-
Markos Moulitsas is Scum
May 28, 2012 | 19 comments
-
I Try to Explain Debt on CBN News
May 23, 2012 | 13 comments
-
More on Wright
May 21, 2012 | 17 comments
-
Missing the Point on Rev. Wright
May 21, 2012 | 10 comments
-
Exorcise DeGioia and Company From Georgetown
May 19, 2012 | 23 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Leaving politics again for more important things, Tim Joyce at Real Clear Sports has an excellent column comparing Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods. Myself, even as a Nicklaus fan nonpareil, I think that Woods at his best probably would have beaten Nicklaus at his best perhaps 11 out of 21 times. Nicklaus was a far better driver (far more consistently straight), but Woods' killer instinct and his prowess ALL around the greens, and from trouble off the fairway, seem to give him an edge. Nonetheless, one reason we'll never know for sure is that Woods' competitors have been virtual pygmies compared to Nicklaus' chief rivals. NOBODY, even once, has stepped up to birdie the closing holes of a major, or to hit chip-ins or other miraculous shots, to defeat Woods one-on-one the way that Lee Trevino and Tom Watson so often did to Nicklaus. Again and again we see major el-foldos from Woods' top competitors, the same way Padraig Harrington gagged his way from a one-stroke lead to a triple bogey on the 16th hole at Firestone yesterday. The ONLY people who haven't backed up in majors against Tiger were the journeymen like Bob May, Chris DiMarco and Rocco Mediate -- and even they merely hung tough rather than actually stepping up to make birdies or chip-ins on closing holes.
So consider Woods' competition: Singh, Mickelson, Harrington, and Els each have three major wins, with Goosen and Cabrera having two each. Compare that to Players' nine, Watson's eight (and almost a ninth last month!), Palmer's seven, Trevino's six, Floyd's four, and Irwin's and Casper's three each. Throw in Crenshaw and Hubert Green and Johnny Miller and Dick Stockton, with two each, and Tom Weiskopf and Tom Kite and Lanny Wadkins and Gene Littler and Don January with one each, and you have an incredible murderers' row of opponents. (You could also note that Jack won four of his majors after Severiano Ballesteros [five majors total] came on the scene.) And it's not as if Singh et al. have so few only because they've been losing to Tiger; when Tiger wasn't at his best, they have let people like Shaun Micheel, Todd Hamilton, Ben Curtis, Mark Brooks, Michael Campbell and Rich Beem take the trophies. Truly, these "rivals" of Tigers are merely very good, not all-time greats.
But here's a good way to think of it. Pair off Mickelson with his fellow San Diegan Billy Casper (they have nearly identical records) and Els, Singh, Harrington, Goosen and Cabrera with Irwin, Floyd, Green, Crenshaw and Miller (frankly, I'd rate the latter five much tougher competitors ANY day). Jack is left against Arnie, Gary, Tom, and Lee, while Tiger is left against.... exactly nobody worth considering in the top 20 of all time.
ANother way to look at it is to add up ALL the professional major titles of the most celebrated Americans under 50 right now (except Mickelson, already dealt with in the comparison to Billy Casper's 51 wins, three of them majors). Janzen and Daly with two each. Azinger, Couples, Pavin, Calcavecchia, Love, Leonard, Furyk, Toms, Duval, and Cink, with one major each. Now throw in Kenny Perry, Scott Verplank, Steve Stricker, Chris DiMarco, Brad Faxon, Rocco Mediate, and former US Amateur champ Billy Mayfair for good measure -- all with zero professional majors. (I take all these names from the top 40 or so on the career earnings list.) Hell, let's open this up to foreigners and throw in Sergio Garcia, Colin Montgomerie, Darren Clark, Lee Westwood, Miguel Angel Jimenez, and Paul Casey. Zero professional majors there, too. Grand total for 25 of the most accomplished players against whom Tiger Woods has had to compete: Just 14 majors combined, the same as Tiger himself has won. Nicklaus' competition was SO much steeper, so much tougher, so much more mentally strong, than Woods', there really is no comparison.
Remember, Nicklaus also had to contend with even more people far more accomplished than CInk and Verplank -- people like John Mahaffey, Jerry Pate, Frank Beard, Doug Sanders, Mike Souchak, Greg Norman (a small overlap with Jack), Tony Jacklin, Peter Thomsen (a small overlap), Dave Hill, Hal Sutton, Larry Nelson (small overlap), David Graham, Julius Boros, Al Geiberger, Bobby Nichols, Gay Brewer, George Archer, Bob Goalby, Fuzzy Zoeller (small overlap), Roberto DiVicenzo, and Bob Charles, and with Sam Snead playing for Nicklaus the Tom Watson role of greatly elder competitor(but far more often than Watson) by seriously competing for the PGA into his 60s. Granted, Tiger is only 33, so surely some of his current and future competitors will in their full careers resemble some of these very good-but-not-all-time-greats of the Nicklaus years -- and thus Tiger won't look quite so much like a man among pygmies when it is all said and done.
