|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 18, 2008 15:13:29 GMT -5
Good grief...what will they do now that Tiger Woods is out for the season? Listening to the radio this afternoon, you'd think golf isn't worth watching any more.
I don't think I've ever seen a sport so reliant/over-indulgent on one person.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 18, 2008 19:01:18 GMT -5
Which is why I invariably cheer against him (the odd time I pay attention to golf).
Is he good? Obviously. Is he god? Some people seem to think so. End the worship, people, end the worship.
|
|
|
|
Post by cigarviper on Jun 18, 2008 19:12:50 GMT -5
Nobody watches golf anymore....
|
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Jun 18, 2008 19:33:37 GMT -5
When you say it's not worth watching anymore, it's patently false. Golf wasn't watching in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 18, 2008 20:17:30 GMT -5
When you say it's not worth watching anymore, it's patently false. Golf wasn't watching in the first place. Buick, Nike, etc. would disagree with you....at least they'd better.  Unless golfers sell products despite the TV numbers. Wonder what those numbers are? Woods is right up there with Gretzky and Crosby on the saturation-meter. Hey, they're all the best at what they do....but enough of the deification. That's what gets me...the over-coverage at the expense of others on the tour. I bet the other golfers are lovin' it right now. No Woods to compete against....but just as important, they might get some coverage of their own. Even when doing poorly, Woods seems to get the lion's share. Listening to the Fan 590 today, you'd think there'd been a death. "A devastating blow to golf"......"so unfortunate for the PGA tour"...... |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 18, 2008 20:48:23 GMT -5
I religiously watch golf ... and religiously cheer against Tiger. I don't want to sound like I am happy he is hurt, but it looks good on him. If it was any other tournament he would have pulled himself out of the tournament before the end of Round 1 ... but he is so concerned about beating Sam Snead's most victories and Jack Nicklaus' most majors that he risked even greater injury. In Round 1, he was lifting his front leg to try to dampen the pain .... ... every good shot it was "Tiger finds a way" .. every bad shot it was blamed on the leg. It was sickening coverage. And it was just a coincidence that Tiger only grimaced on the bad shots ...  I said when I was watching that he is risking the entire year (and 2 more majors) for the sake of one major ... oh but it was the US Open , the grand-daddy of them all ... whatever ... By my estimate there was only 2 people in the entire universe cheering for Tiger on Monday - Elin and his mother. Next time Eldrick, listen to the doctors and not your ego. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 19, 2008 8:25:48 GMT -5
Tiger is such a phenominal draw I think the PGA will suffer quite a bit with him out of the tour. I don't know if there's any pro athletes out there right now who are dominating their sports the way Tiger is.
People will sometimes finger him as what's wrong with golf today, but IMO Woods redefines the sport every time he goes out there. When players are paired with him they tend to self-destruct as Mickelson did last week. But, I was extremely impressed with Mediate because he took Woods to a 19th playoff hole. And it wasn't so much Woods won it as Mediate lost it with a bogy.
I think a guy like Woods is great for the sport of golf. I felt fortunate to have lived in a time where Gretzky scored 92 goals and dominate the game like no one has before. Ditto Ali's accomplishments. Yet, I also feel just as fortunate to see a guy like Woods dominate golf the way Gretzky did with hockey. These guys are in pretty select company. Some of the most dominate pros I've seen:
Hockey: Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux.
Baseball: Mark McGuire, Barry Bonds (clean or no), Orel Hershiser (1988 season),
Basketball: Wilt Chamberlain, Michael Jordan.
Football: Brett Farve, Walter Payton, Barry Saunders.
Tennis: Martina Navratilova, Bjorn Borg, Pete Samprass
Boxing: Muhammad Ali.
Pro Bowling: Earl Anthony, Walter Ray Williams Jr, Mark Roth.
Pro Golf: Tiger Woods, Jack Nickalus.
All of these people were dominant in their day. Yet, I believe only Ali, Williams, Orr, Chamberlain and Woods, can say they've redefined their sports.
I don't worship Woods or anyone else for that matter. But, I do believe he's good for the sport of golf on many different levels. We often see many pro golfers having a good time while they're golfing. But, Woods is all business all of the time. That may convey the wrong message to some, but he's well on his way to being the standard by which all golfers will be measured both past and present.
