Will Tiger Woods go down as best ever?

[#1dolphinsfan]

He will go down as the Best Golfer of all time and one of the best of all time but i dont think the best

 

[djfresh47]

He will go down as the Best Golfer of all time and one of the best of all time but i dont think the best

Everybody is subjective so whoever is proclaimed the "best ever," maybe different among people. So I disagree with lists proclaiming guys. Numbers are the best way to figure guys out, IMO. Though different eras make it impossible. It's all opinion.

 

[SpaceMountain16]

Orr no doubt can join the discussion for best player ever. He certainly was the player that opened up scoring for defensemen. He had a really really good 7 year run. Great on Defense, and superior on offense even that of most centers. Won every award imaginable over a 7 year period. But then again so did Gretzky. What stands out to me is this. Orr has 915 career points. Wayne has 894 goals + the assist record. Wayne's best 4 seasons total 840. Orr won 7 straight Norris trophy's as the leagues best defensemen, along with 3 MVP's. Gretzky won 8 straight MVP's plus 7 straight scoring titles. Not only did Wayne Gretzky dominate in the short-term, but his career totals are just crazy. Messier is 2nd in points all-time and Wayne's total is 34% higher. Thats just crazy.

Plus that 92 goal season, with 120 assists or whatever it was. I mean we're not talking about some ridiculous record from the 1930's that was done in a different era completely. This is the 80's, and while scoring was more apparent in the NHL in the 80's with guys like Lemeuix and Mike Bossy, who the hell scores 92 goals and has 120 assists!? That is jawdropping.

 

[ricky williams]

i am by no means a hockey expert as i watch it so infrequently. but i did grow up watching los angeles kings during gretzky run.

to me gretzky was like steve nash in basketball. ultra aware of suroundings, team, spacing, change of speed, floor general. but he had no physical nature at all. no dirty work done. could a 5 on 5 of gretzky beat a 5 on 5 of orr.

and i do think nash has quite a physical side going into lane as much as he does against big fellows


woods is pretty amazing in this day in age. but best athelete ever is so intangible.

 

[finswin56]

I find the arguments about Tiger and his competition funny. It seems people fail to realize the important variables. The number of pro golfers in tournaments has significantly increased, thus the total competition has increased. Access to golf has increased exponentially over that past couple of decades. This means more golfers, which means a bigger pool of elite talent. The thing is that when you have a tournament with over 100 professional golfers, it only takes one to bring his "A game". When a true pro brings his A game, it's nearly impossible to beat him unless someone else is bringing his A game. The thing about Tiger is that he brings his twice as much as everyone else, AND can beat most A games with his B game.
While this may not seem all that big of a deal, the more Tiger wins, the less everyone else wins This also makes his opponents' talent pool look inferior.

I think Fedoror is amazing, and as dominant as you could imagine. Unfortunately, that hole in his resume is there. There simply isn't a hole in Tiger's resume. All four majors require a different skill set for golfers, and he's won all of them multiple times.

I wish I had the time, access, and aptitude to do a comprehensive statistical analysis of what Tiger's winning percentage TRULY means. When you begin to factor in historical averages, increased playing field, current winning %'s by players when Tiger isn't in the field, historical %'s when the dominant player of each era wasn't in the field... You can really begin to have a perspective on just how dominant Tiger is.

It's always easier to compare things when you simplify the variables, but easier doesn't mean better.

 

[allport30]

I find the arguments about Tiger and his competition funny. It seems people fail to realize the important variables. The number of pro golfers in tournaments has significantly increased, thus the total competition has increased. Access to golf has increases exponentially over that past couple of decades. This means more golfers, which means a bigger pool of elite talent. The thing is that when you have a tournament with over 100 professional golfers, it only takes one to bring his "A game". When a true pro brings his A game, it's nearly impossible to beat him unless someone else is bringing his A game. The thing about Tiger is that he brings his twice as much as everyone else, AND can beat most A games with his B game.


Yeah I completely agrre with you no one thinks there is competition because he is destroying the competition. Another thing is the technology. The technology is INSANE these days. Like the taylor made r7 driver which has 4 screws on the back of the club, to which you can change the draw/fade and the trajectory of the ball flighht as well. INSANE!!!

