One of the most distorted views in golf is that Jack Nicklaus had far more competition during his playing years than Tiger Woods has today...

Jack Nicklaus vs. Tiger Woods: Who Faces Tougher Competition?

by Michael Fitzpatrick (Columnist)

1339 reads

Opinion

July 28, 2008

One of the most distorted views in golf is that Jack Nicklaus had far more competition during his playing years than Tiger Woods has today.

Many casual golf fans immediately think that Nicklaus played during golf’s golden age and was faced with more competition from greater players.

The casual golf fan will associate Nicklaus’ competition with the likes of Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Lee Trevino, Billy Casper, and Tom Watson.

For the casual golf fan, hearing the names Palmer, Player, Trevino, and Casper coupled together as Nicklaus’ main competitors immediately leads one to believe that Nicklaus faced some of the toughest competition imaginable during his career.

But, what the casual golf fan does not know is that during Nicklaus’s playing career, after Palmer, Player, Casper, Trevino, Watson, and a few others, the competition drops off like the continental shelf.

Tiger Woods has had to compete against the likes of Phil Mickelson, Vijay Singh, Ernie Els, Retief Goosen, Jim Furyk, and many other perennial PGA Tour winners.

But, Tiger has also had to compete against the likes of Rocco Mediate, Boo Weekly, Woody Austin, Hunter Mahan, Chad Campbell, Stephen Ames, J.B Holmes, Johnson Wagner, Ryuji Imada, Anthony Kim, Kenny Perry, and Chez Reavia.

Now, at this very moment you are probably thinking that I have completely lost my mind by naming players such as Hunter Mahan, Stephen Ames, and Chez Reavia as competition comparable to the likes of Palmer, Player, Trevino, Casper, and Watson.

My naming this group of players as Tiger’s competition, all of whom happen to be PGA Tour winners, is not to say that these players are comparable to Palmer, Player, Trevino, etc.

Clearly Johnson Wagner and J.B. Holmes are no Gary Player and Arnold Palmer.

This list of players is simply comprised to show that Tiger Woods is faced a far wider pool of legitimate competitors than Jack Nicklaus faced during his career.

In any given tournament, Jack Nicklaus was essentially playing against a field of four or five players, outstanding players be that as it may.

Single Page

Track this Article on My B/R

Flag This Article

20 comments Last one added 11 months ago — Leave a Comment

J. Michael Morris 11 months ago

Flag as Offensive

Nicely done Martin.
Another variable that makes more players competitive today is the equipment changes. Prior to metalwoods and cavity back irons, mis-hit shots were more penalized therefore a fewer # of players each week could compete for a title. Now, many players have the ability to win tournaments with less than their A+ game.

Nicely done Martin. Another variable that makes more players competitive today is the equipment changes. Prior to metalwoods and cavity back irons, mis-hit shots were more penalized therefore a fewer # of players each week could compete for a title. Now, many players have the ability to win tournaments with less than their A+ game. Edit Comment Cancel

Reply

Great Comment (
0
)
One moment please...
- Michael Fitzpatrick 11 months ago
  
  Flag as Offensive
  
  Thanks for reading the article Michael.
  You are definitely right about the equipment in terms of many players having the ability to win tournaments with less than their A-game.
  Another way to look at equipment is to try and picture how good players such as Nicklaus, Palmer, player, etc. would have been had they had the equipment players have today. With the clubs Nicklaus. Palmer, Player, etc. used, they had to be a lot more precise in their ball striking to hit quality shots, if they used today's equipment, would they hit a lot more great shots? Probably.
  They might also hit the ball a lot longer. Nicklaus used to drive the ball 300+ yards with an old wooden driver and a golf ball that flew no where near as far as the pro-vs fly today - had Nicklaus had today's equipment, he could conceivably hit the ball a lot further than Woods.
  It's a tough question - I think Nicklaus was better off the tee and was equally as good making the big shots in the most important situations. I think Woods is a better iron player and has a better short game.
  
