Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rick Reilly Asks Unthinkable Tiger Woods question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rick Reilly Asks Unthinkable Tiger Woods question

    "Is it possible he won't be the greatest ever?"

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3992192

  • #2
    Re: Rick Reilly Asks Unthinkable Tiger Woods question

    Originally posted by gh
    "Is it possible he won't be the greatest ever?"

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3992192
    Tiger drove the ball incredibly well last week, knee is fine, couldnt putt, had dozens of lip outs. Tiger will be the greatest ever, i think he already is at this stage, yes he has to actually doing it of course but there is nothin to suggest he wont continue.
    phsstt!

    Comment


    • #3
      his fixed knee means he can swing straighter - that actually does increase his chances of winning USOpens & PGAs ( which is increasingly beginnng to resemble the former ) from before

      it also does help with the Masters which is getting longer & with increasing rough - it's much easier to reach the green from the fairway than even light rough with the course now getting on for 7400y

      Comment


      • #4
        I've lost track of how many times people have said that Tiger is slowing down. Tiger won't be done till he Beamons Nicklaus's records, and he will. It's just that simple. :roll:

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Marlow
          Tiger won't be done till he Beamons.......records, and he will. It's just that simple. :roll:
          Said that about Federer a few years ago too. We'll see.
          There are no strings on me

          Comment


          • #6
            We were still saying that about Federer just last year, no?

            Comment


            • #7
              Even if Woods quits today his legacy is secure. It might be more Sandy Koufax-ish than we were expecting, but it would be hard to argue that anyone else ever was better in their prime.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by gh
                We were still saying that about Federer just last year, no?
                '03 - '06 Grand Slam Final record 9-0

                '07 - '09 GS Final record 4-5, notably all losses to Nadal(13-6 career vs. RF).

                I would suggest Federer arguably can't lay claim to being the best in his OWN time, much less all time.

                Of course, Tiger has no Nadal on his horizon, but 4 years ago neither did Federer. As Nicklaus said you have to DO it first, dodging all the land mines(be it health or rival) in the journey, then we can talk about all-time titles.
                There are no strings on me

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Marlow
                  I've lost track of how many times people have said that Tiger is slowing down. Tiger won't be done till he Beamons Nicklaus's records, and he will. It's just that simple. :roll:
                  Depends on his knee status. With the injury he had he may only have about 5 years to break those records. He will likely have a knee replacement by the time he is 45.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Also, please remember Ben Hogan in any discussion of the greatest ever.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by guru
                      Originally posted by gh
                      We were still saying that about Federer just last year, no?
                      '03 - '06 Grand Slam Final record 9-0

                      '07 - '09 GS Final record 4-5, notably all losses to Nadal(13-6 career vs. RF).

                      I would suggest Federer arguably can't lay claim to being the best in his OWN time, much less all time.

                      Of course, Tiger has no Nadal on his horizon, but 4 years ago neither did Federer. As Nicklaus said you have to DO it first, dodging all the land mines(be it health or rival) in the journey, then we can talk about all-time titles.
                      I would think a golfing version of Nadal would only elevate Woods greatness in the long run, assuming that he still makes it to 19. If Woods breaks Nicklaus' record without a Nadal on the scene, it will be the equivalent of Muhammad Ali without Joe Frazier. Do you agree bambam?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by bambam
                        Also, please remember Ben Hogan in any discussion of the greatest ever.
                        I know about that terrible accident and WWII which cost him prime years. Is he the Sandy Koufax of golf? Is his 1953 the greatest year ever?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by jazzcyclist
                          Originally posted by guru
                          Originally posted by gh
                          We were still saying that about Federer just last year, no?
                          '03 - '06 Grand Slam Final record 9-0

                          '07 - '09 GS Final record 4-5, notably all losses to Nadal(13-6 career vs. RF).

                          I would suggest Federer arguably can't lay claim to being the best in his OWN time, much less all time.

