Tiger Wins

[mgranato]

The concept of intimidation in a non-contact, non-physical, non-threatening, non-impactual, non-imposing sport has always been a notion that's eluded me. It's like someone thinking I was intimidated in math class because the really smart kid wrote down the "winning" numbers more than me. I understand being intimidated by an unfamiliar/uncomfortable situation, but I don't buy being intimidated by another golfer.

 

[ms1170]

My reference is to scale.

BUT, I'll play. So, you believe that Tiger's intimidation was like Mike Tyson's? Players paired with Tiger were scared he would embarrass them or that when he gave them a mean "look" they could not play well? If so, I call shenanigans.

"I" believe that Tigers following - like that of Arnold Palmers, often have more of an impact than almost anything. I have been in that "crowd" during a final round several times and I can assure you that it would take a few experiences to get used to it. It's absolutely an advantage to him (Tiger). THAT coupled with the fact that he is pretty much better than those he is playing with, is the cause of his dominance. Believe me, he does not scare Ernie Els, he's just a better golfer.

I agree that Tiger has an advantage with crowd support and being familiar with the huge gallery's, because it's the norm for him, What I was really trying to point out was even if Palmer had the fans, Jack still knew he was the better player. By the way it doesn't seem to take Tiger to scare these guys down the stretch. What I saw with Furyk and McDowell at Olympic and Charlie Hoffman, Brian Davis and Tim Clark in Hartford had nothing to do with Tiger, but they sure played like they were scared.

 

[ms1170]

The concept of intimidation in a non-contact, non-physical, non-threatening, non-impactual, non-imposing sport has always been a notion that's eluded me. It's like someone thinking I was intimidated in math class because the really smart kid wrote down the "winning" numbers more than me. I understand being intimidated by an unfamiliar/uncomfortable situation, but I don't buy being intimidated by another golfer.

I agree with you. I'd have to think that if Nicklaus watches these tournaments in his living room, he's thinking " These guys are just laying down for Tiger, they didn't lay down for me". Obviously Jack is too classy to say this publicly.

 

[hp12c]

I'm am not old enough to have watched Nicklaus play in his prime. I graduated from Ohio State and I love Nicklaus, Muirfeld Village, Scioto and everything else (except his vomit of a redesign of #4 Scarlet). Also, I'm not a fan of Tiger at all.

If you think Nicklaus was the better total golfer so be it. Besides, now that Dariusz is apparently gone, we (this forum) need another "defender of the classic greats". Maybe you can start a blog where you write about how the "flying right elbow" is the key to automating the golf swing.

I love this place we just jab each other in good fun! well most of the time.

 

[hp12c]

I say Nelson would have waxed both Jack and Tiger.If he didn't retire so soon he would have won 30 majors.

Stuff the diagonal stance and the flying elbow.

I say the diagonal dip is the key to automation and my ebook will be out soon.Prepare for some insults and name calling from my direction as I try to get some free publicity.

 

[Lindsey Newman]

I love this place we just jab each other in good fun! well most of the time.

ALWAYS in good fun!

 

[mgranato]

ALWAYS in good fun!

Depends on who's wearing the glove.

 

[hp12c]

Depends on who's wearing the glove.

Ok u just intimidated me and were not the golf course!

 

[DCgolf]

Tiger waxed the field on Saturday without a soul on the course...

 

[DCgolf]

The concept of intimidation in a non-contact, non-physical, non-threatening, non-impactual, non-imposing sport has always been a notion that's eluded me. It's like someone thinking I was intimidated in math class because the really smart kid wrote down the "winning" numbers more than me. I understand being intimidated by an unfamiliar/uncomfortable situation, but I don't buy being intimidated by another golfer.

I agree. They are intimidated by the scene and the prospect of embarrassing themselves not TW. Billy Mayfair told me it was like playing basketball in a hostile gym.

 

[OLIVER1]

Tiger waxed the field on Saturday without a soul on the course...

Or, for that matter, one in his body.

"He's more machine now than man..." - Obi-Wan Kenobi

A pitiless wrecking ball that you just can't take your eyes off...

 

[JonWil]

No soup for you!

I have said repeatedly that both wins were impressive - Both! Two super models are still two super models, but it doesn't mean both are equally beautiful. No one would say "Jon's dating that ugly super model". C'mon. :roll eyes:

Let's try again...

Bay Hill was brutal on Sunday, most folks have forgotten that fact. Of the top 24 finishers, ONLY ONE player managed to craft a round in the 60's. Tiger tied for the second lowest score of those guys with a 70. Very tough scoring conditions that day.

