Yeah, including Bobby Jones in that list is a little unfair. He's the Babe Ruth of golf: his records may fall, but he was the first of the truly great ones, and his legacy is now and forever beyond cavil. On preview: "Golf, as we know it, is over. He's not just a promising young Tour pro anymore, he's an era." Great quote, and I'd go so far as to say it's entirely accurate.
I'm loving the quote. I'm agreeing with the quote. I'm also loving the use of the word "cavil". Now that the kids have gone to bed, can we talk about the golf? There were some guys on the golf channel the other night talking about Woods vs Nicklaus. Their main contention was that Nicklaus had to beat better people to win his first eleven (although, they kept mentioning Watson, who didn't show up as a major winning force until Jack had already won 13). I had a look at the past winners and found the following: In the time it has taken Tiger to win 11: Vijay has won 3 Mickelson has won 3 Goose has won 2 Els has won 2 (of a career three) O'Meara has won 2 (swansong, doesn't count) There have been flashes in pans (Toh Hamyton (as Seve called him in BBC comentary), Ken Burtis, Shaun Micheel), but also some class acts - Payne Stewart won one (of a career three) Olly won one (of a career two), Janzen won one (of a career two), Duval won one (when he was brilliant). In the time it took Nicklaus to win 11: Player won (his middle) 3 (of a career 9) Trevino won (his first) 3 (of a career 6) Palmer won (his last) 2 (of a career 7) Casper (the friendly golfer) won (his last) 2 (of a career 3) Julian Boros won (his last) 2 (of a career 3) Jacklin won 2 There were flashes in pans (Bobby Nichols, Orville Moody, George Archer, Al Geiberger, Charles Coody, Ken Venturi, Dave Marr, Bob Charles) but also some class acts - Peter Thompson won (his last of a career five), Floyd won (his first of a career four), Dave Stockton won one (of a career two). Plus ca change really. History will look very differently on Tiger's achievments when he a) surpasses Nicklaus' record, which he will do easily barring injury or accident, and b) if the likes of Phil, Vijay, Els and Goosen can grab at least one more each (and I don't think any of them are finished by any means), and the up-and-comings like Ogilvy, Scott & Garcia can start winning more, as they should. I don't think Nicklaus had it any harder - in fact, I'd say it was easier. There wasn't as much money involved, so there weren't as many players - and of the players there were, very few of them were as focused on their golf as most of the modern players are (they had things like wives and kids and... lives outside golf *gasp*) Nicklaus was beating a twilight Palmer, and emerging Trevino, a hateful wee South African, a friendly ghost and a future Slazenger Slasher. Tiger has been beating some incredible players (Els, Singh, Goosen, Duval, Mickelson) at the peak of their powers. As for the "true test" argument - I stand by my contention that the best players win when the course is fair and a good score is possible - and that tricked up "difficult" golf courses produce unheralded winners. Last seven winners at St Andrews (which is an easy golf course if you have a brain in your head and can find several routes round it in various winds) - Woods, Woods, Daly, Faldo, Seve, Nicklaus, Nicklaus. On the other hand, the two "toughest tests" in recent times were Carnoustie in '99 and Sandwich in '03 - both of which were won by unheralded players who have done nothing since to convince me they are anything but journeymen who caught the title when the top players were tripped by the course.
I think the course was great (as apparently did the players) and I think Tiger was better, he had a winning strategy and the ability to execute it. As alifelong fan of Jack I hate to say this but I think Tiger may be the best ever.
/reads JJ's comment /stands and applauds
Tiger's biggest problem is consistency, but even when he's slipping a little, he's usually better than 90% of the field. There are guys who can hang with him at any given tournament, but nobody's shown that they can do it regularly, and I'll be surprised if anybody comes along soon. Best ever? Maybe not yet, but certainly headed there. Barring major physical problems that cut his career short, or a mental meltdown (which seems like a one in a million possibility to me), he's pretty much a lock for besy ever.
/yells "GET IN THE COMMENT BOX!"
