Greatest golf season ever

[Chauncey]

Just a question. Curious as to what us golf fans think. And yes, please post commentary on why you think so.

[joberly]

Wasn't there argument about Singh's 2004 being better than Woods' '00?

[Chauncey]

Originally Posted by joberly

Wasn't there argument about Singh's 2004 being better than Woods' '00?

Yes, in the current issue of Golf Digest. The author of the piece (I can't remember his name, because I read the article while shopping with the g/f in Wal-Mart) says that Tiger's 2000 season stands head and shoulders above Vijay's 2004 season. Even Vijay admitted that Tiger's 2000 season is the best ever, solely because he won three majors that year (Both Opens and the PGA).

The only things that make Vijay's current season remarkable is the amount of money he's made, tourneys won, and the PGA Championship victory at Whistling Straits. Adjusted for the upswing in winning purses, if Tiger would've had the same season this year as he did in '00, he would've won an astounding $13 million and change. Tiger won something like 9.8 percent of the total prize money in the 2000 season, whereas Vijay is only winning 6.8 percent. Vijay only won the PGA this year because his playoff opponents narrowly missed birdie and par putts. Tiger won his majors in '00 by a combined 27 shots. Veej's phenomenal season will surely rank up there with some of the greatest ever, but as far as the greatest? Methinks not. He still has to win at least three majors in a single year to rank up there with Hogan and Woods as the only golfers ever to win the Triple Crown in one year (three majors in a single year, obviously).

Regardless, Vijay is having the year of his life right now and I wouldn't be surprised to see him break the $11 million dollar mark.

[Rascus]

I think "the bear" would whoop the tigers ass in his prime

[Chauncey]

Originally Posted by Rascus

I think "the bear" would whoop the tigers ass in his prime

To a certain extent, I agree. Allow me a comparison/dissertation on the two.

Driving/fairway woods: Jack would trounce Tiger in this department. I would want Jack off the tee over Tiger every time, wouldn't you? If Tiger was the driver of the ball that Jack was, he would so thoroughly dominate golf that his 2000 season would be a run-of-the-mill year.

Iron play: Tiger by a shade. Tiger has more shots, more precision, and more imagination than Jack in this category. Actually, Tiger just may be the finest iron player ever. What Jack has over Tiger with the shovels is a consistency in hitting the green and making the ball stick. Tigers' iron play is phenomenal, yes, but he tends to try and stick it in places that are impossible to hit from 200+ yards out. Jack just aimed for the fat of the green.

Wedge play/short game: Again, Tiger. Why? Well, for starters his imagination and variety of shots he's mastered is unparalleled. Jack's own short game is great, granted, but it has always been considered just above average. Tiger's has been stellar his whole career (short career that it's been so far, anyway). I say Tiger because his driving has been so erratic his whole life (at his best in 2000, he only ranked 54th in accuracy) that he's had to be good from 100 yards and in to give him a chance at birdie or to save an otherwise impossible par. In fact, I'd even be so bold as to say that Tiger is easily twice the shotmaker Jack was, but ONLY by necessity.

Putting: Jack, for the miles and miles of must-make putts he's had to make his whole career. Weather or pressure be damned, Jack made them regardless of the circumstances. Tiger is one of the game's all time greats in this area naturally (the all-time cut streak is evidence of this), but Tiger has had to make fewer must-make putts than Jack ever did.

Mentality/Game-planning: Jack by a country mile. Tiger might be an awesome thinker, yes, but Jack simply knew what to do without exception. Tiger is too much a risk-taker to be considered a contemporary of Nicklaus' in this area. A playing partner of Jack from his amateur days once remarked, "Jack is so strong and intelligent that we were playing a course in northern Ohio once with the club pro and Jack beat him by 5 strokes. The club pro kept telling me and Jack what club to it, yardage, all that and every time Jack proved him wrong. He (Jack) knew the course better than the pro did simply by looking at the yardage book. You almost had to see it to believe it." Nobody's ever said this about Mr. Woods.