Sunday at the Memorial saw 11 of the top 24 shoot in the 60's. Four of those guys shot 67, Tiger being one of them. The conditions were more favorable to better scores last Sunday (by comparison).

Here's nearly every shot Tiger hit on Sunday at Bay Hill. Look at how many stock shots he didn't play, and how many shots he had to be creative with... more impressive in my book.

Mike, Where would you rank this last win relative to the last three?

Soup-less,

Jon

 

[mgranato]

Mike, Where would you rank this last win relative to the last three?

Soup-less,

Jon

Easily the least impressive of the 3. He tried to give it away on that last par 5, only BVP was busy vomiting on himself from the middle of the fairway.

Still 3 out of 7 (I think), and the record books don't ask how, just how many.

 

[Nitro7]

The difference is when Tiger plays his best, nobody else has a chance. Even when Jack played his best, he lost at times. Turnberry 77, Augusta 77 to same guy. Merion 71, Oak Hill 68 to same guy. Was Jack intimidated? No but guys like Trevino, Watson, Player all got to him at some point. The debate is eternal. But fun.

DC, I think this just illustrates how Watson (8 majors, 39 tour wins) and Player (9 majors and 24 tour wins) and Trevino (6 majors and 29 tour wins) were better competition than what Tiger dealt with in the majors. Watson was 10 years younger than Jack and was hot in '77. What player did Tiger beat in a major that was on the same level as Watson? At Merion, Jack was over par in the final round and the playoff, probably not his best. I was at the '68 Open at Oak Hill and I carried the score sign for Trevino in the last round. Walked ever step with him. He hit the ball fantastic that day and if he would have putted better, that 4 shot victory could have easily been 8. Jack had a good last round, but played mediocre for the first three rounds. Bert Yancey had the 54 hole lead. Struggled on Sunday playing along side Lee.

Tiger has been beaten in majors when he played well. By Immelman '08 Masters, Cabrera '07 US Open, Campbell '05 US Open, and don't forget Rich Beem at the '02 PGA. YE Yang got the best of him also at Hazeltine even though Tiger had a below average last round. Even if Tiger pulls off winning 19 majors, in my mind he still won't be the greatest majors player. I just can't overlook 37 firsts and seconds and 56 top fives. Jack also won some majors handily too. '65 Masters by 9, 67 US Open and 73 PGA by 4, 80 PGA by 7, and two other majors by 3. Against great champion players, Jack dominated the majors. I know, Tiger is flat out awesome, but, I can't help remembering just how great Jack was too.

 

[AndyC]

DC, I think this just illustrates how Watson (8 majors, 39 tour wins) and Player (9 majors and 24 tour wins) and Trevino (6 majors and 29 tour wins) were better competition than what Tiger dealt with in the majors. Watson was 10 years younger than Jack and was hot in '77. What player did Tiger beat in a major that was on the same level as Watson? At Merion, Jack was over par in the final round and the playoff, probably not his best. I was at the '68 Open at Oak Hill and I carried the score sign for Trevino in the last round. Walked ever step with him. He hit the ball fantastic that day and if he would have putted better, that 4 shot victory could have easily been 8. Jack had a good last round, but played mediocre for the first three rounds. Bert Yancey had the 54 hole lead. Struggled on Sunday playing along side Lee.

Tiger has been beaten in majors when he played well. By Immelman '08 Masters, Cabrera '07 US Open, Campbell '05 US Open, and don't forget Rich Beem at the '02 PGA. YE Yang got the best of him also at Hazeltine even though Tiger had a below average last round. Even if Tiger pulls off winning 19 majors, in my mind he still won't be the greatest majors player. I just can't overlook 37 firsts and seconds and 56 top fives. Jack also won some majors handily too. '65 Masters by 9, 67 US Open and 73 PGA by 4, 80 PGA by 7, and two other majors by 3. Against great champion players, Jack dominated the majors. I know, Tiger is flat out awesome, but, I can't help remembering just how great Jack was too.

I was watching Feherty's show last night where he was interviewing Pavin and Lehman. They seemed to think that there is better competition today and that majors were harder to win.

I really can't think of one major sport in the US where the players aren't bigger, stronger, faster and more skilled than generations past. Baseball, football, basketball, swimming, track and field, etc. But somehow people want to believe that the same hasn't happened in golf. Today golf is played by the masses and is no longer viewed as a country club sport. There are far more players today than in the past. There are far more athletes who have taken up golf as a primary sport and not as a hobby in the off-season. Teaching and the knowledge of the swing has gotten far better, if not this site would be a ghost town. Logically it doesn't make sense that the skill level of today's players is somehow inferior to the good ole days.

