are way more scratch/better golfers today than there were 50 years ago. Technology may have something to do with that, but it doesn't explain why the scores in major championships are relatively the same as they were 40-50 years ago. Courses have been adjusted to keep up with technology boom, and the toughest courses are playing 10x harder than they were 50 years ago.

Second, the fact that there have been great swings (Hogan, Snead, Faldo, even Tiger) coupled with the technology to analyze them has enabled more golfers to develop great motion. Thus, more good swings and good golfers. Note that this doesn't have a thing to do w/ mental focus. Tiger's swing is one of the best ever because it is a.) the most powerful and b.) the most consistent. He gets into trouble w/ his driver because he has so much flex in his body, and it's very hard to coordinate a club of that length with his body motion. But his mental focus is ridiculous. He gets a 54 hole lead and DOESN'T LOSE. Nobody has dominated his competition over a 10 year span like Tiger has.

That being said, everyone is obsessed with the numbers- 18 majors, 82 tour victories. Assuming he continues at even half the pace he's going, he's probably going to get there- if not, it will be close. But his numbers right now- 10, 50- are AMAZING considering the level of compeition that goes out there every Sunday. The 156th player in the field today would have been a top level player 50 years ago..it's just not even close. Not to say that Nicklaus wouldn't fare well today, because when it comes down to it the game is all course management. But it would have been a hell of a lot harder for him to do what he did then, in today's game.

[we are cured]

Alot of people bring this up but I never understand it. It's true that there were more great pressure players such as palmer, player, trevino, and watson but the people capable of winning majors right now is way higher. The courses are actually set up much more difficult now. It was alot easier for Nicklaus to over power these 68-6900 yard courses than it is for Tiger to over power these 74-7600 yard courses. With the amount of rough around the greens and the firmness and speeds of the actual greens themselves, they make Tiger's short game look even more amazing that he can pull off any shot.

I still don't get the "we measure players by championships" argument. The Marino argument would be like saying Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer were better because they each have a ring. Tiger is clearly a better all-around player than Jack was and his major championship total just needs time in order to reflect that. In addition, he's ahead of Jack's pace when he was 30 on every key winning stat including majors.

Closing in golf is something very different than any other sport. There is no flow and adrenaline to keep your head out of what is going on, like there would be in the Super Bowl. The fact that he can shut his emotions and feelings down in these situations is ridiculous. I would actually argue that there are more pressure players today, but that there's just so many of them that it's tough to stand out from the pack. Another point for Tiger.

I agree with you though about championships. And to add to that, how are we sure that the championship held in 1967 is of the same quality and compeition as the one in 2006?

edit: i'd say closing in golf is very similar to closing in baseball, pressure and situation-wise. except that in baseball, you're not finishing what YOU started.

[preppyak]

Alot of people bring this up but I never understand it. It's true that there were more great pressure players such as palmer, player, trevino, and watson but the people capable of winning majors right now is way higher. The courses are actually set up much more difficult now. It was alot easier for Nicklaus to over power these 68-6900 yard courses than it is for Tiger to over power these 74-7600 yard courses. With the amount of rough around the greens and the firmness and speeds of the actual greens themselves, they make Tiger's short game look even more amazing that he can pull off any shot.
Except, that is exactly how Tiger won his early years. It was his sheer power with accuracy that won him events. "Tiger proofing" didn't hurt him, it helped him. Why, witha guy who outdirves most people by 20 yards on a hole (I'm talking early in his career) would you make every hole 20 yards longer. I think the lengthening of courses actually helped Tiger excel, not hurt him, so I think that argument may not be dead on.

I think your point that majors and tourneys are harder to win is valid actually...with the way clubs and balls have become, guys that normally wouldn't be competitors have become challengers. There are always 5-10 names at the top being mentioned as people who can beat Tiger

Now, here is what makes Tiger interesting, and this debate harder. Tiger turned all of that into dominance by having his distance coupled with an incredible short game. And, since he still maintains taht, I have no doubt he will surpass Jack, and by a decent amount. But, as of August 2006, Jack Nicklaus' career as a golfer is more impressive than Tiger Woods' career as a golfer...and in turn, makes Jack the greater golfer as of now

I still don't get the "we measure players by championships" argument. The Marino argument would be like saying Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer were better because they each have a ring. Tiger is clearly a better all-around player than Jack was and his major championship total just needs time in order to reflect that. In addition, he's ahead of Jack's pace when he was 30 on every key winning stat including majors. Except, Dilfer and Johnson are never in that discussion, their other numbers don't support it

Think of how ESPN rated quarterbacks this year. They saw two men clearly at the top, Brady and Peyton. Who did they put #1, Brady, because he has the rings that Peyton doesn't.