Do I get tired of watching him? Yes, sometimes, especially when I don't get to see more of Mike Wier or Phil Mickelson. I'd like to see more of VJ, but he's been pretty average of late. However, I also like seeing Woods inch ever-closer to surpassing Jack Nickalus' records.
And I'll feel fortunate to be alive to see it.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by HabSolute on Jun 19, 2008 9:44:21 GMT -5
I religiously watch golf ... and religiously cheer against Tiger. I don't want to sound like I am happy he is hurt, but it looks good on him. If it was any other tournament he would have pulled himself out of the tournament before the end of Round 1 ... but he is so concerned about beating Sam Snead's most victories and Jack Nicklaus' most majors that he risked even greater injury. In Round 1, he was lifting his front leg to try to dampen the pain .... ... every good shot it was "Tiger finds a way" .. every bad shot it was blamed on the leg. It was sickening coverage. And it was just a coincidence that Tiger only grimaced on the bad shots ... I said when I was watching that he is risking the entire year (and 2 more majors) for the sake of one major ... oh but it was the US Open , the grand-daddy of them all ... whatever ... By my estimate there was only 2 people in the entire universe cheering for Tiger on Monday - Elin and his mother. Next time Eldrick, listen to the doctors and not your ego. Why is it that a hockey player playing with broken ribs or dislocated shoulders to win a playoff series is an example of courage and Woods playing with a damaged knee to win one of the most pretigious golf tournament is just a guy with a big EGO ? I'm not sure why people don't like Tiger Woods because he's so dominant ..... He certainly doesn't have a attitude problem like for example Barry Bonds. The guy is a phenomenon in is sport and he his hyper competitive. He wants to win all the time. Isn't that a quality of any great athlete ? True, the media maybe over focus on him, but hey, is it his fault ? Is he suppose to lose to give the stage to other players ? I don't understand this sentiment; |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 19, 2008 11:57:48 GMT -5
I religiously watch golf ... and religiously cheer against Tiger. I don't want to sound like I am happy he is hurt, but it looks good on him. If it was any other tournament he would have pulled himself out of the tournament before the end of Round 1 ... but he is so concerned about beating Sam Snead's most victories and Jack Nicklaus' most majors that he risked even greater injury. In Round 1, he was lifting his front leg to try to dampen the pain .... ... every good shot it was "Tiger finds a way" .. every bad shot it was blamed on the leg. It was sickening coverage. And it was just a coincidence that Tiger only grimaced on the bad shots ... I said when I was watching that he is risking the entire year (and 2 more majors) for the sake of one major ... oh but it was the US Open , the grand-daddy of them all ... whatever ... By my estimate there was only 2 people in the entire universe cheering for Tiger on Monday - Elin and his mother. Next time Eldrick, listen to the doctors and not your ego. Why is it that a hockey player playing with broken ribs or dislocated shoulders to win a playoff series is an example of courage and Woods playing with a damaged knee to win one of the most pretigious golf tournament is just a guy with a big EGO ? I'm not sure why people don't like Tiger Woods because he's so dominant ..... He certainly doesn't have a attitude problem like for example Barry Bonds. The guy is a phenomenon in is sport and he his hyper competitive. He wants to win all the time. Isn't that a quality of any great athlete ? True, the media maybe over focus on him, but hey, is it his fault ? Is he suppose to lose to give the stage to other players ? I don't understand this sentiment; HERE, HERE!!! Very well said, mate. You know what, though? I can relate to what Skilly is talking about beause I sort of feel this way about the "Legend of Sid-the-Kid" as well. It's not his fault that the media heaps all sorts of attention on him, but I'll actually turn the channel when a feature comes on solely focusing on him. IMO, Crosby is the real deal ... no doubt about it. But, he's also one of a crop of "real-deal" young players that have hit the game just about all at the same time. Ovechkin, Malkin, et al. Crosby has yet to prove to me that he's new face of professional hockey, though if you watch TSN, he's the Next Coming. OTOH, Tiger Woods IS the face of golf and will probably be THE face of golf for decades to come. He redefines the sport every time he's out there. I could care less about his injury. He's not a football player, or hockey player who gets paid for playing through injuries or just by getting himself to the rink on time (see Ya$hin). He's a golfer who relies on his skills to get him to the next round. If he doen't perform, he doen't get paid. If he's injured he doesn't get paid (endorsements are a different thing, but they also apply to hockey/football players as well), unlike athletes who sign contracts. Coming full circle on you, I can relate what Skilly is saying to Crosby as well. I think Crosby is good for game, mind you, but I really hate seeing him all of the time. Some folks feel that way about Woods as well. Whaddaya gonna do? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by HabSolute on Jun 19, 2008 12:34:18 GMT -5