  Thanks for reading the article Michael. You are definitely right about the equipment in terms of many players having the ability to win tournaments with less than their A-game. Another way to look at equipment is to try and picture how good players such as Nicklaus, Palmer, player, etc. would have been had they had the equipment players have today. With the clubs Nicklaus. Palmer, Player, etc. used, they had to be a lot more precise in their ball striking to hit quality shots, if they used today's equipment, would they hit a lot more great shots? Probably. They might also hit the ball a lot longer. Nicklaus used to drive the ball 300+ yards with an old wooden driver and a golf ball that flew no where near as far as the pro-vs fly today - had Nicklaus had today's equipment, he could conceivably hit the ball a lot further than Woods. It's a tough question - I think Nicklaus was better off the tee and was equally as good making the big shots in the most important situations. I think Woods is a better iron player and has a better short game. Edit Comment Cancel
  
  Reply
  
  Great Comment (
  0
  )
  One moment please...
josh millar 11 months ago

Flag as Offensive

it stands to reason tiger has tougher competition no doubt more players from more places
but what you may have over looked is the equptment factor
guys hit in further and use wdges to make the rough a non penalty
nice solid read though
enjoyed it

it stands to reason tiger has tougher competition no doubt more players from more places but what you may have over looked is the equptment factor guys hit in further and use wdges to make the rough a non penalty nice solid read though enjoyed it Edit Comment Cancel

Reply

Great Comment (
0
)
One moment please...
- Michael Fitzpatrick 11 months ago
  
  Flag as Offensive
  
  Thanks for the kind commenst Josh. You are exactly right about the equipment factor. Michael had the same thoughts so please see my comments above.
  It is difficult to say for sure, but if the likes of Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, etc. had the same equipment they used today, they could very well be every bit as good as the top players on tour today - it is tough to tell to what extent the equipment would improve thir games though - in distance, most definitely, in accuracy, it would possibly help as clubs are a lot more forgiving today. But, it is difficult to say if by using today's equipment, would the likes of Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, etc. surpass today's top players - guess it's impossible to know.
  Thanks again Josh.
  
  Thanks for the kind commenst Josh. You are exactly right about the equipment factor. Michael had the same thoughts so please see my comments above. It is difficult to say for sure, but if the likes of Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, etc. had the same equipment they used today, they could very well be every bit as good as the top players on tour today - it is tough to tell to what extent the equipment would improve thir games though - in distance, most definitely, in accuracy, it would possibly help as clubs are a lot more forgiving today. But, it is difficult to say if by using today's equipment, would the likes of Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, etc. surpass today's top players - guess it's impossible to know. Thanks again Josh. Edit Comment Cancel
  
  Reply
  
  Great Comment (
  0
  )
  One moment please...
Daryl Suretow 11 months ago

Flag as Offensive

Very good post, however it is my opinion that the inter era "strength of field" issue is almost entirely a matter of equipment and golf's "scoring wall". This is a very long post, but please bear with it.

My argument is that modern equipment has leveled the playing field and made it more difficult for the the superior golfers to dominate the field. This is because there is a scoring wall in golf i.e. it is physically impossible to shoot much lower than 62 or 63 in a round. (I know it is mathematically possible, but because putting will always remain fickle, 62 or 63 is the real achievable limit). Modern equipment has turned the game into a driver, wedge, driver, wedge game, which allows more of the field to go low. Because of the scoring wall, the superior golfer is unable to distinguish himself by going proportionally lower. The main reason Nicklaus, Palmer, Nelson, Hogan et.al. dominated was because as superior ball strikers, they could knock 2 irons to 10 feet on a regular basis. Since everyone's drives were shorter, these better players also had more opportunities to distance themselves from the field because they faced more of these kinds of shots on par 4 holes. Modern players only face these critical shots on some very long par 5's, when they may have to hit a 3 wood off the deck to a pin 280 yards away. The rest of the time it's driver, wedge, driver, wedge, driver, wedge. This means less opportunity in the modern era for the superior ball striker to utilize his superior skills to distance himself from the field.

