Tiger!

[Hidy Ho]

>>Last year there was a picture and brief article in Golf Magazine about a promising young 1/2 Thai + 1/2 Korean girl who looks like a potential future star on the LPGA tour. <<

 

I believe you are referring to Aree Song, who also has a twin sister Naree Song (in futures tour, I believe). They were both awesome young amateurs but Aree seemed to have moved past her sister in recent years.

 

Their father is Korean and wanted her daughters to have his name and nationality ... and I believe the girls had until 18 yrs old to pick a nationality ... that was the main reason

 

Generally speaking, Koreans, unlike Thai, do not accept 1/2 Koreans as their own. They are still very much xenophobic.

 

Jack's last win at The Masters, at age 46, was pretty inspiring and awesome. I don't see Tiger playing at that age.

[dean]

Tiger hasn't always "closed the deal' when in a position to do so in majors. At the British Open at Royal St. George 2 years ago, he was one or two strokes off the lead going into the final round. He was beat by Ben Curtis, whose Open victory was his first as a professional and his only victory so far. So confidant were the bookies that Tiger would win that they made Curtis a 50-1 shot on Sunday morning to win (he was I think 2,000-1 at the begining of the Open). Tiger should be a favorite to break Jack's record but it isn't a certainty. If he wins 19 majors, I don't think that he will be leading all of them at the end of 3 rounds.

[Hidy Ho]

>>Tiger hasn't always "closed the deal' when in a position to do so in majors. <<

 

He has now 9-0 in majors and 31-3 overall win-loss record when leading or tied for the lead after 3rd round. I'd say that's pretty much closing the deal ...

[dean]

Yes, I would agree that under your defination of "closing the deal," Tiger is undefeated in Majors and has always closed the deal. My defination is that when you are in a position to win, you do win. Tiger didn't do that at Royal St. George. Simple as that!

[USVirgin]

Hi Dean,

 

Sorry for the late reply, but you make fair points.

 

It's hard to judge the game on stats, and you may

have watched more of the match than I, so I appreciate

your perspective.

 

I was only trying to point out from his putting stats, that he wasn't THAT bad. Timing and situation is everything.

[Zorro]

The thing with Tiger is that he is playing in an era where there are so many more golfers capable of winning a major than there was in Jack's day.

 

The depth in golf today is astounding.

I am not trying to belittle his accomplishments but they need to put into perspective.

Nicklaus only had three of four golfers who were capable of beating him but today the golfers are so good that almost anyone in the field is capable of winning.

Tiger is dominating in an era where it is extremely difficult to dominate given the number of great players out there.

[dean]

That all right. Its too bad that DiMarco had such a lousy 3rd round but, to give Tiger his due, DiMarco was probably shaken seeing Tiger in his rear view mirror. Are there better golfers now than 20-40 years ago? I was watching a re-play of the Tom Watson-Jack Nicklaus duel at Turnberry in 1977 and they said Watson won around 12,000 sterling for winning the tournement. Now, most tournaments offer around $1,000,000 to the winner and the top 20 finishers do quite well. With endorsement money and appearance money (outside of the U.S.), an average player can rake in milloins of dollars a year. For that kind of money, I'd practice my a$$ off. The problem with that kind of money is it produces very good players but it takes more drive and commitment (and talant) to dedicate yourself to winning majors. Why would a player with a very good living mess around with his swing, like Woods and Mickelson, to eventually improve his play? That would take dedication, with maybe there are 20 players now that have that kind of dedication, around the same number of players in Nicklaus's day. Most layers, even the really good ones like Watson, dedicate their lives to golf for ten years, at the most. Nicklaus did this from 1960-1980 (his Master's win in 1986 was a miracle) Also into the mix, you have to throw in newer technology, with clubs and balls. Nicklaus can drive further now at 65 than he could at twenty and that isn't from conditioning. I figure that Tiger has to have complete dedication for another 10 years to pass Jack. If he does, I'll take my hat off to him (figuratively speaking).

[itsmedave]

I've seen this argument so many times on anything from golf, to basketball, boxing, and even music and movies. It generally involves an older person who, fondly remembering his youth, states that they just don't make em like they used to, and that todays...whatever, are no match for what they had back in their day.

 

They are always wrong.

 

As time goes by, people become bigger, stronger, faster, more knowledgeable, with better technology, and better work ethics, and inevitably, are better than that from the past. This is what we call progress.

 

So, no, Jack Nicklaus in his prime could not compete with Tiger in his prime...and, more dramatically, the top 50 back then wouldn't stand a chance against the top 50 of today...in ANY sport, and whoever the top player is in 30 years will be miles better than Tiger is now. That's how it works. But, I, as an old codger, will whine that it's just not as good as it used to be when Tiger was the man.

 

The circle of life...

[dean]

O.K. I'll bite. How do you explain Ben Hogan, who won all of his majors past the age of 30 and several past the age of 40, beating players half his age? One thing that you have to remember about team sports is the dilution of talant in the last 40 years, through expansion. Leagues in the 50's only had 12-14 teams, maximum and the talant was concentrated. Now, it is diluted amount 30-32 teams. The NBA definately has taken a turn backwards in the last 20 years, not from a standpoint of talant but in teamwork. I had seaon ticket to the Kansas City Kings for 10 years (1976-1986) and I think the Portland team of 1977 and the Boston and L.A. teams of the 80's could beat any NBA team today in a best of 7 series. I'd still take Wilt in his prime over Shaq but generally, I'd agree with your premise. Sports are meant to be enjoyed in ages. This is the age of Tiger, as Jack had his age, Palmer his and Hogan his.

[JJsushi]

Zorro said:

The thing with Tiger is that he is playing in an era where there are so many more golfers capable of winning a major than there was in Jack's day.

 

The depth in golf today is astounding.

I am not trying to belittle his accomplishments but they need to put into perspective.

Nicklaus only had three of four golfers who were capable of beating him but today the golfers are so good that almost anyone in the field is capable of winning.

Tiger is dominating in an era where it is extremely difficult to dominate given the number of great players out there.

 

That is a great point. The stakes or financial incentives in golf today are so high that you have better, dare I say "athletes" entering into the sport. Also the technology has allowed guys without complete games to get lucky( ie guys who could not drive worth a shit 10 years ago can now hit the ball 300yards).

 

Golf is a hell of alot more competitive today than it was years ago.

 

Comparing the greats from different eras is sort of futile. Too many variables and exceptions to be considered Currently Tiger is the best in his era. Jack was the best in his.