Why is it that a hockey player playing with broken ribs or dislocated shoulders to win a playoff series is an example of courage and Woods playing with a damaged knee to win one of the most pretigious golf tournament is just a guy with a big EGO ? I'm not sure why people don't like Tiger Woods because he's so dominant ..... He certainly doesn't have a attitude problem like for example Barry Bonds. The guy is a phenomenon in is sport and he his hyper competitive. He wants to win all the time. Isn't that a quality of any great athlete ? True, the media maybe over focus on him, but hey, is it his fault ? Is he suppose to lose to give the stage to other players ? I don't understand this sentiment; HERE, HERE!!! Very well said, mate. You know what, though? I can relate to what Skilly is talking about beause I sort of feel this way about the "Legend of Sid-the-Kid" as well. It's not his fault that the media heaps all sorts of attention on him, but I'll actually turn the channel when a feature comes on solely focusing on him. IMO, Crosby is the real deal ... no doubt about it. But, he's also one of a crop of "real-deal" young players that have hit the game just about all at the same time. Ovechkin, Malkin, et al. Crosby has yet to prove to me that he's new face of professional hockey, though if you watch TSN, he's the Next Coming. OTOH, Tiger Woods IS the face of golf and will probably be THE face of golf for decades to come. He redefines the sport every time he's out there. I could care less about his injury. He's not a football player, or hockey player who gets paid for playing through injuries or just by getting himself to the rink on time (see Ya$hin). He's a golfer who relies on his skills to get him to the next round. If he doen't perform, he doen't get paid. If he's injured he doesn't get paid (endorsements are a different thing, but they also apply to hockey/football players as well), unlike athletes who sign contracts. Coming full circle on you, I can relate what Skilly is saying to Crosby as well. I think Crosby is good for game, mind you, but I really hate seeing him all of the time. Some folks feel that way about Woods as well. Whaddaya gonna do? Cheers. I understand what you are saying; I will ask you this, would you mind all the attention on Sid the Kid if he was wearing a Habs Jersey ? I'm sure the Pens fans are fine with it ....  Maybe, in a way, we are just jealous, because first, we are fans of one team out of 30.... But golf ?..... Are people fans of one golfer or fans of the game itself ? If you are a fan of Weir or Mickelson let's say, I understand you hate Woods.... (like we hated Sundin or Thornton etc....). But if you are a fan of golfing, how can you not admire this guy's skills, competitiveness, attitude, his drive (in both sense of the word), his behavior etc..... |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 19, 2008 13:29:47 GMT -5
Nobody watches golf anymore.... Tiger Woods will stay home and recuperate. I heard that he bought the "Center Ice" hockey package from Direct TV. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 19, 2008 13:41:46 GMT -5
HERE, HERE!!! Very well said, mate. You know what, though? I can relate to what Skilly is talking about beause I sort of feel this way about the "Legend of Sid-the-Kid" as well. It's not his fault that the media heaps all sorts of attention on him, but I'll actually turn the channel when a feature comes on solely focusing on him. IMO, Crosby is the real deal ... no doubt about it. But, he's also one of a crop of "real-deal" young players that have hit the game just about all at the same time. Ovechkin, Malkin, et al. Crosby has yet to prove to me that he's new face of professional hockey, though if you watch TSN, he's the Next Coming. OTOH, Tiger Woods IS the face of golf and will probably be THE face of golf for decades to come. He redefines the sport every time he's out there. I could care less about his injury. He's not a football player, or hockey player who gets paid for playing through injuries or just by getting himself to the rink on time (see Ya$hin). He's a golfer who relies on his skills to get him to the next round. If he doen't perform, he doen't get paid. If he's injured he doesn't get paid (endorsements are a different thing, but they also apply to hockey/football players as well), unlike