Tiger Woods

JGK wrote:

Fred Nerk wrote:There is at least a debate about whether Tiger is already better than Nicklaus.

But is there a view that Mickelson or Els (or anybody else who's been #2 recently) at their top are better than Watson or Faldo or Ballasteros were at theirs? Not that I've heard. Woods at #1 is exceptional. Whoever fills spots 2-10 are standard quality 2-10.

Maybe that's the the real debate to be had. Mickelson, Els, Vijay etc are all fine golfers but I wouldn't put them in the same class as the 3 you mention above (not to mention Palmer and Player).

I reckon the overall depth of golf is a lot stronger though. Any player on his day can win a major.

Oh, to be sure there's more good players around. For a start with all the different circuits there's more room for them in the system.

He's the greatest. For some reason, I just doubt that Nicklaus could have done what Woods did this week with such a dodgy knee and a fierce challenge from Rocco. Mentally, he is just so tough. For once, we actually saw what Tiger is like when seriously under the pump thanks to another player. And he came through. With the possible exception of his 1997 Masters victory, this is his greatest ever major triumph.

Imo Ernie Els has always been the player most likely to challenge Tiger. He has the talent, but he just doesn't have the same mental drive that Tiger does. America's Anthony Kim and Australia's Jason Day both have the talent to be Tiger's heir apparent, but he should dominate for the next 5-6 years still.

He said it was his greatest ever victory. Maybe also because it was in his home state.

He was on the verge of crying at the presentation ceremony. Never seen him like that before.

Personally I think Tiger's 2000 victory in the US Open at Pebble Beach is his greatest victory to date. He finished at 12 under and was the only player under par on a brutal course. He was absolutely at the peak of his powers then.

Pearlj's an Australia fan, a Tiger Woods fan, and a Man United fan.


Glory hunting or what?

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Pearlj's an Australia fan, a Tiger Woods fan, and a Man United fan.


Glory hunting or what?

Gloucs???

Only because there isn't one dominant county team for him to support.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Only because there isn't one dominant county team for him to support.

Sussex?

Nah, they're not dominant in the same way as United, Woods and Australia. They've only got something like 4 County Championships in their history and they've all come recently.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Pearlj's an Australia fan, a Tiger Woods fan, and a Man United fan.


Glory hunting or what?

If you say so....

And I'm not a Woods fan per se. I just have great respect for the greatest player to ever play the game of golf.

Must say I was pleased with the even-handed support shown by the large galleries in the play-off. Rocco got plenty of support. One wonders how it would have been if Lee Westwood or Geoff Ogilvie was the man in opposition to Tiger.

Maybe they had trouble telling who was who (see my post in middle of last page).

skully wrote:Must say I was pleased with the even-handed support shown by the large galleries in the play-off. Rocco got plenty of support. One wonders how it would have been if Lee Westwood or Geoff Ogilvie was the man in opposition to Tiger.

Yeah, ut they are all still uncouth gets. Walking down 18 all you could hear was gayballesque chants of "tiger", "tiger", "tiger".... dreadful

I watched the golf yesterday as a favour to relay on a live score.

What a crushingly boring game it is. What it lacks most as a sport is any expectation that anyone is going to get badly hurt.

Thank you for sharing that. Your views have been noted.

holcs wrote:

skully wrote:Must say I was pleased with the even-handed support shown by the large galleries in the play-off. Rocco got plenty of support. One wonders how it would have been if Lee Westwood or Geoff Ogilvie was the man in opposition to Tiger.

Yeah, ut they are all still uncouth gets. Walking down 18 all you could hear was gayballesque chants of "tiger", "tiger", "tiger".... dreadful

What I really love is when he tees off at at 550m par 5 and some seppo yells "Get in the hole"

skully wrote:

furriner wrote:Is Tiger statistically as good as Bradman opr what? Would love to read an analysis.

Tiger would be sh!t if he averaged 99.94.

Sorry skulls, just saw this. I was asking whether Tigers' domination over the rest in golf can be compared to Bradman in cricket, and if anyone had read/ seen stats to that affect. I remember a comparison of dominant players across sports to 'find out' the greatest ever sportsman, but farked if I can remember now.

Apparently Tiger could theoretically stop playing golf for a year, and upon resumption still be ranked number one in the world, so high is his ranking compared to the others.

These are the current rankings. Woods has twice the amount of points as his closest rival Mickelson. There's daylight between Woods and Mickelson, and more daylight between Mickelson and the rest.

So I guess based on the rankings, you could say that Woods is at least 3 times better than every golfer in the world rankings except for Mickelson, whom he is merely 2 times better than.

RankPlayerCountryPoints

1	Tiger Woods	United States	21.54
2	Phil Mickelson	United States	10.21
3	Adam Scott	Australia	5.86
4	Geoff Ogilvy	Australia	5.82
5	Ernie Els	South Africa	5.76
6	Sergio García	Spain	5.26
7	Justin Rose	England	5.24
8	Steve Stricker	United States	5.21
9	Vijay Singh	Fiji	5.08
10	Jim Furyk	United States	5.04

Trev

2 x 2 = 4

Yes, and?

2 x 10 = 20

4 x 5 = 20

Mickelson 10, Woods 21. = twice as good

Scott, Els etc 5, Woods 21. = three times as good

Ok yeah. I see. I guess I was looking at it as three times BETTER, rather than four times AS GOOD. Whatever. It's late.

Basically, he's 50% better than Mickelson, and 75% better than the rest of the top 10.