-
Laying Down My Pen
May 24, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Laying Down My Pen
May 23, 2013 | 73 comments
-
Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 46 comments
-
Putting Heritage in DeMint Condition
May 10, 2013 | 57 comments
-
Military Might, Out of the Wilderness
May 8, 2013 | 115 comments
Streetcar Line
Jack Nicklaus, Still the Champion
Why Tiger’s record falls just short.
Who really cares about politics when there’s a good sports debate to engage us? After last weekend’s U.S. Open finale, with Tiger Woods’ monumental blow-up, it’s time to ask the all-important question: Tiger or Jack? By age 36, halfway to 37, whose career looks better?
Answer: Nicklaus, by nearly a country mile.
To understand the answer, let’s first understand the question. There can be no doubt that nobody since Bobby Jones, Nicklaus included, was quite so dominant a winner through age 32 — more titles, and by oft-larger margins — than Tiger Woods. But even in his first dozen years against world-class competition, Woods’ edge over Nicklaus in majors, total professional victories, and number of majors won by record margins was only slight. Those few extra wins, though, obscured the growing evidence that Woods’ overall legacy of excellence was starting to fall behind that of Nicklaus, even before Woods’ infamous midnight car crash at the end of 2009 (and subsequent unraveling).
The last 30 months have provided more perspective on where Woods’ career, astonishingly good as it is, still falls short of Nicklaus’ at the same age.
Here are the raw numbers now, at age 36 ½:
Total U.S. professional victories: Woods 73, Nicklaus 60. Significant overseas non-major victories: Woods 12, Nicklaus 12. Professional major victories: both at 14. So far, give just a slight edge to Woods.
But now consider consistency of performance in major tournaments, which is where the real difference shows. By this age, Nicklaus had finished in the top 10 in majors 47 times, Woods just 35. Nicklaus had seven third-place finishes in majors, Woods just 3. Nicklaus had 12 second-place major performances, Woods just six. And even in the quality of those high finishes (in other words, how many times each was either in a playoff or within a single shot), Nicklaus did better: Five times he was within a single stroke, while Woods finished a stroke behind only twice.
In short, Nicklaus was a far more constant presence at the top of the leader boards in major tournaments, a greater threat to win every time he teed it up, than Woods has been. Nicklaus kept his game at top level when it really counted far more consistently; Woods was far more feast or famine. (Nicklaus also by this age had two Players Championship trophies, in just three years of the event’s existence, compared to Woods’ single Players title in sixteen years on tour.)
And, as I have argued here before, Nicklaus’ highest-level competition was far more impressive than that of Woods. Nicklaus entered the fray in 1962 with Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, and Billy Casper all already established in their primes. Woods entered in 1997 with Greg Norman and Nick Faldo both fading extremely fast (no more major wins for either of them); and with Ernie Els and Vijay Singh (significantly poor substitutes for Palmer and Player) and Phil Mickelson (despite his prominence, not really more accomplished than Casper, and — unlike Casper — without a major to his credit before Woods emerged) as the only players even near all-time great status. By 36, Nicklaus faced almost-exact contemporaries Lee Trevino and Ray Floyd (and Tom Weiskopf, for that matter, one level below) as serious challengers who rank among the greats, plus Johnny Miller, Hale Irwin, and Hubert Green all having already established themselves as highly significant younger forces who were within eight years of Nicklaus’ age, and Tom Watson — at ten years younger — already with a major title under his belt. (Also in the Watson age cohort were Ben Crenshaw and Tom Kite.) Woods, for his part, still faces not a single near-exact-contemporary with even near-great status, and nobody within eight years younger than him who seems likely ever to reach even Kite-like accomplishments. (Perhaps Dustin Johnson, nearly nine years younger, will rival Kite before he’s done.) And within ten years of Tiger’s age on either side, only Jim Furyk and Padraig Harrington are competitors of the stature of Lanny Wadkins, Doug Sanders, Larry Nelson, or even Dave Stockton, much less Gene Littler.
So Nicklaus more consistently performed at the top of his game, against tougher top-tier competition. He did it despite using equipment far less advanced and far less forgiving of errors. (He also hit his drives consistently straighter than Woods usually has — Woods’ improvement this season notwithstanding — even while remaining the among the game’s ten longest drivers several years into his 40s, which is a superiority Woods gave up to his contemporaries several years ago.) He did it while giving back far more to the game and to the fans (even though, unlike with Tiger, it took Nicklaus’ fans nearly a decade to embrace him), establishing a record of sportsmanship and graciousness that Woods hasn’t come close to matching.
