Comments on: Tiger’s competition vs. Jack’s competition

By: Bob Schauer

Bob Schauer — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:50:03 +0000

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.

By: Dennis

Dennis — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 03:43:28 +0000

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.

By: Jesse

Jesse — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:15:51 +0000

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.

By: David in Austin, TX

David in Austin, TX — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:32:46 +0000

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.

By: Randall

Randall — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:41:49 +0000

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.