athletes who sign contracts. Coming full circle on you, I can relate what Skilly is saying to Crosby as well. I think Crosby is good for game, mind you, but I really hate seeing him all of the time. Some folks feel that way about Woods as well. Whaddaya gonna do? Cheers. I understand what you are saying; I will ask you this, would you mind all the attention on Sid the Kid if he was wearing a Habs Jersey ? I'm sure the Pens fans are fine with it .... Maybe, in a way, we are just jealous, because first, we are fans of one team out of 30.... Jealousy? Not really HS. In a way I see what Pittsburgh fans might be going through because we had most of our focus on the "Legend of Carey Price." I hated this from the get-go because I knew as soon as he couldn't live up to the media hype, they'd make sure he'd fall pretty hard. And he did. Besides, whenever one of these young phenoms fall, there is always a core of dispondent fans there just to make sure. Woods is no exception. This is true, but I think a lot of Woods' fans are very loyal to their hero. Not too many other golfers exist to some of these fans. I also admire Crobsy and Malkin's talent, and Ovechkin's love of the game. It's why I like seeing Woods do well. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 20, 2008 7:51:42 GMT -5
Why is it that a hockey player playing with broken ribs or dislocated shoulders to win a playoff series is an example of courage and Woods playing with a damaged knee to win one of the most pretigious golf tournament is just a guy with a big EGO ? I'm not sure why people don't like Tiger Woods because he's so dominant ..... He certainly doesn't have a attitude problem like for example Barry Bonds. The guy is a phenomenon in is sport and he his hyper competitive. He wants to win all the time. Isn't that a quality of any great athlete ? True, the media maybe over focus on him, but hey, is it his fault ? Is he suppose to lose to give the stage to other players ? I don't understand this sentiment; I dont think you'll ever hear me say I wanted a hockey player to play through the pain ... hockey players regulary HIDE injuries and they are only disclosed after the season is over. Ryder playing through a bad back 2 years ago and his playing in pain 3 years ago (no one knew any of it, was he labelled courageous?) ... then we have Higgins playing on a bum leg, where I was adamant that he NOT play because a) his play suffered dramatically and b) he was risking even a greater injury .... and isnt that what I said about Woods ... also Streit's injury this year was disclosed after the season and were many others (Markov). Why do hockey players hide injuries? To be courageous? Noble? NO ... they know that fans will nit-pick their play and if they get injured again the inevitable "What the hell was he doing out there anyway" will surface. He risked greater injury for the sake of this tournament. What if he comes up one major short of the record (which he likely wont - and which is what he is likely thinking , which is why I call it ego) ... these 2 missed opportunities this year would be talked about in perpetuity. I am a fan of golfers and I respect Tiger's ability (although no matter how much he wins I'll never consider him the best ever ... and argument I'll make if asked), I love the game ... and the Woods coverage is tiresome. But what if Tiger did irreparable damage to his leg ..... twisted it so much, he torn an ACL? ..... that's the angle and the ego I am referring to. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 20, 2008 12:50:01 GMT -5
Nobody ever gave Tiger anything. He earned it. He earned it on the practice green, driving range, and in the gym. No golfer ever put in more hours, analyzed his swing or worked on his faults more than Tiger did.
His hard work put him in a position to win, it didn't give him an automatic trophy. Anybody that ever had to sink a pressure putt for $25 knows what it must be like for Woods week in week out.
Sometimes he wins by 11 strokes, sometimes he comes back on Sunday from five back, sometimes it's in an extra hole playoff. Sometimes he looks lucky when his long shot bounces on the green and stops next to the hole. The more he practices, the luckier he gets.
Every week he is up against the best 150 golfers in the world that earned cards or right to enter the tournament.
Buick and Nike don't give him money because they like him. They know that for every dollar they give him, he returns two. The press does cover Mickelson occasionally. It covers Mediate only when he is close to winning. It covers Daley when he is found in a motel room with a case of 24 empties. It covers Weir when he wins (which is not that often).
All those other golfers want to win too. Woods doesn't have the advantage of using ladies tees. They all have to play by the same rules.
Like him or hate him or be indifferent, but Woods deserves everything he has.