 

[djfresh47]

I find the arguments about Tiger and his competition funny. It seems people fail to realize the important variables. The number of pro golfers in tournaments has significantly increased, thus the total competition has increased. Access to golf has increases exponentially over that past couple of decades. This means more golfers, which means a bigger pool of elite talent. The thing is that when you have a tournament with over 100 professional golfers, it only takes one to bring his "A game". When a true pro brings his A game, it's nearly impossible to beat him unless someone else is bringing his A game. The thing about Tiger is that he brings his twice as much as everyone else, AND can beat most A games with his B game.
While this may not seem all that big of a deal, the more Tiger wins, the less everyone else wins This also makes his opponents' talent pool look inferior.

I think Fedoror is amazing, and as dominant as you could imagine. Unfortunately, that hole in his resume is there. There simply isn't a hole in Tiger's resume. All four majors require a different skill set for golfers, and he's won all of them multiple times.

I wish I had the time, access, and aptitude to do a comprehensive statistical analysis of what Tiger's winning percentage TRULY means. When you begin to factor in historical averages, increased playing field, current winning %'s by players when Tiger isn't in the field, historical %'s when the dominant player of each era wasn't in the field... You can really begin to have a perspective on just how dominant Tiger is.

It's always easier to compare things when you simplify the variables, but easier doesn't mean better.

If Tiger went Vijay Singh and played every tournament I think his numbers would be even more ridiculous. In terms of marketing products I believe the only person to come close to MJ is Tiger.

The only thing I can knock Tiger for is he comes off as dull when interviewed. Some people would like him to speak out on issues; I really don't care about that. Though he's so well rehearsed, it seems every time I see him talk he's reading a script.

 

[GreenMonster]

For perspective:

Highest winning percentage's on the PGA Tour:
Player Percentage (wins / starts)
Tiger Woods 27.36% (55 out of 201)
Ben Hogan 20.7% (61 of 294)
Byron Nelson 17.8% (50 of 281)
Sam Snead 14.9% (81 of 549
Jack Nicklaus 12.2% (73 of 594)
Billy Casper 9.2% (51 of 556)
Arnold Palmer 8.4% (62 of 734)

So ya Tiger is dominating right now. But remember that Jack, Arnie, and the others #'s don't take into account that at the end of there careers they kept playing but were winning much less. Jack Nicklaus during the 70's (70-79) won 38 or the 168 events he played in for a 22.5%. Really the only golfer in discussion with Tiger as the best ever is Nicklaus and Tiger so far has been a step better in everything. 22.5 of all tournaments for a decade is incredible, that fact that Tiger can top it is pretty unbelievable.

 

[finswin56]

For perspective:

Highest winning percentage's on the PGA Tour:
Player Percentage (wins / starts)
Tiger Woods 27.36% (55 out of 201)
Ben Hogan 20.7% (61 of 294)
Byron Nelson 17.8% (50 of 281)
Sam Snead 14.9% (81 of 549
Jack Nicklaus 12.2% (73 of 594)
Billy Casper 9.2% (51 of 556)
Arnold Palmer 8.4% (62 of 734)

So ya Tiger is dominating right now. But remember that Jack, Arnie, and the others #'s don't take into account that at the end of there careers they kept playing but were winning much less. Jack Nicklaus during the 70's (70-79) won 38 or the 168 events he played in for a 22.5%. Really the only golfer in discussion with Tiger as the best ever is Nicklaus and Tiger so far has been a step better in everything. 22.5 of all tournaments for a decade is incredible, that fact that Tiger can top it is pretty unbelievable.

Thanks for doing the leg work :up:
I would also like to point out that Tiger is just NOW entering his golfing prime. What he's done thus far, can reasonably be expected to be improved upon.

 

[allport30]

Thanks for doing the leg work :up:
I would also like to point out that Tiger is just NOW entering his golfing prime. What he's done thus far, can reasonably be expected to be improved upon.

Yeah and to say Tiger Woods is just now in his prime is scary!!!!