Okay, okay, you say — but what about Woods’ more concentrated dominance than Nicklaus when Woods was at the top of his game? Well, it really wasn’t much better at all.
Consider Woods’ best four-year period, from 1999 through the PGA of 2002. We’ll compare it to Nicklaus four-year stretch beginning right after Jack’s father died in 1970 — in other words, from the British Open of 1970s through the U.S. Open of 1974. During those comparable 16-major-tourney stretches, Woods earned seven victories, Jack five. But Jack had three seconds, one third, two fourths, and a fifth; Tiger had just one second, one third, no fourths, and one fifth. Jack was in the top ten 15 of 16 times, with only a tie for 13th marring the string. Woods was in the top ten only 11 of 16 times, with a 25th, a 28th, and a 29th marring the picture.
But Nicklaus wasn’t finished. In the majors immediately after that 16-tourney stretch, he finished in the top 10 an astonishing 16 of the next 17 (he tied for 11th in the 1976 U.S. Open), with three more victories, four runner-up finishes, and four third places. In short, he finished in the top thirteen finishers in major tournaments a mind-boggling 33 consecutive times, all while in his 30s! Woods finished in the top 10 “only” 10 of the next 17 majors, with three missed cut and three other times outside the top twenty. Put another way, even in Woods’ best eight-year period, he failed to finish in the top ten (or even top 11) 11 times — and all before his serious injuries began. (Nicklaus missed the top 10 in majors just nine times in 13 years, all after age 30!)
Even during their best eight-year stretches, then, Nicklaus’ sustained excellence outstripped that of Woods. (And, after breaking his string with a missed cut at age 38 — two years older than Woods is now — in the 1978 PGA, Nicklaus still ran off another string of major performances as follows: 4, T9, T2, T65, T33, 1, T4, 1, T2, T6, T23, T4, T15, 2. In other words, two more wins, two seconds, and three fourths — and with the famous Masters victory in 1986 still four years ahead.) And when Woods did win during those eight years, he was often defeating the likes of runners-up Bob May, Chris DiMarco (twice) and Shaun Micheel, while Nicklaus’ runners-up in all eight of his victories during those eight years either were Hall of Famers or near-Hall players like Bruce Crampton (14 career PGA wins), Tom Weiskopf (16 wins) and Doug Sanders (20 wins).
The point is not to belittle Woods’ phenomenal record. The point is that Nicklaus left “phenomenal” behind and, in terms of sustained excellence, reached near the realm of the “otherworldly.”
None of which is to say that Woods will fail to catch Nicklaus’ famous record of 18 professional major titles. He has ten more years to win four more majors to tie Nicklaus (at the same age Nicklaus won his 18th) — far from an impossible task for somebody of Woods’ talents. It is to say that Woods’ career so far is less impressive than Nicklaus’ was at the same stage of life.
With apologies to William Blake, a Tiger might burn bright, but a (Golden) Bear swallows lots more food — and it hunts, and lives, significantly longer.
About the Author
Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (51) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Quin Hillyer
More Articles From Streetcar Line
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/19/jack-nicklaus-still-the-champi
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Craig K | 6.19.12 @ 7:12AM
While you can compare Tiger and Jack statistically, I feel the real difference is in what type of people they are. In more than 30 years of watching Jack and Tiger, I never saw Jack throw a club or utter a profanity on the golf course. While they may have similar records, the true measurement is who they were as men and champions, and in that regard there is really no comparison. Jack wins!!
Bob K| 6.19.12 @ 12:02PM
You can compare players in all sports from different eras statistically but you can't compare them fairly without addressing the changing history of the sports.
There are more pro golfers now. More tournaments. Many more foreign tournaments and many more excellent foreign players who do not play primarily on the American tour. They can make good money now closer to home.
There are more courses with more employees working on them making them more playable. The new technology in equipment that benefits Woods may well benefit his competition even more.
There is much more money to be earned in golf now. Like it or not, this has had a Gresham's Law effect on the perceived importance of the 4 Majors (3 of which are in the USA.) in spite of the continued declarations of their importance which our advertising hungry, revenue raising, Sport Columnists and TV Sport Commentators give them.