When we compare our greastest of all time, those with top 5 stat lines, etc...Marino will probably always come 3rd or 4th at best, just because Montana, Elway, etc had similiar stat lines, but translated it to Super Bowl rings. Whether or not it should be that way is a different debate, but, I don't think you can deny that is how we judge it.

[preppyak]

Tougher competition? No way dude. First of all, there are way more scratch/better golfers today than there were 50 years ago. Technology may have something to do with that, but it doesn't explain why the scores in major championships are relatively the same as they were 40-50 years ago. Courses have been adjusted to keep up with technology boom, and the toughest courses are playing 10x harder than they were 50 years ago.

Second, the fact that there have been great swings (Hogan, Snead, Faldo, even Tiger) coupled with the technology to analyze them has enabled more golfers to develop great motion. Thus, more good swings and good golfers. Note that this doesn't have a thing to do w/ mental focus. Tiger's swing is one of the best ever because it is a.) the most powerful and b.) the most consistent. He gets into trouble w/ his driver because he has so much flex in his body, and it's very hard to coordinate a club of that length with his body motion. But his mental focus is ridiculous. He gets a 54 hole lead and DOESN'T LOSE. Nobody has dominated his competition over a 10 year span like Tiger has.

That being said, everyone is obsessed with the numbers- 18 majors, 82 tour victories. Assuming he continues at even half the pace he's going, he's probably going to get there- if not, it will be close. But his numbers right now- 10, 50- are AMAZING considering the level of compeition that goes out there every Sunday. The 156th player in the field today would have been a top level player 50 years ago..it's just not even close. Not to say that Nicklaus wouldn't fare well today, because when it comes down to it the game is all course management. But it would have been a hell of a lot harder for him to do what he did then, in today's game.
And what you raise is interesting...but, I still think Jack, with longevity and number-wise is better than Tiger still at this moment.

If Tiger ended his career with 81 victories and 17 majors, say he retires early, or has an ending injury, I think we would still call him the greatest golfer ever...just for his dominance in this time frame.

I don't think the numbers matter when they are close, but Tiger isn't even at 2/3 of Jack's numbers currently, so how can we say he has already trumped him. We are extrapolating numbers, ignoring the fact that they are possibilities, not certainties

I meant, look at them side by side and tell me I'm wrong

________Jack__Tiger__Difference

Wins ___81____ 50___ 31 (62% of what Jack has)
Majors__18____ 11____ 7 (61% of what Jack has)

[nfggc10]

Except, that is exactly how Tiger won his early years. It was his sheer power with accuracy that won him events. "Tiger proofing" didn't hurt him, it helped him. Why, witha guy who outdirves most people by 20 yards on a hole (I'm talking early in his career) would you make every hole 20 yards longer. I think the lengthening of courses actually helped Tiger excel, not hurt him, so I think that argument may not be dead on.

I think your point that majors and tourneys are harder to win is valid actually...with the way clubs and balls have become, guys that normally wouldn't be competitors have become challengers. There are always 5-10 names at the top being mentioned as people who can beat Tiger

Now, here is what makes Tiger interesting, and this debate harder. Tiger turned all of that into dominance by having his distance coupled with an incredible short game. And, since he still maintains taht, I have no doubt he will surpass Jack, and by a decent amount. But, as of August 2006, Jack Nicklaus' career as a golfer is more impressive than Tiger Woods' career as a golfer...and in turn, makes Jack the greater golfer as of now
Except, Dilfer and Johnson are never in that discussion, their other numbers don't support it

Think of how ESPN rated quarterbacks this year. They saw two men clearly at the top, Brady and Peyton. Who did they put #1, Brady, because he has the rings that Peyton doesn't.

When we compare our greastest of all time, those with top 5 stat lines, etc...Marino will probably always come 3rd or 4th at best, just because Montana, Elway, etc had similiar stat lines, but translated it to Super Bowl rings. Whether or not it should be that way is a different debate, but, I don't think you can deny that is how we judge it.

You raise alot of great points but I am not debating whose career is better because Nicklaus' career is over and we know how many tournaments he went on to win. The only point I'm trying to make is that he is a better player than Jack was.

As far as the QB thing goes I think Peyton is much better than Brady but as a team the Colts havent had the success that New England has had. I'm one of the few I guess that judge a player based on talent and ability and however many rings they end up winning is a result of the TEAM. But it's too hard to completely compare unless you put Peyton on those Patriot teams and see if he could've won those Super Bowls which he probably could have.