But the fact is, Jack Nicklaus had to beat people who did NOT back down from him. Tiger, for all his phenomenal play, has yet to have somebody stick a dagger deep into his guts the way Watson did three separate times to Jack (with birdies at the 71st hole all three times) or the way Trevino did by chipping in from all over creation to stop Jack's Grand Slam bid. None of TIger's chief competitors seem to have the same fortitude -- and the ones with fortitude, like Mediate and DiMarco, aren't even close to being second-tier greats, or any tier greats at all.
So we'll never really know what Tiger would have done against the likes of Watson, Trevino and Player -- or how much better Jack would have done if Harrington and Els had been his main, utterly outclassed, opponents.
View all comments (18) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/08/10/nicklaus-or-woods
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- P Is for Poison
- Heavens to Betsy!
- Rating the Presidents and Their Raters
SPONSORED LINKS
Special Feature
Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:
FLASHBACK TO: 1984
-
The Fairness Delusion
The speech our President should make.
-
Media Smears: One Man’s Experiences
A noted economist fires back.
-
Chuck Colson vs. The Fundamentalists
How political can you get?
-
The Reagan Doctrine
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
-
The Woman Problem
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Roy| 8.10.09 @ 4:55PM
Um, I'm pretty sure that age for Tiger is a typo. 33?
I was at what I believe was his first pro tournament - the Greater Milwaukee Open in 1995. I'm pretty sure he was more than 9 years old :)
astorian| 8.10.09 @ 5:17PM
Years ago, Jimmy Connors said that, to be a champion, you have to HATE losing. You have to hate losing a lot more than you like winning. As he put it, when you see some other S.O.B. holding up YOUR trophy, you have to get sick to your stomach.
In short, in the middle of a competition, a true champion has to HATE his opponents just a little.
And that's one of the things that's definitely missing on the PGA tour today. There was definitely a bit of healthy hatred between Jack Nicklaus and Arnold Palmer. When Palmer beat Nicklaus, the Bear fumed while Arnie's Army cheered.
When Tiger Woods wins a big tournament, I don't see his opponents fuming. When a guy finishes in second place, two strokes behind Tiger, he tends to look pretty pleased with himself. He smiles, praises Tiger to the skies, and then deposits a hefty check.
When Tiger finishes in second place, two strokes off the lead, my hunch is, he kicks the locker room wall, and thinks, "Damn it, I LOST!!!" Then he goes out to the putting green and practices a few more hours, so he won't lose next time.
When is somebody on the PGA tour going to develop a little healthy hatred for Tiger?
BD57| 8.10.09 @ 6:20PM
By most accounts, Mickelson & Tiger don't like each other.
But .... IMO, there's little in the way of hatred for Tiger on the PGA Tour for two reasons:
#1, there's no one on the tour these days who believes they're good enough to 'beat' Tiger - oh, they could finish ahead of him because Tiger doesn't play as well as he can, but they're not going to "beat" him. It wouldn't make much sense for a junior college football team to hate (say) the Florida Gators; likewise the other guys on tour vs. Tiger.
#2, these guys are professional golfers - emphasis on "professional." Tiger puts a lot of money in their pockets & they know it - it's hard to hate the Tour's ATM.
Brian B| 8.10.09 @ 6:29PM
Excellent post and an argument I've long made.
IMO, the same applies to Michael Jordan.
What team in his era compared to the Sixers or Lakers with Chamberlain in Russels' Celtics days.
William R| 8.10.09 @ 7:01PM
The equipment is so much better today that it is difficult to try and compare. I still have my first set of clubs from the mid 1960s and it is amazing how much better my Callaway's are. Long irons aren't a problem thanks to hybrids. The Drivers are night and day. Big sweet spot on cavity back irons.