Domination/Consistency: Well, it's a toss-up, really. Jack dominated golf for a far longer stretch than Woods ever thought of. Jack won the 18 professional majors, yes, but he placed in the top-3 no less than 27 other times. That is testament enough of his greatness. Just think, if Jack had won even half of those 27 second or third place finishes, then he would've ended up with, what, 31 majors? On the other hand, Jack NEVER dominated golf as completely as Tiger did. Tiger either owns or shares the scoring records in every major, and he did this all before he turned 25. As a footnote to this, when it comes to playoffs, the two would be dead even. Tiger is a known killer in extra holes, although Jack has always been considered the toughest closer in history.

It's like this: Tiger is a sprinter, whereas Jack is a marathoner. Tiger's ability to grind away is vastly underrated, because he's known for his competitive fire and aggressiveness. Jack, though, is the ultimate grinder, who always played low-key, steady, and to the percentages. Tiger may not dominate golf as long as Jack did, but Jack never dominated as thoroughly as Tiger did.

If the two were to play head to head for 18 holes, Jack in his prime in the early seventies and Tiger at his 2000 peak, I'd say Jack would win 1 up.

Sorry if I rambled there, I just dig this game is all. And, I especially enjoy reading others' opinions.

Lemme know why you think Jack is better than Tiger or vice-versa. I'm enjoying this!

[Rascus]

I think it's obvious that you are a golf fan there

I think Jack is a better overall player period. Put Tiger back when Jack was in his prime, give him the same technology that they had to use. I don't think Tiger would be as good as what he is now. I think if Jack had the technology that Tiger has Jack would kill him.

[Chauncey]

Originally Posted by Rascus

I think Jack is a better overall player period. Put Tiger back when Jack was in his prime, give him the same technology that they had to use. I don't think Tiger would be as good as what he is now. I think if Jack had the technology that Tiger has Jack would kill him.

Well, in reality the only technology to make leaps and bounds over the past 35 years or so would be the ball and the woods. Jack has admitted this, as has Gary Player and Arnold Palmer. As for the rest of a players' clubs, the technology has improved, true, but not to such an extent as the ball.

I agree that Jack would've bested Tiger given the same technology and both in their primes, but it sure as hell would've came down to the last putt. I mean, we're talking about the two greatest closers in the game's history. These two guys are the rare breed of player that improve the more pressure is put on them. But, Tiger would've wilted in Jack's presence purely because, well, it's Jack.

Finally, let's not forget the other factor separating these two guys: course conditioning. Back in Jack's day, one would be hard-pressed to find a pristine lie even on the best-conditioned courses (Augusta is the lone exception). Today, even if you're in three feet of gorse, you've got a lie that is nothing shy of flawless.

[Ludicrous]

"Back in Jack's day"... we seem to forget how long his "day" lasted. Does no one recall that he became the oldest masters winner at age 46 - an age when most players are biding time while waiting for the magical "50" that will allow them to hit the senior tour? I can almost guarantee you Tiger won't be winning a masters at age 46.

While they both have massively beautiful games, there is - in my mind - a huge difference between the two: The love of the game. Give Tiger half of Jack's love & respect for the game, half of his passion, and see how great he'd become.

[Chauncey]

Originally Posted by Ludicrous

"Back in Jack's day"... we seem to forget how long his "day" lasted. Does no one recall that he became the oldest masters winner at age 46 - an age when most players are biding time while waiting for the magical "50" that will allow them to hit the senior tour?

Nobody forgets the arguably greatest Masters ever played, Ludi. But with all due respect, Jack's reign ended around '82-'83. That was 22, 21 years ago...in other words, a generation.

Jack's "day" was undisputably the greatest in professional golf. His day was long, yes, but his "day" in terms of winning duration plays second fiddle to Sam Snead's. Remember, Sam Snead is the only player to win a PGA TOUR event in six consecutive decades. Jack didn't do this, but what he did do was outlast every contemporary of his from the early '60s when it mattered, like the majors and assorted big regular-season tourneys.