It is as different a game now for Woods as it was when Nicklaus began his: At the end of an era that was dominated by Snead and Hogan after World War II ended.
Fast and Curious| 6.19.12 @ 5:40PM
I always root for Tiger's competition. I respect his talent, but not the fist pump when things are good, tantrum when things go bad. Jack was truly a man in control of his emotions at all times.
Oldefarte| 6.19.12 @ 8:12AM
Whose career looks better.....Roger Stauback or Michael Vick????????????????????
Tim the Enchanter| 6.19.12 @ 8:26AM
Quin- you just HAVE to know that this entire article is nothing but troll bait. Cries of "RACISM!" in 5 - 4- 3 - 2....
canuckistani| 6.19.12 @ 10:17AM
Not this time. These two are the ultimate in sports comparisons. Moreso than Federer v Laver v Sampras, or Gretzky v Howe v Lemieux, or Air v Russell v Chamberlain.
Tiger actually made it more difficult for himself through his fame, by bringing the entire world to the majors field as never before. As evidenced by the last 9 majors, all first-timers, and 11 of last 18 from ex US.
There would be an odd foreigner from Player to Jacklin to compete with Jack, but today, the top 50 is populated by 28 foreign players.
Oldefarte| 6.19.12 @ 11:08AM
Or Roger vs. Michael!!!!!!
Roscoe| 6.19.12 @ 1:04PM
Who?
Doctor Right| 6.19.12 @ 12:28PM
Yes, ut for sheer dram, nothing (and I mean NOTHING) comes close to the timeless debate over the title of world's best field hockey player...
Manu Rajastanaramayanalamadingdong, of Iskamabad, or Stikaforkinmie Chikkalingaiaiah from Madras???
Now THAT'S a subject worth arguing about!
(Personally, I favor Rajastanaramayanalamadingdong, but I'm biased...I like Pahkeestahni cuisine...)
R Martin| 6.19.12 @ 8:33AM
I’m from western Pennsylvania and will admit to a pro Arnie, anti Jack bias. It’s silly, I know, but I’ve never recovered from Jack’s upstart defeat of Palmer at Oakmont in 1962, and Nicklaus will always be “Fat Jack” to me. While Jack’s achievements as a golfer are remarkable, I’ve not observed the graciousness you note, and I find him to be particularly humorless, even testy.
Still, I agree with your analysis and conclusions. But I would add one more criteria. Both Arnie and Jack are married (past tense in Arnie’s case) to very classy women, and that says a great deal about the men. Eldrick is in a different league altogether.
canuckistani| 6.19.12 @ 10:01AM
Be careful to put Arnold and Jack in the same boat for fidelity.
It was very well known for years that Arnold would have a skirt in every town waiting for him, and there was not a money game Arnold would not attend.
Jack is the real deal, "Arnie" was the creation of Mark McCormack.
R Martin| 6.19.12 @ 11:30AM
I lived in the area for many years and still have lots of connections in Latrobe. I am not aware of the Palmer stories you cite and doubt that a celebrity of that magnitude could keep such activities "for years" in "every town" from becoming a scandle. Furthermore, that Arnie was a creation of McCormack is nonsense. If anything, it was the other way round. See Howdy Giles' book, "The King and I". Giles is Palmer's friend and dentist (mine, too, before he retired).
However, you are correct that Arnie likes to gamble and is extremely competitive. And he doesn't mind a drink or two now and then.
Dixon| 6.19.12 @ 12:55PM
I did not know Palmer was such a horn dog...perhaps this helps explain Mrs. Palmer's testy reaction during her appearance on the Johnny Carson Show when he asked her (paraphrasing a bit here):
"So, Mrs. Palmer, do you have any rituals to help Arnold before a big tournament?
"Well yes...I kiss his balls for good luck!"
Johnny deadpanned, with perfect timing: "I'll bet that makes his putter stand up!"
Mrs. Palmer stormed off the stage in anger. Johnny probably touched a nerve on what she may have known about Arnie's extracurricular activities.
oldeham| 6.19.12 @ 9:18AM
While this is an interesting perspective, for those of us that play, or at lease play at golf, like I do, we understand that the game of golf is a very difficult sport to play consistently for any length of time. My take is that Mr. Hillyer is attempting to split a silk thread. Both Jack and Tiger are superb players.
canuckistani| 6.19.12 @ 9:55AM
I agree, and good summary. Their careers are stunningly similar. Fast out of the gate, mini slumps before they were 30 and competitive in their 30's. Both had the luxury of zero serious competition for a period of time, and had tremendous challenges when a new crop emerged: Watson and Miller for Jack, and the UK squad Tiger has today.