 

[duckjr78]

I was watching Feherty's show last night where he was interviewing Pavin and Lehman. They seemed to think that there is better competition today and that majors were harder to win.

I really can't think of one major sport in the US where the players aren't bigger, stronger, faster and more skilled than generations past. Baseball, football, basketball, swimming, track and field, etc. But somehow people want to believe that the same hasn't happened in golf. Today golf is played by the masses and is no longer viewed as a country club sport. There are far more players today than in the past. There are far more athletes who have taken up golf as a primary sport and not as a hobby in the off-season. Teaching and the knowledge of the swing has gotten far better, if not this site would be a ghost town. Logically it doesn't make sense that the skill level of today's players is somehow inferior to the good ole days.

I think, perhaps, that the mental coddling that today's prodigies get from a very early age makes them great swingers, but poorer golfers. What with their own swing coach, tutors so they don't have to go to school, parents moving them to different parts of the globe to be nearer said coach, practice regiments scheduled by other people, etc. I don't see a single player out there today, save maybe McIlroy, that could touch ole' Lee Buck with his homemade swing playing off dirt tracks in Texas with an ugly grip and uglier swing, but a winner's heart and mind.

Today's players sure do look good, with their on-plane swings, flat bellies, white belts, and clothes plastered in logos, but to me, all their guns have "replica" stamped on the side.

 

[mgranato]

I was watching Feherty's show last night where he was interviewing Pavin and Lehman. They seemed to think that there is better competition today and that majors were harder to win.

I really can't think of one major sport in the US where the players aren't bigger, stronger, faster and more skilled than generations past. Baseball, football, basketball, swimming, track and field, etc. But somehow people want to believe that the same hasn't happened in golf. Today golf is played by the masses and is no longer viewed as a country club sport. There are far more players today than in the past. There are far more athletes who have taken up golf as a primary sport and not as a hobby in the off-season. Teaching and the knowledge of the swing has gotten far better, if not this site would be a ghost town. Logically it doesn't make sense that the skill level of today's players is somehow inferior to the good ole days.

Amen, brother. Bigger, faster, stronger, better across the board. Show me another 19 year old athlete from any previous era who made a better SI cover than this one...

 

[sweetser]

I really can't think of one major sport in the US where the players aren't bigger, stronger, faster and more skilled than generations past. Baseball, football, basketball, swimming, track and field, etc. But somehow people want to believe that the same hasn't happened in golf. Today golf is played by the masses and is no longer viewed as a country club sport. There are far more players today than in the past. There are far more athletes who have taken up golf as a primary sport and not as a hobby in the off-season. Teaching and the knowledge of the swing has gotten far better, if not this site would be a ghost town.

This is all true but in any sport, no matter how strong the pool, the few will rise and separate themselves consistently. I agree with Shackelford, Venturi et al. It's the gear and the ball.

"No sport is blessed with a talent pool such as*golf's" - GeoffShackelford.com, With GolfDigest.com -

 

[Nitro7]

I was watching Feherty's show last night where he was interviewing Pavin and Lehman. They seemed to think that there is better competition today and that majors were harder to win.

I really can't think of one major sport in the US where the players aren't bigger, stronger, faster and more skilled than generations past. Baseball, football, basketball, swimming, track and field, etc. But somehow people want to believe that the same hasn't happened in golf. Today golf is played by the masses and is no longer viewed as a country club sport. There are far more players today than in the past. There are far more athletes who have taken up golf as a primary sport and not as a hobby in the off-season. Teaching and the knowledge of the swing has gotten far better, if not this site would be a ghost town. Logically it doesn't make sense that the skill level of today's players is somehow inferior to the good ole days.

Then why is Tiger so much better than everyone else? He's a fit guy, but, he's no super athlete. I agree the
bottom half of the top 100 might be better overall, but, numbers don't lie. Too many guys back in Jack's era
won A LOT, both majors and tour events. Could be that if it's so hard to win a major these days, maybe the
players just aren't good enough to do it more than once or twice or even at all. I think it's a mistake to think
that Palmer, Player, or Nicklaus were not as strong or skilled as any top player playing today. Even going back
further to past generations, guys like Snead, Hogan, Nelson, were strong and athletic. Golf is different in my
opinion because aside from talent and athleticism, it's the mind and heart of a player that ends up being the
determining factor between winning and losing, especially in the majors.

 

[puttmaster]

Then why is Tiger so much better than everyone else?

Because he is the best golfer of all time?