Please note the following:

- this is not an argument as to which era's fields were better. It just reveals that Mickelson, Singh and Els have fewer majors than Trevino, Watson and Player because in today's era it's easier for an inferior player from the field to get hot for 4 days and steal a major from a superior player. Whether Trevino was actually better than Mickelson is still an open question that probably can't be answered.

- to further explain the scoring wall, put it this way. In the old days, par was a good score and a Hogan, Nelson or Nicklaus would take control of a leaderboard by firing a 65 or 66 in a round or two. For example, Nelson shot a 66 in the first round of the Masters in 1937. The record stood for 40 years!! In 1945 he set a season scoring average record of 68.8. It stood until Tiger finally beat it in 2002. Today, any yahoo touring pro can card a couple of 65's in a major if his putter gets hot. Because of the scoring wall, it's almost impossible for a Singh or a Goosen to respond with a 61 or 62. Those scores just can't be posted except under extraordinary circumstances.

Very good post, however it is my opinion that the inter era "strength of field" issue is almost entirely a matter of equipment and golf's "scoring wall". This is a very long post, but please bear with it. My argument is that modern equipment has leveled the playing field and made it more difficult for the the superior golfers to dominate the field. This is because there is a scoring wall in golf i.e. it is physically impossible to shoot much lower than 62 or 63 in a round. (I know it is mathematically possible, but because putting will always remain fickle, 62 or 63 is the real achievable limit). Modern equipment has turned the game into a driver, wedge, driver, wedge game, which allows more of the field to go low. Because of the scoring wall, the superior golfer is unable to distinguish himself by going proportionally lower. The main reason Nicklaus, Palmer, Nelson, Hogan et.al. dominated was because as superior ball strikers, they could knock 2 irons to 10 feet on a regular basis. Since everyone's drives were shorter, these better players also had more opportunities to distance themselves from the field because they faced more of these kinds of shots on par 4 holes. Modern players only face these critical shots on some very long par 5's, when they may have to hit a 3 wood off the deck to a pin 280 yards away. The rest of the time it's driver, wedge, driver, wedge, driver, wedge. This means less opportunity in the modern era for the superior ball striker to utilize his superior skills to distance himself from the field. Please note the following: - this is not an argument as to which era's fields were better. It just reveals that Mickelson, Singh and Els have fewer majors than Trevino, Watson and Player because in today's era it's easier for an inferior player from the field to get hot for 4 days and steal a major from a superior player. Whether Trevino was actually better than Mickelson is still an open question that probably can't be answered. - to further explain the scoring wall, put it this way. In the old days, par was a good score and a Hogan, Nelson or Nicklaus would take control of a leaderboard by firing a 65 or 66 in a round or two. For example, Nelson shot a 66 in the first round of the Masters in 1937. The record stood for 40 years!! In 1945 he set a season scoring average record of 68.8. It stood until Tiger finally beat it in 2002. Today, any yahoo touring pro can card a couple of 65's in a major if his putter gets hot. Because of the scoring wall, it's almost impossible for a Singh or a Goosen to respond with a 61 or 62. Those scores just can't be posted except under extraordinary circumstances. Edit Comment Cancel

Reply

Great Comment (
0
)
One moment please...
- Michael Fitzpatrick 11 months ago
  
  Flag as Offensive
  
  Thanks for the comments Daryl. You are definitely correct on your points.
  There are two ways to look at it - if there is so much parity in today's game, is Tiger Woods that far ahead of everyone else in terms of skill that he is able to dominate a game in which there is such parity largely due to equipment? And, if Jack Nicklaus played in today's game, would improvements in equipment put Nicklaus that far ahead of the rest of the competition as well?
  You are definitely correct though. It takes a better ball striker to play a lot more 2-irons, 3-irons, 3-woods off the deck, etc. than to play a game that includes a driver and a short iron on most holes.
  It is very tough to answer this question - I think that Woods domination is more impressive than Nicklaus' though for that fact that in a time where there is such parity, Woods is still that much better as to put himself head and shoulders above the rest of a field that contains 150 players that can win on any given week.
  Who knows though, with the same equipment and in today's PGA Tour, Nicklaus might have been able to do the same.
  