The press covers Woods because that's who the public wants to hear about. Like Arnies Army, that's who the fans follow on the course.
Woods also has a contageous smile (in a manly way), a beautiful wife and child, home in Florida, jet, tax accountant, charitable foundation. He earned everything he has.
Golf will never replace hockey on my TV, golfers are not my heroes the way toothless scarred hockey players are.
Tiger is something special. He looks like an athlete, not like the other golfers with stomaches hiding their belt buckles.
What is left for him to do to be considered the best ever?
|
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 20, 2008 19:46:55 GMT -5
Nobody ever gave Tiger anything. He earned it. He earned it on the practice green, driving range, and in the gym. No golfer ever put in more hours, analyzed his swing or worked on his faults more than Tiger did. His hard work put him in a position to win, it didn't give him an automatic trophy. Anybody that ever had to sink a pressure putt for $25 knows what it must be like for Woods week in week out. Sometimes he wins by 11 strokes, sometimes he comes back on Sunday from five back, sometimes it's in an extra hole playoff. Sometimes he looks lucky when his long shot bounces on the green and stops next to the hole. The more he practices, the luckier he gets. Every week he is up against the best 150 golfers in the world that earned cards or right to enter the tournament. Buick and Nike don't give him money because they like him. They know that for every dollar they give him, he returns two. The press does cover Mickelson occasionally. It covers Mediate only when he is close to winning. It covers Daley when he is found in a motel room with a case of 24 empties. It covers Weir when he wins (which is not that often). All those other golfers want to win too. Woods doesn't have the advantage of using ladies tees. They all have to play by the same rules. Like him or hate him or be indifferent, but Woods deserves everything he has. The press covers Woods because that's who the public wants to hear about. Like Arnies Army, that's who the fans follow on the course. Woods also has a contageous smile (in a manly way), a beautiful wife and child, home in Florida, jet, tax accountant, charitable foundation. He earned everything he has. Golf will never replace hockey on my TV, golfers are not my heroes the way toothless scarred hockey players are. Tiger is something special. He looks like an athlete, not like the other golfers with stomaches hiding their belt buckles. What is left for him to do to be considered the best ever? Well said, HFLA. That's what I respect about golf and tennis (and bowling to a lesser extent ). Individual sports wherein you have to win to get the big bucks. Nothing's guaranteed. Even the lucrative endorsement deals don't last if your performance plummets. Nothing else to add. Woods is exemplary. But to the golf world: Relax....Tiger will be back. He isn't dead. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 20, 2008 20:09:58 GMT -5
What is left for him to do to be considered the best ever? The level of competition..... you asked so I'll answer. Is Tiger so good ... or is his competition so low. Jack Nicklaus had to compete against Tom Watson, Gary Player, Lee Trevino, Arnold Palmer, ...etc ..(in fact of the top 18 major winners, 7 played with Nicklaus and 9 played before Nicklaus was in the PGA). numerous multiple major winners and each with about 35 PGA victories. Tiger has no competition ... almost all fold just by looking at him. Is that Tiger or just the others aren't mentally strong. No one in todays PGA (Tiger aside) has more than 35 wins .. and I believe only Els (Singh and Mickelson) has more than 2 majors..... No that's not Tiger's fault ... but somehow I think if Tiger played in Jack Nicklaus' era, against players who all were mentally strong .... (and let's put it in perspective, Nicklaus with the technology he had hit his 7 iron 155 yrds ... Tiger hits it about 180 or more... so to put Tiger back to compare he would hit it say 160+ even) ..... I doubt he'd win as much. Granted he would have ensured Jack didn't win as much also, but he wouldn't be head and shoulders above the rest. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 20, 2008 21:15:58 GMT -5
What is left for him to do to be considered the best ever? The level of competition..... you asked so I'll answer. Is Tiger so good ... or is his competition so low. Jack Nicklaus had to compete against Tom Watson, Gary Player, Lee Trevino, Arnold Palmer, ...etc ..