                          Of course, Tiger has no Nadal on his horizon, but 4 years ago neither did Federer. As Nicklaus said you have to DO it first, dodging all the land mines(be it health or rival) in the journey, then we can talk about all-time titles.
                          I would think a golfing version of Nadal would only elevate Woods greatness in the long run, assuming that he still makes it to 19. If Woods breaks Nicklaus' record without a Nadal on the scene, it will be the equivalent of Muhammad Ali without Joe Frazier. Do you agree bambam?
                          I think Woods does have great competition. Woods is so good that I think people underestimate Philly Mick and Vijay's greatness. Both of them have won over 34 tournaments on the PGA Tour and they rank 12th (Mickelson) and 14th (Singh) all-time in that category.

                          Woods is so good that in Golf Digest polls among the other players he is usually chosen as the most underrated player on tour, because it is hard to understand how great he is.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by jazzcyclist
                            Originally posted by bambam
                            Also, please remember Ben Hogan in any discussion of the greatest ever.
                            I know about that terrible accident and WWII which cost him prime years. Is he the Sandy Koufax of golf? Is his 1953 the greatest year ever?
                            Sandy Koufax is a good analogy. Hogan won 9 major championships. He won his first PGA Tournament in 1940, and then lost 4 years in his prime to WW2. He won his first major in 1946 (PGA). His accident occurred on 2 Feb 1949, after he thoroughly dominated the tour in 1946-early 1949 (he won three tournaments in Jan 1949). In that era the PGA was match play and Hogan never played in it again after the accident because it consisted of several days in a row of 36 holes and his legs could not take it. He also never played more than 8 tournaments again in a year because he needed long breaks to recover from tournaments. He only played in the British Open once (1953) and won it - in that era, it was a difficult trip for Americans - required a sea voyage and few Americans played in it. So when people say "Hogan only won 9 majors" its kinda like saying Hayes won only 1 major international gold medal. There just wasn't the opportunity for Hogan to play in very many majors - In his prime years - 1940-1955 - Hogan could play in only 30 majors, and he won 9. Woods has already played in 52 as a pro. Nicklaus in his prime (1962-1980), played in 76 majors and won 17. Although people may demur and say the level of competition improves every year, and it has, Nicklaus had to play against Palmer, Player, Trevino, Watson, and Hogan had Byron Nelson and Sam Snead as adversaries.

                            1953 as best year ever? Very hard to say as there are 3 years usually mentioned, and a few others that merit consideration. Bobby Jones in 1930 winning the Grand Slam, Byron Nelson in 1945 winning 11 straight tournaments and 18 in all, Hogan in 1953 winning the three major championships he played (Masters, US Open, British) (Hogan played in 6 tournaments that year and won 5). The other three that merit consideration are Arnold Palmer in 1960 (won Masters, US Open, 2nd at British, 6th at PGA, won 8 PGA events in all), Jack Nicklaus in 1972 (won Masters, US Open, 2nd at british), and Tiger Woods in 2000.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by guru
                              Of course, Tiger has no Nadal on his horizon, but 4 years ago neither did Federer. As Nicklaus said you have to DO it first, dodging all the land mines(be it health or rival) in the journey, then we can talk about all-time titles.
                              i still feel fed has had it "lucky" until nadal came along to challenge him - nadal has now beaten him on grass/hard court majors but i woudn't have given him much chance on those surfaces in samparas era when there was tail-end of lendl, edberg, becker, courier, agassi, muster, rafter, krycek, goran

                              do likes of novo, murray & roddick look good enough to be placed amongst those ?

                              my abiding memory of fed until 3 or 4y ago was something like a 5 - 0 losing record to henman's immaculate ( but impotent power-wise ) serve-volley game

                              if henman coud do that to him, what woud likes of edberg, becker & goran with far better serve-volley games have done to him, let alone pistol ?

                              also, what does it say about current standard when a possibly 5y past his peak aggasi can reach USOpen final is 1 - 1 in sets v fed & break-up in the 3rd ( but then faded to lose in 4 - shouda gone at least 5 ) ?

                              pistol woudn't have won 5 consecutive USOpens like fed ( although 3 consecutive finals when past his peak wasn't bad ! ) but then again, he woudn't have lost wimbledon or oz to nadal

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X