Two things stand out for me when comparing the two: Jack has 8 come from behind majors, Tiger has zero. Jack had complete command of his long irons and used substandard equipment versus today. Tiger has had leading edge technology that has concealed his driving and long iron inadequacies. These combine to provide Jack a competitive edge, in my view.
squalis| 6.19.12 @ 10:40AM
The technology argument is lost on me. Players of an era have access to comparable technology. I think both Jack and Tiger brought new levels of power to the game in their respective time, and while Jack may have had better command of his long irons, I would argue not by much. I don't think there has ever been a player better around the greens than Tiger. I love this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related
astorian| 6.19.12 @ 11:00AM
Quin Hilyer thinks that Jack Nicklaus was better than Tiger Woods, that Nicklaus faced tougher competition than Woods, and that Woods still has a very good chance of surpassing Nicklaus record for career majors.
I think he's wrong on all three points.
There is FAR more quality competition today than there was in Nicklaus's day, from all over the world. The field is much deeper now than it was in the Sixties and Seventies. Tiger Woods was at least as dominant as Nicklaus against stiffer competition than Nicklaus faced.
However, I no longer believe TIger has any real chance of winning five more majors. A few years back, I was all but certain that Woods would SHATTER the record... but now? Woods is getting old! It feels weird for me, a 51 year old, to call a much younger man "old," but he is. A 36 year old man with chronic injuries is NOT young, and he is NOT in the prime of his career. Tiger is still very good, but he'll NEVER be dominant again. He CAN still win a major or two, but he's not going win enough to top Nicklaus' record.
P.S. Interestingl, writer Joe Posnanski has often said that Nicklaus is the best i nterview in sports. NOT because he's funny or entertaining or a greta story teller (he's not), but because he always gives a thoughtful, intelligent answer to EXACTLY the question he's asked.
Casey Abell| 6.19.12 @ 11:15AM
At least Quin's prediction of a big Tiger win in the U.S. Open looked good...for two rounds.
Then things ran off the tracks.
Oldefarte| 6.19.12 @ 11:15AM
'....It is near the Christmas break of the school year. The students have turned in all their work and there is really nothing more to do. All the children are restless and the teacher decides to have an early dismissal.
Teacher: “Whoever answers the questions I ask, first and correctly can leave early today.”
Little Johnny says to himself “Good, I want to get outta here. I’m smart and will answer the question.”
Teacher: “Who said ‘Four Score and Seven Years Ago’?”
Before Johnny can open his mouth, Susie says, “Abraham Lincoln.”
Teacher: “That’s right Susie, you can go home.”
Johnny is mad that Susie answered the question first.
Teacher: “Who said ‘I Have a Dream’?”
Before Johnny can open his mouth, Mary says, “Martin Luther King.”
Teacher: “That’s right Mary, you can go.”
Johnny is even madder than before.
Teacher: “Who said ‘Ask not, what your country can do for you’?”
Before Johnny can open his mouth, Nancy says, “John F. Kennedy.”
Teacher: “That’s right Nancy , you may also leave.”
Johnny is boiling mad that he has not been able to answer to any of the questions.
When the teacher turns her back Johnny says, “I wish these bitches would keep their mouths shut!”
The teacher turns around: “NOW WHO SAID THAT?”
Johnny: “TIGER WOODS. CAN I GO NOW?”.......'
bill glass| 6.19.12 @ 11:30AM
Plus, Jack's a Buckeye!!
Obadiah Plainman| 6.19.12 @ 11:35AM
As a golfer, I have always had admiration for both men and their respective styles of playing the game. No matter how Tiger ends up ultimately in history, he already has secured a place in the pantheon of all-time greats. Moreover, Tiger draws people to the game like no one else--arguably perhaps since Arnie's Army did. Both men were so dominating in their time yet both had an impact on raising the level of the competition they faced. But Tiger remains a tormented soul: even if his career ended today, one may pause to ask, "At what price?" To that end, I think many are fans and admirers of Tiger, but there are so many other players that are actually loved and respected. I'd rather walk over broken glass to see Phil Mickelson play golf than go out of my way to watch Tiger, frankly.