(in fact of the top 18 major winners, 7 played with Nicklaus and 9 played before Nicklaus was in the PGA). numerous multiple major winners and each with about 35 PGA victories. Tiger has no competition ... almost all fold just by looking at him. Is that Tiger or just the others aren't mentally strong. No one in todays PGA (Tiger aside) has more than 35 wins .. and I believe only Els (Singh and Mickelson) has more than 2 majors..... No that's not Tiger's fault ... but somehow I think if Tiger played in Jack Nicklaus' era, against players who all were mentally strong .... (and let's put it in perspective, Nicklaus with the technology he had hit his 7 iron 155 yrds ... Tiger hits it about 180 or more... so to put Tiger back to compare he would hit it say 160+ even) ..... I doubt he'd win as much. Granted he would have ensured Jack didn't win as much also, but he wouldn't be head and shoulders above the rest. But, like Gretzky, you can't take anything away from the fact that Tiger's earned it. The countless hours honing and perfecting from an early age...and the dedication continues. In hockey terms, that's a guy I'd want on my team. It's the way the media over-indulges on him that bothers me. I see your point. Your proposing that Woods' preparedness and talent has hit a lull amongst the rest of the field. Could be. My point for starting this thread was for the golf media to relax....the sky isn't falling just because Woods needs to take a season off. Nor was hockey in trouble when Crosby tweaked his ankle. Newsworthy? Yes. Handwringing? No. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 20, 2008 21:26:08 GMT -5
But, like Gretzky, you can't take anything away from the fact that Tiger's earned it. Oh I can take it away from Gretzky ... but wont ... ;D But Gretzky had other great players .... Lemieux, Messier, Dionne, Lafleur ... many great players to compete against and too many to name. I wont get into the rules changing in hockey to suit the stars - cant do that in golf..... .... Tiger wins because there is no competition. Tiger can be beat when players put it all together and are on their game - if not Tiger would win ever time he plays - ... but they dont do it often enough like the competiton in the 60's - 80's. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 20, 2008 21:52:50 GMT -5
But, like Gretzky, you can't take anything away from the fact that Tiger's earned it. Oh I can take it away from Gretzky ... but wont ... ;D But Gretzky had other great players .... Lemieux, Messier, Dionne, Lafleur ... many great players to compete against and too many to name. I wont get into the rules changing in hockey to suit the stars - cant do that in golf..... .... Tiger wins because there is no competition. Tiger can be beat when players put it all together and are on their game - if not Tiger would win ever time he plays - ... but they dont do it often enough like the competiton in the 60's - 80's. Nothing personal, but I must respectfully disagree. Nobody quits saying I can't possibly win as long as Tiger is there. Todays golfers have the best equipment, coaches, strength and training. They all hit the ball farther and more accurately than the athletes that preceeded them years ago. Todays swimmers are faster, olympians jump higher, athletes are bigger, faster and stronger. THe reason there are no other golfers that come close in wins; Tiger hogs most of the wins. Tiger dominates. THere are others that are good golfers, they just don't come close tp Tiger. My money would be on Tiger against Jack or Arnie or Lee. (or Sammy or Ben) Gretzky was the best that ever lived. There were others on his team, some were bigger, stronger, faster and had harder shots. Gretz was so far in front in scoring that the others weren't close. Messier was stronger, Coffee was faster, Kurri had a better shot, but the skinny kid was miles ahead of all of them and nobody did any favors for him. They tried to hit him when he stood in his office. THey all kept missing. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 20, 2008 22:09:10 GMT -5
THe reason there are no other golfers that come close in wins; Tiger hogs most of the wins. And I disagree with this ... Tiger has 14 majors out of a possible 48. So out of those 34 he lost ONLY THREE players managed to win more than 2 .... the competition is low. Looking at Jack Nicklaus ... well 7 players won 5 or more, 15 players won more than 2 .... sure Tiger has a while to go to play as long as Jack, and therefore there are more opportunities for players to win more - but the argument then will inevitably turn to Tiger's injuries or age more than the other players ability. But comparing the era ... the competition was tougher for Jack and for Arnie and for Bobby Jones and for Walter Hagen. Where is Tiger's competition? Again that isnt a knock against Tiger, he can't be blamed because his competition fold ... but when you compare eras, the golfers were better/more competitive back in the 60's - 80's. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Jun 20, 2008 22:54:16 GMT -5
Again that isnt a knock against Tiger, he can't be blamed because his competition fold ... but when you compare eras, the golfers were better/more competitive back in the 60's - 80's. Or.....perhaps there wasn't a golfer as phenomenal in that era as is Tiger in this one. Just going with logic. There are a plethora of great athletes/musicians/etc....and then there are the phenoms who come along every once in a while. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 21, 2008 1:53:02 GMT -5
Tennis is dominated by two men.