  Thanks for the comments Daryl. You are definitely correct on your points. There are two ways to look at it - if there is so much parity in today's game, is Tiger Woods that far ahead of everyone else in terms of skill that he is able to dominate a game in which there is such parity largely due to equipment? And, if Jack Nicklaus played in today's game, would improvements in equipment put Nicklaus that far ahead of the rest of the competition as well? You are definitely correct though. It takes a better ball striker to play a lot more 2-irons, 3-irons, 3-woods off the deck, etc. than to play a game that includes a driver and a short iron on most holes. It is very tough to answer this question - I think that Woods domination is more impressive than Nicklaus' though for that fact that in a time where there is such parity, Woods is still that much better as to put himself head and shoulders above the rest of a field that contains 150 players that can win on any given week. Who knows though, with the same equipment and in today's PGA Tour, Nicklaus might have been able to do the same. Edit Comment Cancel
  
  Reply
  
  Great Comment (
  0
  )
  One moment please...
josh millar 11 months ago

Flag as Offensive

martin ive always heard nicklaus say he was a straighter driver then tiger
the advent of wedge lubs has changed the game immensly but what do i know ive never played golf lol

martin ive always heard nicklaus say he was a straighter driver then tiger the advent of wedge lubs has changed the game immensly but what do i know ive never played golf lol Edit Comment Cancel

Reply

Great Comment (
0
)
One moment please...
- Michael Fitzpatrick 11 months ago
  
  Flag as Offensive
  
  Hi Josh. Yes, I would definitely say that Nicklaus was a straighter dirver than Woods. When many people think of Tiger Woods, the first thing they think of is how he crushes the ball off the tee. Yes, Woods does hit the ball a long way, but driving the ball is actually the weak link in Tiger's game as he has become very erratic off the tee.
  You are right though, with the irons and wedges today, who knows, Nicklaus could be just as good an iron players and Woods.
  Woods does cut out a lot of strokes around the green though - he almost always gets up and down and he is a tremendous putter.
  
  Hi Josh. Yes, I would definitely say that Nicklaus was a straighter dirver than Woods. When many people think of Tiger Woods, the first thing they think of is how he crushes the ball off the tee. Yes, Woods does hit the ball a long way, but driving the ball is actually the weak link in Tiger's game as he has become very erratic off the tee. You are right though, with the irons and wedges today, who knows, Nicklaus could be just as good an iron players and Woods. Woods does cut out a lot of strokes around the green though - he almost always gets up and down and he is a tremendous putter. Edit Comment Cancel
  
  Reply
  
  Great Comment (
  0
  )
  One moment please...
Lou Vozza 11 months ago

Flag as Offensive

The answer is that Tiger Woods is that great. He is dominating old era style in an era when it shouldn't be possible. A testament to his short game really - and his mental toughness.

Nothing against Jack, but for me Woods has already streaked by him. The amateur 6 peat? Come on.

The answer is that Tiger Woods is that great. He is dominating old era style in an era when it shouldn't be possible. A testament to his short game really - and his mental toughness. Nothing against Jack, but for me Woods has already streaked by him. The amateur 6 peat? Come on. Edit Comment Cancel

Reply

Great Comment (
0
)
One moment please...
J. Michael Morris 11 months ago

Flag as Offensive

What modern equipment does it that it "forgives" poor shots. It does not make perfectly struck shots better. As Martin noted above, Nicklaus occassionally hit 300+ yard drives with a persimmon driver. That result is not improved with titanium. What is improved is the barely off-caenter strike that comprises 99% of all shots. Now that mis-hit flies 290 yards where before it went about 220. This allows players to swing harder and get away with less precision.