[nfggc10]

Closing in golf is something very different than any other sport. There is no flow and adrenaline to keep your head out of what is going on, like there would be in the Super Bowl. The fact that he can shut his emotions and feelings down in these situations is ridiculous. I would actually argue that there are more pressure players today, but that there's just so many of them that it's tough to stand out from the pack. Another point for Tiger.

I agree with you though about championships. And to add to that, how are we sure that the championship held in 1967 is of the same quality and compeition as the one in 2006?

edit: i'd say closing in golf is very similar to closing in baseball, pressure and situation-wise. except that in baseball, you're not finishing what YOU started.
See I have to disagree with that. Phil Mickelson said most of his close calls in majors that he lost were due to him letting momentum take over and control his flow instead of taking his time and concentrating on the moment and not getting ahead of himself. In golf, the player is out there by himself and has alot more time to think of all the possibilities(from how he could screw up to all the things that will come to him if he can win) and he doesn't have a running back to shoulder the load to run out the clock or a closer to come in and get the last few outs for him. Momentum is almost more significant as far as a golfer is concerned because he only has himself to control his emotions and the pressure is all on the player.

[preppyak]

My main contention wiht Tiger is this...he is so clearly the greatest golfer of this era, it's staggering. I mean, he went like a year and a half without a major and it was called a "Slump" and that he had "lost it". I mean, 99% of golfers go 5 times that distance between majors, and it's called normal. He is so great, they change even the notions of logic to find a flaw or defect in him.

And I think, in the end, his numbers will look like Gretzgy (the 2nd person on the points list has in points what Gretyzgy has in assists basically...its absurd to see)...his dominance will be so clear that the fact anyone questioned his being "the greatest" will seem foolish.

But, that's 10 years, 15 years from now. Just think of what Tiger has gone through in one year, he lost his father, he missed a major cut...sure, he overcame them to win, but there are years of struggles ahead, and how they effect him we can't know.

I think in calling him great, you say "I'm watching the guy who probably will be the greatest ever". When I tell people about watching him 20-30 years from now, I'll say "I watched the greatest ever", but right now, it's being short-sighted to say it's a guarantee he is the greatest ever...it's still a reach

[we are cured]

And what you raise is interesting...but, I still think Jack, with longevity and number-wise is better than Tiger still at this moment.

If Tiger ended his career with 81 victories and 17 majors, say he retires early, or has an ending injury, I think we would still call him the greatest golfer ever...just for his dominance in this time frame.

I don't think the numbers matter when they are close, but Tiger isn't even at 2/3 of Jack's numbers currently, so how can we say he has already trumped him. We are extrapolating numbers, ignoring the fact that they are possibilities, not certainties

I meant, look at them side by side and tell me I'm wrong

________Jack__Tiger__Difference

Wins ___81____ 50___ 31 (62% of what Jack has)
Majors__18____ 11____ 7 (61% of what Jack has)

First of all, Jack only had 73 Tour victories. Nicklaus is 65 and Tiger is 30. With the shape and health he keeps, he should be in his prime for another 10-15 years. I believe that Woods is and will be greater than Jack, but I agree that is arguable. What is not arguable is his greater domination over a way stronger group of golfers (this of course is a 10 year short term period).

Actually though, I think you're onto something. Except you forgot to include the most important stat of all- Nicklaus' 2nd place finishes, in the majors and on tour. The guy was runner up 19 times in the majors..that is out of control.

[preppyak]

You raise alot of great points but I am not debating whose career is better because Nicklaus' career is over and we know how many tournaments he went on to win. The only point I'm trying to make is that he is a better player than Jack was.
True...I mean, I didn't watch Jack play like I have Tiger, but from the rounds I've seen via ESPN Classis, etc...you'd be dead on.

[preppyak]

First of all, Jack only had 73 Tour victories. Nicklaus is 65 and Tiger is 30. With the shape and health he keeps, he should be in his prime for another 10-15 years. I believe that Woods is and will be greater than Jack, but I agree that is arguable. What is not arguable is his greater domination over a way stronger group of golfers (this of course is a 10 year short term period).

Actually though, I think you're onto something. Except you forgot to include the most important stat of all- Nicklaus' 2nd place finishes, in the majors and on tour. The guy was runner up 19 times in the majors..that is out of control.

Hmm...I thought 81 seemed wrong...I was going off of another post I believe though.

True, he has dominated, and that's why I brought in my Gretzgy analogy there, he seems like his eventual numbers are going to be so much greater that we sit back and laugh at how ridiculous it is.