Paul C| 8.10.09 @ 7:40PM
That's a pretty persuasive argument, and some insightful readers' comments as well.
golffan| 8.10.09 @ 8:37PM
Hey Roy, Since Tiger was born in 1975 he would have been 19 at the tournament you saw in 1995 and that makes him 33 now. It's no typo. Brush up on your math skills.
tepp| 8.10.09 @ 8:54PM
Guys...I think the article is "spot" on...the JohnnyMiller you mention and I are long time friends...we have talked about this subject many times...he's also talked about it in the booth...here is directly from him: "we played, even in those days with clubs that mirrored the worst driving range rental clubs..sweetspots smaller than a pinhead.....balls that you could curve like a boomarang and not on purpose...the equipment is so different nowdays that if I had played in this era I could have won 50 times in my prime even as little as I played"....
remember back then you had Monday qualifying and only the top 60 made the exempt list but very, very hungry..finishing 60th did not make you a very good living..........that is why the players today in terms of skill are deeper in terms of numbers but millionaires even just out of the top 125....the hunger and drive just don't seem to be there....the guys just "mail it in".....as much as I like Tiger's assault on the record and it is stunning....I'm still not completely sold on him being "greater" than Jack....remember, Tiger's short game unmatched expertise was not with "v" grooves or balata balls...HUGE difference.
tepp| 8.10.09 @ 8:59PM
also....I am a longtime basketball coach..teaching kids the "purity" of the game that I watched and learned in the 60's......also, as much as I loved Jerry West, John Havlicek and that era...I believe that given the same type of play for both era's the 60's players in NO way could compare to the sheer quickness and strength of today's game...sure there would be some exceptions.....but not all the way through the lineup......these guys are that much better....just my 2 cents
Grant Goodwin| 8.10.09 @ 10:35PM
Great piece and spot on. Not only did Jack beat those greats. He finished 2nd 18 or 19 times in majors. Palmer won 7 majors and had several seconds including playoff losses. Jack beat the best competition imaginable.....with no back off from Boro's, Palmer, Player, Irwin, Casper, Souchak, Miller, Watson, Trevino, etc. Plus, he played the MacGregor Golf Ball, clearly an inferior ball.
Kingfish| 8.10.09 @ 11:53PM
Ah, Connors. Nothing like seeing him in his chair between sets fuming. Not because of a call by the ump but because he wanted to get back out there and destroy his opponent.
Tim| 8.11.09 @ 8:37AM
I'm pretty sure they have golf in Hell.
Tim| 8.11.09 @ 10:40AM
It may be the only sport in both places...
Noel E. PARMENTEL Jr| 8.11.09 @ 12:43PM
Glad to see that (Slammin) Sammy SNEAD made
Quin Hillyers cut.But how could he forget Walter HAGEN; Ben HOGAN;Bobby JONES;(Lord) Byron NELSON; Francis OUIMET; or Harry VARDON?
s/ Noel E. PARMENTEL Jr
Quin| 8.11.09 @ 2:16PM
Noel,
My friend, you misunderstood. I was only comparing the golfers in Jack's era with those of Tiger's era. I wasn't making a list of the greatest of all time. Jack didn't play with Hagen, Nelson, Jones, Vardon, or Ouimet, and he barely overlapped with Hogan. That's the only reason I didn't include them in my post.
SoCon| 8.11.09 @ 2:41PM
Tiger turns 34 in December. He's just a kid.
John P| 8.12.09 @ 3:55AM
One may make a case that Nicklaus was the better golfer – but not on the grounds used by Mr. Hillyer. In the first place, the fact that Woods’ opponents are intimidated by him should not be held against him. (The same applies to Mike Tyson at his prime). If anything, the “Tyson Factor” is to Tiger’s credit. After all, the touring pros know better than us how good he is.
Second, comparisons of Tiger’s competition with Jack’s is problematic because of the enormously greater depth of field to be found today. The population of the Untited States has increases by 100,000,000 in the last forty years, while the game of golf has become accessible to the middle class in much greater numbers than if Nicklaus’s heyday. Add to that to tremendous growth in European and International golf in the same period, and you have a talent pool several times greater in the Woods era.
Statistically, this does not prove that the greatest players are greater now, but it does inevitably mean that the middle-ranked and lower ranked players are all much better than ever before. Hence Tiger faces much steeper odds every time he enters a tournament than Jack did, because now there are 150 players with a realistic shot at winning, every single week. Furthermore, all of those players have been through a more rigorous selection process, and they all can afford to devote full-time efforts to developing their skills.
This accounts for the discrepancies in winning records between Jack’s opponents and Tiger’s. Davis Love III and Rich Beem had to struggle against dozens more highly skilled opponents their counterparts in Jack’s day. No wonder their winning records are not as good! In fact Mr. Hillyer’s thesis in undermined by his own argument; he is hoisted by his own petard.
Bruce| 8.16.09 @ 12:54PM
Woods would put the boots to Nicklaus if they were both playing in their prime (I dont think Woods has even got there yet).
While people thought Nicklaus records would never be broken now they are getting close to being broken the Nicklaus fanbase has done all they can to defend their champion golfer.
Admit he is now the 2nd best golfer ever no matter what his competition was (Maybe Woods is just that much better then his competition, he cant be penalized for that).
I am sure that even Jack would say that Woods is a better golfer then he ever was. That is not taking anything away from Jack.