That doesn't make all the others chopped liver.
I thought Venus and Serena would scare the rest of the women into submission, but it didn't happen.
In order to really dominate, you must be much better than the opposition.
Ali dominated. Did that make all the other fighters lesser competition?
Tiger isn't just winning. He is crushing the others. In order to prove his greatness does he have to teach his competition to be better to make him work harder to win.
One week it's Singh, then Mickelson, Sergio and then Weir. Up comes a major and Tiger beats them all.
I loved Arnie and hated to see him beaten regularly by Jack, but I agree that Nicklas was the better golfer. Jack lost to Trevino and Miller and ChiChi on occasion, but that didn't mean his competition was better. On a given weekend you have to beat 150 others. You never know who will get hot or who will get lucky.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 21, 2008 10:37:12 GMT -5
Tennis is dominated by two men. That doesn't make all the others chopped liver. I thought Venus and Serena would scare the rest of the women into submission, but it didn't happen. In order to really dominate, you must be much better than the opposition. Ali dominated. Did that make all the other fighters lesser competition? Tiger isn't just winning. He is crushing the others. In order to prove his greatness does he have to teach his competition to be better to make him work harder to win. One week it's Singh, then Mickelson, Sergio and then Weir. Up comes a major and Tiger beats them all. I loved Arnie and hated to see him beaten regularly by Jack, but I agree that Nicklas was the better golfer. Jack lost to Trevino and Miller and ChiChi on occasion, but that didn't mean his competition was better. On a given weekend you have to beat 150 others. You never know who will get hot or who will get lucky. Sure people will get lucky .... but when you win regularly it isnt luck, it's skill. Jack faced gretaer skilled competition. (The number of multiple major winner and PGA tour wins proves that) Tiger is the only skilled player in this era ... everyone else is plain, as you say, lucky. The number of one-time major winners in this era is astounding. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 21, 2008 11:52:15 GMT -5
Tennis is dominated by two men. That doesn't make all the others chopped liver. I thought Venus and Serena would scare the rest of the women into submission, but it didn't happen. In order to really dominate, you must be much better than the opposition. Ali dominated. Did that make all the other fighters lesser competition? Tiger isn't just winning. He is crushing the others. In order to prove his greatness does he have to teach his competition to be better to make him work harder to win. One week it's Singh, then Mickelson, Sergio and then Weir. Up comes a major and Tiger beats them all. I loved Arnie and hated to see him beaten regularly by Jack, but I agree that Nicklas was the better golfer. Jack lost to Trevino and Miller and ChiChi on occasion, but that didn't mean his competition was better. On a given weekend you have to beat 150 others. You never know who will get hot or who will get lucky. Sure people will get lucky .... but when you win regularly it isnt luck, it's skill. Jack faced gretaer skilled competition. (The number of multiple major winner and PGA tour wins proves that) Tiger is the only skilled player in this era ... everyone else is plain, as you say, lucky. The number of one-time major winners in this era is astounding. What is shows me is the competition level is so high that nobody can win more than a couple of tournaments (except Tiger). |
|
|
|
Post by Roggy on Jun 21, 2008 12:28:44 GMT -5
Just like there is parity in the NHL now, there is parity in golf.
Can you honestly say the best 150 golfers in the 1970's were better than the best 150 golfers today?
The reason there are so few other players with multiple majors and large numbers of wins is because other than Tiger, the top 150 players are all very close and each guy can win on any given day.