What modern equipment does it that it "forgives" poor shots. It does not make perfectly struck shots better. As Martin noted above, Nicklaus occassionally hit 300+ yard drives with a persimmon driver. That result is not improved with titanium. What is improved is the barely off-caenter strike that comprises 99% of all shots. Now that mis-hit flies 290 yards where before it went about 220. This allows players to swing harder and get away with less precision. Edit Comment Cancel

Reply

Great Comment (
0
)
One moment please...
Peter Hughes 11 months ago

Flag as Offensive

Another excellent contribution from someone who loves golf ! Well done Martin. For once I am going to "sit on the fence". Having lived through the era of "The Golden Bear" and observed his sportsmanship and good manners, I am prone to go towards him, on the other hand Tiger has set a new standard for the game and that draws me back to the centre. I simply believe both sit on top of my pedestal and somehow or other I must find a wee spot for "Arnie"

Another excellent contribution from someone who loves golf ! Well done Martin. For once I am going to "sit on the fence". Having lived through the era of "The Golden Bear" and observed his sportsmanship and good manners, I am prone to go towards him, on the other hand Tiger has set a new standard for the game and that draws me back to the centre. I simply believe both sit on top of my pedestal and somehow or other I must find a wee spot for "Arnie" Edit Comment Cancel

Reply

Great Comment (
0
)
One moment please...
- Michael Fitzpatrick 11 months ago
  
  Flag as Offensive
  
  Thanks for the very kind comments Peter.
  I think that that the way history will view each of these players has a lot to do with how Tiger recovers and how his injury might affect his longevity. As of right now, if Tiger's prime lasts another 12 years, bringing him to 44 years old (which is not a stretch for someone that keeps himself in as good a shape as Tiger - provided his knee holds up), he will be on pace to win somewhere in the vicinity of 28 majors based on his current pace. If Tiger gets to 25-28 majors, he will have locked down his spot as the greatest golfer of all-time. If he gets to 20 or so majors then it is still arguable based on the view that many have that Nicklaus might have faced better competition.
  Many records, tournaments, majors and more or less the history of the game are literally riding on Tiger's left knee.
  Thanks again Peter.
  
  Thanks for the very kind comments Peter. I think that that the way history will view each of these players has a lot to do with how Tiger recovers and how his injury might affect his longevity. As of right now, if Tiger's prime lasts another 12 years, bringing him to 44 years old (which is not a stretch for someone that keeps himself in as good a shape as Tiger - provided his knee holds up), he will be on pace to win somewhere in the vicinity of 28 majors based on his current pace. If Tiger gets to 25-28 majors, he will have locked down his spot as the greatest golfer of all-time. If he gets to 20 or so majors then it is still arguable based on the view that many have that Nicklaus might have faced better competition. Many records, tournaments, majors and more or less the history of the game are literally riding on Tiger's left knee. Thanks again Peter. Edit Comment Cancel
  
  Reply
  
  Great Comment (
  0
  )
  One moment please...
Lou Vozza 11 months ago

Flag as Offensive

I'm a big Nicklaus fan, but I do think he is overrated. The issue for me is that everyone uses the 18 majors as the measuring stick. This is very unfair to players like Hogan, Nelson, Hagen, Jones and Vardon, who didn't have 4 majors a year to compete in. Vardon, for example, won 6 British Opens and 1 US Open, but he only played in 3 US Opens (finishing 2nd in the other two, one at age 53!). Also, he missed 4 British Opens due to WW1 and missed another 2 in his prime (1902-1903) due to a case of TB that almost killed him. I haven't counted, but I figure Nicklaus must have played in well over 80 majors vrs only 20 or so for Vardon. You can do similar math with Hagen, Jones, Nelson and Hogan. It's pretty clear that if any of those players had competed in as many majors as Jack, a couple of them would have easily surpassed 18 major victories.

As far as Tiger goes, I think he is going to have to win at least 25 majors to bury the Jack fans. They are clinging to the "Jack had better competition" argument, but as I mentioned in my first post, I think it is a flawed argument.