One last thing...IMHO, Jack's win in '86 was a fluke. That still doesn't stop it from being the greatest Masters tourney ever, though.

Originally Posted by Ludicrous

I can almost guarantee you Tiger won't be winning a masters at age 46.

Assuming he still gives a shit about golf at 35, much less 46, that is.

Originally Posted by Ludicrous

While they both have massively beautiful games, there is - in my mind - a huge difference between the two: The love of the game. Give Tiger half of Jack's love & respect for the game, half of his passion, and see how great he'd become.

150% with you on this one.

[hybrid]

who cares its golf.

seriously you guys need to be trying to figure out a way to make road racing mainstream instead of pondering this question. I play golf and I will tell you what, I have never played a game of golf that made me grin let alone grin ear to ear like I do when I actually make it out of a corner I thought for sure would eat me alive when I crashed.

These fuckers get paid way to much to play golf.
Rossi is the highest paid rider in the world and that is somewhere around 10 million dollars after every fucking endorsement he has. What did Tiger make last year? Did he come close to losing his life ever?

Think about it

[Chauncey]

Originally Posted by hybrid

who cares its golf.

seriously you guys need to be trying to figure out a way to make road racing mainstream instead of pondering this question. I play golf and I will tell you what, I have never played a game of golf that made me grin let alone grin ear to ear like I do when I actually make it out of a corner I thought for sure would eat me alive when I crashed.

We have this ENTIRE SITE to figure out how to make roadracing mainstream. If riding gives you grins from ear to ear (as it does me, I assure you), then ride. Realize, though, that some people look at roadracing the same way. Imagine for a moment your in our shoes, "What about Rossi/Hayden/Bostroms' seasons? What would be the best ever?" It's an opinion, man, that's all.

I get the same grin from ear to ear when I sink a huge eagle/birdie putt or catch a drive on the screws.

Originally Posted by hybrid

These fuckers get paid way to much to play golf.

"These fuckers" are also the top 10 players in the WORLD who are paid way too much to play golf. Outside of the top 20 or maybe 30, NOBODY pulls down millions. The rest of them are lucky to make the cut, which if you fail to do so you don't get paid.

Originally Posted by hybrid

Rossi is the highest paid rider in the world and that is somewhere around 10 million dollars after every fucking endorsement he has. What did Tiger make last year?

Tiger pulled in close to 90 million bucks last year because he sells tickets and the product he endorses, plain and simple. Before Tiger, golf was still a largely un-popular sport outside the hackers and weekend duffers.

Originally Posted by hybrid

Did he come close to losing his life ever?

Rossi made the choice to take part in a life-threatening sport, Tiger didn't.

Perhaps you should remember who pays Tiger: the corporations Tiger represents. Companies like Nike, Tag Heuer, and Accenture. These companies have a huge marketing budget. This equates to more sales, which means more bucks, obviously. If Rossi would push for more dollars, I'm quite sure he could make more. But he has to sell product to a broad range of demographics. Tiger does this, in huge numbers. So does Davis Love III, Ernie Els, Vijay Singh, Annika Sorenstam, and the upcoming Michelle Wie.

Golf is a family game, roadracing isn't. If the race organizers here and abroad pushed the promoters and the media harder, I'm quite sure that sponsors would respond. Sponsors don't want to sponsor a sport/event/whatever that entails a big litigation risk like roadracing. Imagine the uproar that soccer moms would cause if Little Billy fractured his spine racing his friends on his pocketbike because of something he saw on Rossi/Hayden/Bostrom do on TV last night at 8.

Corporations who provide the big piles of cash to give to players respond to market demand for a particular sport, and then they only do so for the most popular/best people in that sport. Tiger is this to kids, teens, adults, old people across all races, ages, creeds, nationalities. Does the same apply to Rossi?

Even if roadracing were on the level of golf as far as popularity/dollar value, do you really think that Mr. and Mrs. Joe America would want their kid participating in a sport like roadracing with the health risks and most importantly, cost?