Bob Grant| 6.19.12 @ 11:41AM
To compare Tiger's record to Jack's is comparing apples to oranges. The game has simply changed too much to make a comparison.
* The quality of competition Jack faced was much better. The field who could potentially beat Jack on a given week was about twenty. For Tiger, in his early career, it's about one or two, and only if they brought their A-game.
* Remember, when Jack played, every player had to qualify for tournaments, week end, week out. It mattered not that your name was Jack Nickolaus or Jack Squat, if you wanted to play in the upcoming tournament, you had to qualify on Monday...how would Tiger perform under such gruelling demands? ....How would his game hold up?
* Jack did not rely on swing gurus, sports psychologists, equipment technicians, or sports trainers to improve his game. He simply practiced by himself to improve....how would Tiger's game hold up under those circumstances.
* Jack didn't rely as much on specialty clubs, balls and other equipment as Tiger.
* The condition of the golf courses was far worse than what Tiger's used to.
cont......
Bob Grant| 6.19.12 @ 11:43AM
....cont
* The travel accommodations are light years away from what they used to be when Jack played.
* Back in the day, most, if not all, professional golfers played week in, week out, to make money. And even that wasn't a guarantee. If you didn't make the cut, you lost money that week. Tiger, as well as most other golfers (the lesser ones as well), are able to cherry pick which tournaments they choose to compete in. For some, this means playing only one tournament per month. The purses (8 million dollars for the US Open!!!!!), have made many players soft.
The point is we simply don't know HOW the players of today would perform under conditions 40-50 years ago, and vise-verse. The game is played on the margins and the difference between an good player and a great one is razor-thin. Who knows, Billy Casper playing under today's conditions might be a great golfer; Tiger Woods playing in '64 might be a not-so-great one.
Sports records are over rated.
SFSEAN| 6.19.12 @ 11:52AM
I have never met Tiger Woods and won't comment on him. At the 1998 US Open at the Olympic Club, I followed Jack Nicklaus during his practice round. His son was caddying for him and there were about a dozen spectators following him. Mr. Nicklaus made it a point to engage all of us, signed autographs for those who wanted it and made fans of us all. It really doesn't matter if Woods gets the record because a hundred years from now, the record will just be a number, Nicklaus will still be a legend and someone to emulate.
Butch| 6.19.12 @ 3:20PM
I had the same experience, at the Colonial in Fort Worth as a newlywed in 1968. Neither my wife nor I are golfers, but we had an invitation through my brother-in-law, and we went. Jack was out of contention on that Sunday, and we followed him, along with about 15 others.
He was the nicest fellow, talking, as you said, to all of us as individuals and as a group. He even gave golf lessons and tips and yes, autographs. My wife fell in love with him and watched golf tournaments on TV for years to root for him. He is a great ambassador for the game.
On that same day, Arnold Palmer stood up from a putt and glowered sternly for an extended period in the direction of the gallery from which someone made a noise. I thought the difference was striking.
JPTravis | 6.19.12 @ 10:26PM
I had the opposite experience with Gary Player in Grand Rapids, Michigan, at a Seniors event. My daughter and I were walking between holes when a phalanx of tournament officials came running through the area to stop all movement, even movement 75 yards away from the tee and out of Player's sightline. Seems he wouldn't tee off on the 18th until the entire golf course was motionless. Some guys couldn't care less what's happening around them, and banter with the crowd - others are divas.
Who Knows?| 6.19.12 @ 11:55AM
Comparing athletes of different eras is a mug’s game.
Perhaps the purest human competition is track. Even here though, technological advances make comparisons absolutely meaningless. And, the improvement of living standards opens the door for more humans to compete.
Consider long distance running, especially what used to be THE premier event, the mile run.
Remember America’s glory days, when Jim Ryan was so special? When breaking the four-minute mile was still considered newsworthy? I went to the U of Oregon, and was a huge fan, going to all possible track meets from 1962-66.
Bill Bowerman, the team’s coach, always had someone who was a top miler. Of course, he later used his waffle iron to create a better shoe---hello Nike.
And, now? The law of large numbers rules. With economic improvement in Europe and Africa, along came other special humans who could also compete at world-class levels---and the rest, as they say, is history.
Same thing happened to tennis. I still remember when so many players with weird “foreign” names began winning, and then dominating, from backward places like Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia.