I'm a big Nicklaus fan, but I do think he is overrated. The issue for me is that everyone uses the 18 majors as the measuring stick. This is very unfair to players like Hogan, Nelson, Hagen, Jones and Vardon, who didn't have 4 majors a year to compete in. Vardon, for example, won 6 British Opens and 1 US Open, but he only played in 3 US Opens (finishing 2nd in the other two, one at age 53!). Also, he missed 4 British Opens due to WW1 and missed another 2 in his prime (1902-1903) due to a case of TB that almost killed him. I haven't counted, but I figure Nicklaus must have played in well over 80 majors vrs only 20 or so for Vardon. You can do similar math with Hagen, Jones, Nelson and Hogan. It's pretty clear that if any of those players had competed in as many majors as Jack, a couple of them would have easily surpassed 18 major victories. As far as Tiger goes, I think he is going to have to win at least 25 majors to bury the Jack fans. They are clinging to the "Jack had better competition" argument, but as I mentioned in my first post, I think it is a flawed argument. Edit Comment Cancel

Reply

Great Comment (
0
)
One moment please...
- Michael Fitzpatrick 11 months ago
  
  Flag as Offensive
  
  You make a very good point about the number of majors players competed in Daryl, particularly with Vardon. Had he played in as many majors as Nicklaus he would have probably massed an amazing amount of majors. I would think in Vardon's day and age, if he had played in 80 majors he would have amassed around 30 major victories, that is just a somewhat educated guess though.
  I think that 25 is probably a very good guess for how many majors Tiger will finish with. If his past is anything to go by, if he remains in his prime for another 12 years, he'll be on pace to win 28 majors. As we have seen all too clearly a little over a month ago though, nothing is for certain and we do not know how Tiger will recover from his knee injury and wether he'll be the same player he was before the injury.
  I would agree that he will finish with somewhere in the facinity of 25 majors before he's done though and in this day and age of extreme parity on tour, I would be very suprised if someone broke that record in my lifetime - but then again, that is probably exactly what they were saying when Nicklaus won 18 majors.
  
  You make a very good point about the number of majors players competed in Daryl, particularly with Vardon. Had he played in as many majors as Nicklaus he would have probably massed an amazing amount of majors. I would think in Vardon's day and age, if he had played in 80 majors he would have amassed around 30 major victories, that is just a somewhat educated guess though. I think that 25 is probably a very good guess for how many majors Tiger will finish with. If his past is anything to go by, if he remains in his prime for another 12 years, he'll be on pace to win 28 majors. As we have seen all too clearly a little over a month ago though, nothing is for certain and we do not know how Tiger will recover from his knee injury and wether he'll be the same player he was before the injury. I would agree that he will finish with somewhere in the facinity of 25 majors before he's done though and in this day and age of extreme parity on tour, I would be very suprised if someone broke that record in my lifetime - but then again, that is probably exactly what they were saying when Nicklaus won 18 majors. Edit Comment Cancel
  
  Reply
  
  Great Comment (
  0
  )
  One moment please...
Ben Gibson 11 months ago

Flag as Offensive

I agree with everything you said Martin. I just think that people make this argument because Nicklaus had competitors that were able to go up against him in a head-to-head showdown in one of the majors. The Duel in The Sun against Tom Watson is probably one of the best examples. However, Tiger's rivals have yet to really produce a high quality dramatic finish in a major unless it is with Rocco Mediate and Bob May (people that had nothing to lose). So people begin to commemorate the men that kept Nicklaus from winning every single major he participated in and lament that Mickelson, Singh, Els etc cannot seem to produce the same historic moment. So until (if?) Tiger has his legitimate foil, this competition argument will continue.

I agree with everything you said Martin. I just think that people make this argument because Nicklaus had competitors that were able to go up against him in a head-to-head showdown in one of the majors. The Duel in The Sun against Tom Watson is probably one of the best examples. However, Tiger's rivals have yet to really produce a high quality dramatic finish in a major unless it is with Rocco Mediate and Bob May (people that had nothing to lose). So people begin to commemorate the men that kept Nicklaus from winning every single major he participated in and lament that Mickelson, Singh, Els etc cannot seem to produce the same historic moment. So until (if?) Tiger has his legitimate foil, this competition argument will continue. Edit Comment Cancel

Reply

Great Comment (
0
)
One moment please...
Lou Vozza 11 months ago

Flag as Offensive

Ben, if you read my original post on equipment and the scoring wall of golf, you will see the answer as to why we don't see the great duels Tiger vrs. Phil, or Tiger vrs. Els. In Nicklaus' time, it was easier for the next tier of great players to get in position to challenge him in a major. It was pretty much the same 5 or 6 guys challenging the top of the leaderboard every time out. These days the less skilled guys can go just as low, and out of 165 guys, somebody's going to sink all their putts for four days and steal a major. The superior ball striker doesn't have as many opportunities to separate himself from the field. In other words, if they played today Watson and Trevino would be 3 major winners and if they played in the 60's and 70's, Mickelson and Singh would be 8 major winners.

