Tiger’s competition vs. Jack’s competition
The U.S. Open starts today — it’s already started; Tiger Woods is even through four holes as I type this — and a major always is a good time to renew the Tiger vs. Jack Nicklaus debate.
Nicklaus had 18 major titles; Tiger has 14 and counting, at the age of 33. A common belief is that Nicklaus had better elite competition than does Tiger, that while the talent pool today is far deeper than what Nicklaus faced, the stars are fewer today. Basically, it comes down to this. Tom Watson, Lee Trevino, Gary Player and Arnold Palmer vs. Ernie Els, Phil Mickelson, Vijay Singh and Retief Goosen.
On the surface, it looks like a mismatch. Of the 13 players in history with at least six major titles, four were contemporaries of Nicklaus and none are contemporaries of Tiger.
But two things must always be considered. 1. Tiger is in mid-career; he will win a lot more majors, and his contemporaries will win a lot more majors. 2. Tiger is winning at a much higher rate than did Nicklaus; if it weren’t for Tiger, his contemporaries would have more impressive records in majors.
Tiger has won 14 of his 47 majors since he broke through in the 1997 Masters. Nicklaus won 18 of his 103 majors from his first, the 1962 U.S. Open, through 1987, which was his last truly-competitive season.
So if Tiger stays competitive another 10-15 years — who among us believes he won’t — then not only will he far surpass Nicklaus’ majors total, but some of his contemporaries will reach the totals of some of Nicklaus’ rivals.
Now, Gary Player’s nine majors are out of reach. Tom Watson’s eight, too, I’d say. But Palmer’s seven and Trevino’s six? Not necessarily.
Mickelson and Els each have won three majors. And both would have more if not for Tiger. Mickelson finished second to Tiger in the 2002 U.S. Open, and Els twice has tied for second behind Tiger, in the 2000 U.S. and 2000 British opens. Goosen, who has two majors, also finished runnerup to Woods, in the 2002 Masters.
Who were the chief victims of Nicklaus? Well, Palmer I assume you know about. Arnie thrice was second to Nicklaus, including one tie. Tom Kite and Tom Weiskopf each twice tied for second behind Nicklaus. Greg Norman tied for second behind Nicklaus. So did Johnny Miller. Billy Casper finished runnerup once. Tom Watson never did.
But the player most cursed by Nicklaus was Australian Bruce Crampton. Crampton was a solid player who had a fine career and dominated for a stretch on the senior tour. Crampton four times finished second in majors, including one tie. All four times, he finished second to Nicklaus.
Bruce Crampton never won a major.
So what’s the verdict on our debate? I would say that the deeper talent pool now has cut into the majors won by most great players. The majors are spread out more, with the notable exception of Tiger Woods.
-------------Berry Tramel can be heard Monday through Friday from 4:40-5:20 p.m. on The Sports Animal radio network, including AM-640 and FM-98.1. You can e-mail him here and follow him on Twitter @BerryTramel. Visit Berry's website here.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Golf in the 70s was riveting. Nicklaus was a legend, and yet — playing in an era of giants — he didn’t tower over the likes of Watson, Palmer, and Player. I never watched a tournament thinking it was Jack’s to lose. I think of every major today as Tiger’s to lose. Could anyone argue he doesn’t tower over his opposition? And Jack’s longevity was beyond amazing — he was his own dynasty. I loved watching the majors in Jack’s era; today, I just don’t find golf compelling enough to keep me interested. That’s my ultimate measuring stick on the playing field in the sport.
I think what is often overlooked is the fact that the depth of competition makes so much more difficult to win these days. That is why Tiger’s competitors,like Phil and Earnie, have not stockpiled majors like Player did. Which, makes Tiger’s record all that more impressive.
Not only does the depth of competition make it more difficult to win. At any given tournament, one of the top 100 players can literally get in the “zone” and beat the field. So, how many PGA tour players have less than 5 regular PGA tournament wins? I don’t know for sure, but from my experience watching golf for 20 years, I would venture to say many golfers fall into that category. Tiger and his rival contemporaries must beat the entire field. Who’s in the top three positions after one round at the US open? Lucas Glover (no wins in 09), Ricky Barnes (no wins in 09) and Peter Hanson (no wins in 09). Hardly big name golfers. Tiger had a bad first day with a 74 and must rally with 3 hot rounds to pull out a “W” this Father’s day weekend.
Berry, you are choosing to look at it backwards! You pretty much admit that Jack had better top-notch competition, but then argue that Tiger’s competition would have more wins in the majors if not for Tiger. Look at it this way, though, Jack finished second in majors an incredible 19 times! And his last really competitive year was 1976, not 1987. So he was first or second in about 35 or 36 majors (out of 60) between 1962 and 1976. Had it not been for Palmer, Player, Trevino and Watson winning about 20 majors among them during that span, Jack might have won 25 or more, instead of 18. Tiger will never approach the number of top-two finishes that Nicklaus did, no matter how long he plays.
I for one do not believe that Tiger will still be competitive 15 years from now. He’ll be 48 years old. Most golfers, including the greatest ones, are well past their prime at that point. Tiger keeps himself in great shape, but he is not immune to the effects of Father Time.