And the Nicklaus stat is interesting because it shows the one thing that makes Tiger, eventually, significantly better. Jack didn't close every tournament, he didn't win every last round lead like Tiger has. If Jack's top 3 finishes were wins, he's have 40+ majors...but, he doesn't, because his killer instinct isn't quite up to par with Tiger's

I'd like to say, that 10-20 years from now, Tiger is probably going to be considered the most dominant athlete ever. In terms of closing out wins, winning overall, and control over decades, he will be unmatched. He'll make Jordan and Bird look like they couldn't close out a game. And he doesn't even need to be as dominant as he is now to make that happen, he can drop-off and still be much better than everyone else. But, I think we should wait 5 years to make that claim.

And I'll keep making analogies in hopes that one click through wiht my point. When Bond's was at 500 HR's...nobody was calling him the greatest HR hitter ever...but, people were thinking he could be if he kept up his pace. Now (steriods have clouded this of course), when he is within 30ish HR's, placing him within that spectrum isn't a stretch, it's easily backed up.

Maybe we should do the same with Tiger, wait until he has 16 majors or 70 wins before naming him the greatest ever...

[we are cured]

Hmm...I thought 81 seemed wrong...I was going off of another post I believe though.

True, he has dominated, and that's why I brought in my Gretzgy analogy there, he seems like his eventual numbers are going to be so much greater that we sit back and laugh at how ridiculous it is.


Right now, Nicklaus is Gretzky and Tiger is Lemieux (w/o the injuries). Imagine Lemieux was healthy? His numbers would be up there.

[nfggc10]

Hmm...I thought 81 seemed wrong...I was going off of another post I believe though.

True, he has dominated, and that's why I brought in my Gretzgy analogy there, he seems like his eventual numbers are going to be so much greater that we sit back and laugh at how ridiculous it is.

And the Nicklaus stat is interesting because it shows the one thing that makes Tiger, eventually, significantly better. Jack didn't close every tournament, he didn't win every last round lead like Tiger has. If Jack's top 3 finishes were wins, he's have 40+ majors...but, he doesn't, because his killer instinct isn't quite up to par with Tiger's

I'd like to say, that 10-20 years from now, Tiger is probably going to be considered the most dominant athlete ever. In terms of closing out wins, winning overall, and control over decades, he will be unmatched. He'll make Jordan and Bird look like they couldn't close out a game. And he doesn't even need to be as dominant as he is now to make that happen, he can drop-off and still be much better than everyone else. But, I think we should wait 5 years to make that claim.

And I'll keep making analogies in hopes that one click through wiht my point. When Bond's was at 500 HR's...nobody was calling him the greatest HR hitter ever...but, people were thinking he could be if he kept up his pace. Now (steriods have clouded this of course), when he is within 30ish HR's, placing him within that spectrum isn't a stretch, it's easily backed up.

Maybe we should do the same with Tiger, wait until he has 16 majors or 70 wins before naming him the greatest ever...
82 is actually Sam Snead's record # of tour wins. Tiger can get that easily if he wants to and keeps a relatively close pace to what he's done so far. Another thing that Tiger has over Jack is his cuts made streak. This is further proof of how much more dominant he's been than Jack was. Jack's fields weren't even close to the depth that they are now. I am go to venture out and say Tiger is the strongest athlete in the last 50 years at least as far as his mind. His ability to concentrate and block out pressure cannot be matched in any sport. This is part of the reason why he has won so many tournaments when he's not even playing that good.

[preppyak]

I am go to venture out and say Tiger is the strongest athlete in the last 50 years at least as far as his mind. His ability to concentrate and block out pressure cannot be matched in any sport. This is part of the reason why he has won so many tournaments when he's not even playing that good.
I'll agree there...that was the point I threw in in that last rant I had...that in the end, he will be THE most dominant player for his sheer will power to win.

[nfggc10]

I'll agree there...that was the point I threw in in that last rant I had...that in the end, he will be THE most dominant player for his sheer will power to win.
This factor is again going to make his longevity even more probably because the younger players coming up have no chance of matching his mental strength despite the influx of sports psychologists. These abilities need to be pressed up at a very young age because the human mind is almost impossible to alter its way of thinking once you get older. These kids coming up now focus all their time in hitting it long and spending every hour on the driving range instead of a short game facility. Yeah they'll be able to overpower courses when they're hitting it great but when they're a tad off they won't have the ability to score around the greens. Tiger is by far the most consistent putter and is about 99.9% from 5 feet and in where you see other players miss many of them down the stretch.