Parity, baby.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 21, 2008 15:54:29 GMT -5
Just like there is parity in the NHL now, there is parity in golf. Can you honestly say the best 150 golfers in the 1970's were better than the best 150 golfers today? When you factor in technology yes, I think they were better back then. Parity huh .... while it is certainly a point worthy of debate, then we can use the same argument we see in hockey. Parity has brought the skill level down (Da trap! ). Parity may have something to do with it, but I think if you look at the number of players back then with wins and majors ... you'll find that there were just as many winners, just top echelon were better. And thats my point ... the top 10% golfers back then, are way better then the top 10% of today. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jun 22, 2008 18:16:16 GMT -5
Just like there is parity in the NHL now, there is parity in golf. Can you honestly say the best 150 golfers in the 1970's were better than the best 150 golfers today? When you factor in technology yes, I think they were better back then. I've heard this argument here and there, but I do agree that if guys like Nicklaus, Palmer and Player all had equipment that was available today they'd be even more famous. As an aside, I shot a 43 on the front-9 today and self-destructed with a 51 on the back. Not a bad score for me mind you, but when another member came into the golf course restaurant and told me he eagled both par-5's I just about gagged on my Moosehead Lager. On the greens in two and one-putted each hole. Took only one lesson this year (the young pro only charged me $10 bucks). He showed me why my drive kept slicing (I'm a lefty) just by having me change my grip ever so slightly. However, I think the most the lesson did for me was make me more deliberate in what I'm doing. I'm hitting my driver very well now, ditto my irons. However, the best part of my game over the last few weeks has been my putting. Over the past few weeks I've sunk one 35-footer, and the odd 20-footers (one for a birdie today). Getting back to equipment, I only use a $200 set of Top Flight clubs. I kept my driver and fairway woods from my previous set and replaced my 3, 4 and 5 irons with hybrids (which I'm not hitting very consistently). The driver and woods have graphite shafts, so I don't have to 'come onto' every shot. Imagine if Nicklaus, Palmer and Player had graphite shafts with today's technology. Or even Tom Watson for that matter. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Jun 22, 2008 19:07:07 GMT -5
When you factor in technology yes, I think they were better back then. I've heard this argument here and there, but I do agree that if guys like Nicklaus, Palmer and Player all had equipment that was available today they'd be even more famous. As an aside, I shot a 43 on the front-9 today and self-destructed with a 51 on the back. Not a bad score for me mind you, but when another member came into the golf course restaurant and told me he eagled both par-5's I just about gagged on my Moosehead Lager. On the greens in two and one-putted each hole. Took only one lesson this year (the young pro only charged me $10 bucks). He showed me why my drive kept slicing (I'm a lefty) just by having me change my grip ever so slightly. However, I think the most the lesson did for me was make me more deliberate in what I'm doing. I'm hitting my driver very well now, ditto my irons. However, the best part of my game over the last few weeks has been my putting. Over the past few weeks I've sunk one 35-footer, and the odd 20-footers (one for a birdie today). Getting back to equipment, I only use a $200 set of Top Flight clubs. I kept my driver and fairway woods from my previous set and replaced my 3, 4 and 5 irons with hybrids (which I'm not hitting very consistently). The driver and woods have graphite shafts, so I don't have to 'come onto' every shot. Imagine if Nicklaus, Palmer and Player had graphite shafts with today's technology. Or even Tom Watson for that matter. Cheers. Since Tiger is out and there is no real competition, my money is on Toronthab, (or whatever he is going by today). He's the second best golfer I know. |
|
|
|
Post by HabSolute on Jun 23, 2008 8:08:46 GMT -5
I would like to add this: Tiger is now...32 years old ! I don't know how good Nicklaus and the others were at 32, cause I was too young... But to be fair, before saying Tiger will NEVER be the best Golfer ever, give him another 20 to 25 years....before judging . It's scary that with age, he might even get better ! (at what age did Nicklaus retire anyway...?) In the end, I think comparing between generations is almost impossible because of competition, technologies, media pressure, money involved etc.... Just like IMO, we can't compare Howe to Gretzky, or The Rocket to Mario ? Would Maurice have been as dominant in today's hockey ? Would Gretzky have been so good in the 50's ? No one will ever know I think. But without a doubt, Tiger Woods is MILES and MILES ahead right now of everyone else active. And he's ONLY 32.... Apart from saying "people still watch hockey ?" a few weeks back, I don't think he's ever made a Faux Pas ! He's the perfect role model, top shape athlete, best in the game, Charity, personnal life etc..... He's the "picture perfect" example of the American Dream. |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Jun 23, 2008 11:37:01 GMT -5
Throw a 29 yr old Gordie Howe into a time-machine and equip him with today's best and he'll have a hard time making an NHL 3rd line. I'm convinced of it.
|
|