Here’s a random tidbit---in WW II, the AVERAGE Japanese soldier was all of 5 feet 2 inches tall. Which means he was about the same size as my own MOTHER!
Who Knows?| 6.19.12 @ 12:05PM
Nicklaus had less competition than Woods. There’s no doubt Woods is far and away the proven all time best golfer, despite your “statistics-lie” attempt to prove Nicklaus was better.
Given the vast widening of the pool of great golfers, including these days the still-to-come growth of players from the Orient, I think it’s amazing that Woods DID manage to win so many championships.
The Boston Celtics was 1 of 8 teams, back when they won so many trophies. Players weren’t traded much. How many teams, now? The odds went from 1 in 8 to 1 in 24, a huge change.
Nah---Nicklaus would just be one of MANY privileged “white boys”, nowadays.
How many Caucasians in the NBA?
Face the all too human “melting pot” truth---unless humanity or wild nature decides to interrupt the naturally occurring spread of economic growth and the inevitable creation of mixed birth humans---a al tiger Woods---when it comes to sports like golf, there will never be “giants” like Woods again.
Then, what will the TV networks do to attract viewers? When there are ten guys instead of one, who are superb?
Golf, baseball---boring!
Tim the Enchanter| 6.19.12 @ 1:18PM
See- I knew it. Troll bait. Just a matter of time.
Who Knows?| 6.19.12 @ 2:04PM
Tim the Troll speaks.
JPTravis | 6.19.12 @ 10:28PM
There's no doubt AND it's proven that Tiger is best. Gosh, both those things.
Casey Abell| 6.19.12 @ 12:51PM
"...when it comes to sports like golf, there will never be “giants” like Woods again."
Yeah, until somebody comes along and wins a bunch of majors and everybody starts comparing him to Woods. It's already happened with McIlroy and he's only won one major so far. (Admittedly he won it by several light-years in a ridiculous performance.)
Actually, the guy who should have a bunch of majors is Westwood. He's always in contention - 14 top tens! - but somehow something always happens. A ball gets stuck in a tree, it's always somethin'.
"Golf, baseball---boring!"
Then why are bothering to write about it?
Dixon| 6.19.12 @ 1:06PM
"Then why are bothering to write about it?"
Because it is an incredibly difficult, strategic, tactical, emotional game. To win on the PGA tour is a very great accomplishment. To win a major with all that added pressure in amazing. To win several majors is incredible.
Tiger's book is still open while Jack's has been written. Tiger has time but his crumble on Sunday was troubling. He may have lost the mental edge that carried Jack all those years. The Golden Bear's focused, unemotional approach was steel...especially during the final round...you do not outrun a hungry bear on a golf course.
Casey Abell| 6.19.12 @ 1:15PM
Well, actually I was replying to the guy who wrote the quote. He went on at length about how great Tiger is, then ended by saying that golf is boring. Seemed like a weird way to end a long post about...golf.
Casey Abell| 6.19.12 @ 1:32PM
By the way, the same guy who said golf was boring also said something, er, interesting about the NBA...
"The Boston Celtics was 1 of 8 teams, back when they won so many trophies."
Uh, no. The Celtics only won the first four of their 17 NBA titles in an eight-team league. The NBA then started expanding.
In sports everybody's entitled to their own opinion. But you're not entitled to your own facts.
Bob Grant| 6.19.12 @ 1:38PM
Casey,
This troll was clearly trying to squeeze in as much racial rhetoric as possible within a 1500 character limit.
I'm proud that no one here took the bait. And thank you for slapping him down with facts.
Casey Abell| 6.19.12 @ 1:43PM
The guy also seems to think there are currently 24 teams in the NBA. I don't even follow the league, and I know there are 30 teams in the NBA.
Who Knows?| 6.19.12 @ 1:44PM
Hey Bob, I'm no troll. And, I'm no racist.
Who Knows?| 6.19.12 @ 1:43PM
Thanks for the correction.
Who Knows?| 6.19.12 @ 1:41PM
Shooting a basketball daily for 30 minutes continues to be ONE of my enjoyments, even as I just turned 70.
Using the body to move a piece of earth from an arbitrary distance to a designated hole takes skill, only gained with practice. I find it to be both amazing and satisfying to thus be able to take aim, and with no thought allow the wrist and arm to loft the ball the appropriate height, and make the connection.