If you accept that argument, it means Woods is even better than people think.

Ben, if you read my original post on equipment and the scoring wall of golf, you will see the answer as to why we don't see the great duels Tiger vrs. Phil, or Tiger vrs. Els. In Nicklaus' time, it was easier for the next tier of great players to get in position to challenge him in a major. It was pretty much the same 5 or 6 guys challenging the top of the leaderboard every time out. These days the less skilled guys can go just as low, and out of 165 guys, somebody's going to sink all their putts for four days and steal a major. The superior ball striker doesn't have as many opportunities to separate himself from the field. In other words, if they played today Watson and Trevino would be 3 major winners and if they played in the 60's and 70's, Mickelson and Singh would be 8 major winners. If you accept that argument, it means Woods is even better than people think. Edit Comment Cancel

Reply

Great Comment (
0
)
One moment please...
CB Maxwell 11 months ago

Flag as Offensive

As has been previously noted by others, Tiger Woods World Golf rankings...is ridiculously high.
http://www.officialworldgolfranking.com/rankings/default.sps

His Point total is: 19.12, with Total Points of: 764.74

Next is Phil at: 9.54 and Total Points of: 419.93

50 Rocco Mediate, USA 2.34 117.17

So, the spread between Tiger and Phil is greater than the spread between Phil and Rocco.

The difference in eras is this: In Jack's day, the others believed they had a chance to win and did. (The number of Jack's second place finishes in majors is very high)

None of today's players believe they can beat Tiger. Tiger is 14-0 when he has the lead or a share of the lead going into Sunday in a major.

As has been previously noted by others, Tiger Woods World Golf rankings...is ridiculously high. http://www.officialworldgolfranking.com/rankings/default.sps His Point total is: 19.12, with Total Points of: 764.74 Next is Phil at: 9.54 and Total Points of: 419.93 50 Rocco Mediate, USA 2.34 117.17 So, the spread between Tiger and Phil is greater than the spread between Phil and Rocco. The difference in eras is this: In Jack's day, the others believed they had a chance to win and did. (The number of Jack's second place finishes in majors is very high) None of today's players believe they can beat Tiger. Tiger is 14-0 when he has the lead or a share of the lead going into Sunday in a major. Edit Comment Cancel

Reply

Great Comment (
0
)
One moment please...
- Michael Fitzpatrick 11 months ago
  
  Flag as Offensive
  
  Thanks for reading the article and sharing your thoughts, CB.
  You might have a point that a lot of players believe that they just cannot beat Tiger.
  I happen to think that the answer to no one stepping up and challenging Tiger is simplier - that Tiger is simply that much better than everyone else.
  As Rocco said in an interview at the US Open - "I am not intimidated...if we were having a physical altercation I might have a problem, Tiger's a pretty big guy, but we're just playing golf" (or something along those lines - I don't have the exact quote). And I believe that is the case, that players are not scared of Woods, they are not intimidated by Woods, possibly they can at times alter their games and take unintelligent chances that they normally wouldn't take because they think that is what they need to do to compete with Woods, but I think in general the answer is simplier than many people think - that Tiger Woods is simply a lot better than everyone else on tour.
  Thanks again for sharing your thoughts on the article, CB.
  