Excellent research and I agree with your arguments, JJ. I will always wonder, however, what the likes of Vardon, Jones, Hagen, Sarazen, Snead, Nelson, Hogan, Player, Palmer, Watson, and Nicklaus could have done with todays equipment, any improvement may have been negated by their opponents use of same equipment, or it may have made their own game stand out even more, who's to say? The group of players who have won 7 to 9 majors were all extraordinary, and those who have won more should be annointed Gods of Golf. Gary Player hateful? Surely that is tongue in cheek, I will let it ride ;)
To, finally, support my earlier comment,I would add that I have a profound respect for Tiger's ability and accomplishments.However,I stand by my position that Tiger historically does not win on the toughest course set-ups. (Bethpage over-emphasized long carries and Pebble was virtually his home course.)As great as he is, his Achilles heel is a course with penal rough,fast greens,and significant wind.Royal Liverpool had none of these, and a major played like the Bob Hope Desert Classic. If the R&A has the guts to set Carnoustie up like they did last time,my point will be proven next year.
He also ain't worth a shit on them holes with the windmills.
I think one factor that may cloud the issue a bit is the nature of links golf. By definition, these courses are costal, and generally are exposed (especially in Britain) to four seasons in a day. If you set it up hard and fast with rough up to your eyes a foot off the fairway and then the wind blows (properly) you could end up having to abandon the round. I played in an Irish championship one year at County Louth and they had to call a halt to the second round - the greens were running at about 14 when the wind started to get up. It didn't take too long before the ball wouldn't come to rest on the greens. Hoylake's traditional defences are bunkers either side of every fairway off the tee, tricky spots to place the pins in, and the prevailing wind (and rain, and sleet, and snow). Tiger took the bunkers out of play by hitting a lot of irons, he managed the pins by keeping his discipline and ignoring them, and the only part of the weather that might have become a problem (but didn't) was the heat. The problem at Carnoustie (and it was a problem, not a matter of anyone having the balls to set the course up that way - the R&A doesn't share the USGA's ridiculous obsession with defending par), was that the weather was unseasonably warm and wet leading up to the championship, making the rough much heavier and thicker than they had wanted it. They even tried to thin it out without cutting it down, but that didn't really work. Their only hope for a successful championship (i.e. one that identifies "The Champion Golfer of the Year") was that the weather on the days of play was mild and windless - that didn't happen either and they ended up with two relative unknowns and Leonard in a playoff. Courses like that don't identify the best players, they identify the best grinders. Lee Janzen won on really tough courses because, by his own admission, he wasn't good at shooting low scores, but he was good at grinding out par. Everyone's taste differs, but mine is for Opens on courses like Hoylake where the course is the stage and not the drama itself.
Quick bit of trivia for you: Six players have won two or more majors before the age of 30 - Jones, Nicklaus, Watson, Miller, Woods and... who else?
By some of the comments above, it sounds like Tiger's become a freakin' millionaire several times over by only winning, mainly, on easy courses. It's amazing no other golfers thought of doing that. Oh well. I think Tiger's willingness to only use irons, basically, last week will change his strategy in many tournaments he enters where the dangers are lurking off the fairway. He's so deadly with the long irons off the tee, and can hit a 7-iron farther, higher, and with more accuracy than any tour player, that he's taught himself a great, although boring for us, lesson.
dyams, I thought of it once, then realised that even if I was playing at an easy course, all the other golfers would have to play there too. Amazingly, I kept losing. I'm not sure that his tactic was "hit iron", I think his tactic was hit it to the best safe place on the fairway - so some days he hit 2 iron, some days 5 iron, some days 3 wood at the same hole depending on the wind. The problem he faces in regular tour play, and at courses like Augusta and most US Open and US PGA courses, is that the optimum position in the fairway is usually 300+ yards away. Also, it's one thing to leave yourself 250 yards to the green (sometimes even more) when you can land the ball and chase it up to the hole - when he gets back home, 250 yard approach shots just won't put him in with a shout. The only weakness in his game or his thinking is with his driver off the tee. I see two problems - 1) The equipment he is using (he wasn't always so wild - quite the contrary - and that Nike Kumquat or whatever it is he's using is just plain ugly and so light in the head I'm not surprised he loses it left and right all day), and 2) with his irons (and his 3 wood) he has his full swing and that "delicious 3/4 punch cut stinger" as Peter Alliss called it, but with the driver, he doesn't seem to have a choked back shot. I suppose the logic for him is that if he's going to ease back on it, he might as well hit 3 wood. As someone who has exactly the same problem (handing me a driver is like handing a bull a dozen red rags), I have no solution to offer!
I agree, JJ. This (irons off the tee) can't be his strategy for every tournament. But if the consensus is a particular course is "Easy," I see him taking advantage of the strategy he used at the British. I'm sure the biggest part of Tiger desires to pull out the big stick every par four or five. But if the layout dictates, his strategy should be the conservative play. I've said it a million times, when he's in the fairway, he's nearly unbeatable.