I played enough golf when young to appreciate how difficult it is. So, as time has passed, for me a renewed awe has arisen, when I watch golf on TV.
That so many players are able to shoot that tiny ball so close to the itsy bitsy target staggers my imagination. Is it really possible for them to exhibit such a subtle “touch”, when knowing the target is 180 verses 170 yards away?
When I shoot from the free throw line, I SEE the rim and adjust my shooting hand and arm, like an archer might aim for his target. If beyond the three-point line, I have to set up for the extra effort, and then let the object fly.
Hence, it’s the shot golfers take to get on the green and as close to the hole that interests me most. To have the touch, expressed bodily by the hit between the club and ball, just right, at the correct speed of swing and with the right club, to roll close to the hole---what mastery!
The touch exhibited when putting also garners my attention. Yes, the best golfers are indeed masters of the “moving earth accurately” universe.
Who Knows?| 6.19.12 @ 1:49PM
We must admit, too, as illustrated by what I just wrote, that at the core of this whole golf-me trip is---identification.
By imagining MYSELF as the golfer, when he goes to take a “touchable” shot, is essential. Thus do we all play “As if”.
Why, I even exhibit hand-eye coordination as I type this.
Cool Hand Luke| 6.19.12 @ 2:05PM
TEST
Casey Abell| 6.19.12 @ 2:16PM
Oh, the guy who said that golf was boring also dissed baseball. Well, like I said, everybody's entitled to their own opinion on sports. But at least baseball fans like me didn't have to sit through one of those tedious labor disputes like NBA fans endured earlier this season.
It's really pretty remarkable how much labor peace baseball has enjoyed since the 1994 disaster, considering the contentious history before then. The secret to the harmony is...you guessed it, money.
A flood of money is inundating baseball from regional sports networks. The RSN's have no other attractive properties from April through September. National networks have the NBA and NHL playoffs locked up, not to mention every last bit of the NFL. So the RSNs are bidding ridiculous money for baseball rights, especially as teams threaten to set up their own networks.
Makes everybody in the sport happy. The baseball labor negotialtions went off without a hitch last year.
Who Knows?| 6.19.12 @ 2:22PM
Sorry, I can’t resist---
Golf, baseball and soccer are boring.
AND, what action that occurs IS not boring.
Back in the day---the early 60’s---a local TV station showed only the actual plays, from whistle to whistle, of the local college football teams, on the Sunday following the games. Took all of 30 minutes.
Imagine the same for golf!
And, baseball---what, five or ten minutes of action?
Me, I watch golf, sometimes, but always with the sound turned off---except rarely, and then just for laughs. Especially gut busting is when the cameras focus on the commentators, usually a couple of over the hill duffers.
So---these sports ARE both boring and exciting.
But, do the math.
Bob Grant| 6.19.12 @ 2:44PM
Man, aren't you a complicated soul...some would say nuanced.
But there's nothing complicated about the fact that you are a troll.
Tim the Enchanter| 6.19.12 @ 4:56PM
Thanks. Thought I was the only one that reached that conclusion.
Cool Hand Luke| 6.19.12 @ 2:46PM
Agreed. Jack competed against far greater competition than Tiger. Look at the list
of Major’s winners and a lot of ‘em competed against Jack.
Jack also was and is a great citizen and ambassador of the game. He makes us all
proud.
Gotta give Tiger his due because he is responsible for the popularity of the game
today. He seems to have lost his edge but time will tell.
Mistral| 6.19.12 @ 2:58PM
Jack was not only a great golfeing champion but he was also a real gentleman on the course. He also had a good marriage with Barbara.
Mistral| 6.19.12 @ 2:59PM
Watching golf is very good for insomnia! Try it!
dadfly| 6.20.12 @ 4:23AM
my dad and jack helped me to a love and appreciation of golf--the sport that, imo, can test and build character like no other. as a boy who, yes, thought there was nothing on tv so boring and yet, for some reason, required viewing on the weekends.
boys love a winner and i think my dad let me root for jack alone. he would root for palmer, or trevino or his favorites chi-chi or later freddie. i would root for jack. and jack would come through, again and again. no nastiness, ever, just an incredible will to win. grace, class and power.
now, as a dad, i notice how his family adores and respects; how he designs and builds apart from golf. how golf has come to revere him. what a man. what a role model to aspire too. thanks jack.