  Thanks for reading the article and sharing your thoughts, CB. You might have a point that a lot of players believe that they just cannot beat Tiger. I happen to think that the answer to no one stepping up and challenging Tiger is simplier - that Tiger is simply that much better than everyone else. As Rocco said in an interview at the US Open - "I am not intimidated...if we were having a physical altercation I might have a problem, Tiger's a pretty big guy, but we're just playing golf" (or something along those lines - I don't have the exact quote). And I believe that is the case, that players are not scared of Woods, they are not intimidated by Woods, possibly they can at times alter their games and take unintelligent chances that they normally wouldn't take because they think that is what they need to do to compete with Woods, but I think in general the answer is simplier than many people think - that Tiger Woods is simply a lot better than everyone else on tour. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts on the article, CB. Edit Comment Cancel
  
  Reply
  
  Great Comment (
  0
  )
  One moment please...
Lou Vozza 11 months ago

Flag as Offensive

I agree with Martin. The reason players weren't as intimidated by Nicklaus is that they were able to beat him more often than they could beat Tiger. He didn't exactly have a reputation as a cold blooded closer. What about those 18 2nd place major finishes? I can't see Tiger letting anyone beat him that often with everything on the line.

The players today are just being honest. They don't have a chance really. Look at some of his stats

- never lost a lead in a major after 54 holes.
- won 4 majors in a row
- won 6 consecutive PGA events in a row - twice
- holds the outright scoring record in all four majors
- has won the career major grand slam - twice over
- 142 consecutive cuts made
- 6 peated the match play junior amateur and amateur tournaments
- won a US open playing with a broken leg and no ACL ligament

Nickaus didn't do any of that, except for the career grand slam. Woods is not just number one in the world rankings. He's number 1 through 25. They should list Phil at no. 26, not no. 2. Woods is playing in his own league. There has never been another athlete that has even come close to dominating his peers the way Woods is doing. The only remaining issue for him is longevity.

I agree with Martin. The reason players weren't as intimidated by Nicklaus is that they were able to beat him more often than they could beat Tiger. He didn't exactly have a reputation as a cold blooded closer. What about those 18 2nd place major finishes? I can't see Tiger letting anyone beat him that often with everything on the line. The players today are just being honest. They don't have a chance really. Look at some of his stats - never lost a lead in a major after 54 holes. - won 4 majors in a row - won 6 consecutive PGA events in a row - twice - holds the outright scoring record in all four majors - has won the career major grand slam - twice over - 142 consecutive cuts made - 6 peated the match play junior amateur and amateur tournaments - won a US open playing with a broken leg and no ACL ligament Nickaus didn't do any of that, except for the career grand slam. Woods is not just number one in the world rankings. He's number 1 through 25. They should list Phil at no. 26, not no. 2. Woods is playing in his own league. There has never been another athlete that has even come close to dominating his peers the way Woods is doing. The only remaining issue for him is longevity. Edit Comment Cancel

Reply

Great Comment (
0
)
One moment please...
woody woodmansey 11 months ago

Flag as Offensive

they should set up an old course like the old days---furry fairways---inconsistent greens

give them persimmons and blades , with a touch of balata

and see how they score

Merion would be a good test

Everybody always misses some key points on this argument:

Woods is as mentally strong and perhaps more motivated than Nicklaus.

Jack had 5 kids and was never gone from home for more than two weeks.....a promise he made to Barbara.

There is NOBODY even close to Woods in this category.....MENTAL

Jack had many around who were able to close the deal......and did

Don't forget people like Ray Floyd, Seve, ....can anybody say , with a straight face, that any of Woods' competitors are even as good as Seve was.

they should set up an old course like the old days---furry fairways---inconsistent greens give them persimmons and blades , with a touch of balata and see how they score Merion would be a good test Everybody always misses some key points on this argument: Woods is as mentally strong and perhaps more motivated than Nicklaus. Jack had 5 kids and was never gone from home for more than two weeks.....a promise he made to Barbara. There is NOBODY even close to Woods in this category.....MENTAL Jack had many around who were able to close the deal......and did Don't forget people like Ray Floyd, Seve, ....can anybody say , with a straight face, that any of Woods' competitors are even as good as Seve was. Edit Comment Cancel

Reply

Great Comment (
0
)
One moment please...