« RTJ2 and Seneca Nation to build golf course near Niagara FallsCurtis Cup stays in Oregon and 49 other US states »

33 comments

Comment from: One-Putt [Visitor]
A simple case of Tiger beating another field of players into submission. I don't believe we have seen Tiger's best golf yet and that is a scary thought for the Worlds' Professional Golfers.

Fifty wins at 30 years old, who could even imagine that would ever happen ten years ago. Eleven Major championships at 30 is another one nobody could comprehend. In another ten years there will be no records left except in the minds of the players who once held them.

I feel a great deal of sympathy for some really fine golfers who just happened to be playing in this era. The era of Tiger Woods.



08/07/06 @ 06:23
Comment from: Booger [Visitor]
"A simple case of Tiger beating another field of players into submission." He was ahead by two shots when he stood on the 18th tee.
Big deal. His four rounds of 66 were not as dominant as Lehman's four rounds of 67 at the Memorial in 1994.

This Tiger worship is out of control. No one ever wants to point out that he has played in an incredibly soft era, where easy money has made the competition gutless. I will give him credit for being tougher than the rest of his peers, but he hasn't exactly been competing for titles against the likes of Palmer, Trevino, Player, Watson, Miller and Weiskopf as Jack Nicklaus had to.

Can anyone imagine how many titles Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan, Walter Hagen, Byron Nelson and Sam Snead would be picking up today if they were put into a time machine and played today's easy tour courses with the modern equipment?

To compare this weekend's tournament to something Bobby Jones did over 75 years ago (which was superior) is an absurdity.

I should also point out that Bobby Jones had 7 US and British Open titles at age 29 - your god Tiger had 5. The Masters did not exist (obviously) and if Jones played in the PGA, he most certainly would have cost Hagen a few titles. So let's stay in control when we start babbling about Tiger's 11 majors at age 30. It cannot be compared to what Jones did in a different time.

But, Tiger is your god..so.....worship away.

Is Wie your goddess?
08/07/06 @ 07:48
Comment from: Booger [Visitor]
Sorry, Tiger had 4 US and British Open titles at age 29. He picked up his fifth this year at age 30.
08/07/06 @ 07:55
Comment from: Ron Mon [Member] Email
Booger, is your God dried mucus? Who ever made claims to worshipping The Tiger? Our altars would have space for other statuettes and figurines if The Easy or The Fijian or The Sinister One would prove themselves worthy. I'm afraid that you have our Tiger-Krishna organization all wrong.
08/07/06 @ 11:47
Comment from: CB Maxwell [Visitor]
Tiger "worship?" Come on...we are witnessing the best golfer in history, period. Tiger's dominance over the field is unparalleled. TO say he doesn't have competition is ridiculous. While I concede that Jack had his foils, such as Casper, Palmer, Trevino...and that "little" guy Player...Tiger's foils are no slouches either...beating Davis Love III, Ernie, Mickelson, Furyk, that VJ guy...!
My point is that this guy has such skill, focus and mental toughness, he makes the rest seem soft...
However, I will concede also the point that the money the Tour makes all these guys does seem to stiffle the competition, but if you analyse what Tiger said on winning the Buick...I came to win...I am in the Tournament to win. I don't believe a single other player comes with that mindset, but rather to "contend."
08/07/06 @ 11:56
Comment from: Booger [Visitor]
Davis Love III, Ernie Els, Phil Mickelson, Jim Furyk and Vijay Singh are BUMS compared to Casper, Palmer, Trevino and Player. I repeat, BUMS!

Nicklaus would win 3 out of 4 or the grand slam every year if he played against the slobs out there today. His only competition would be Tiger.

BUMS!
08/07/06 @ 12:21
Comment from: Booger [Visitor]
Who had the easier time, Jack or Tiger? Here is a comparison of the competition up to the point of capturing their 11th major, as measured against multiple major championship winners. The first number is the titles won by the competition after Jack and Tiger won their first. The second number in parentheses is the titles possessed before Jack and Tiger, and the third number is how many additional majors the golfer in question would go on to win.

Nicklaus 11
Palmer 2 (5)
Player 3 (2) (4)
Thomson 1 (4)
Boros 2 (1)
Casper 2 (1)
Trevino 3 (0) (3)
Jacklin 2 (0)
Floyd 1 (0) (3)
Stockton 1 (0) (1)

Woods 11
Els 2 (1)
O'Meara 2 (0)
Janzen 1 (1)
Singh 3 (0)
Olazabal 1 (1)
Stewart 1 (2)
Goosen 2 (0)
Mickelson 3 (0)

This speaks for itself. Does anyone see a Tom Watson emerging to challenge Tiger from this point out?
Does Tiger's living competition have eleven majors combined left in their careers? No to both, if you are honest.

The golfers Tiger took on do not have the major pedigree that the fields Nicklaus had to contend against. That isn't Tiger's fault. It also isn't Tiger's fault that the field wilts and concedes to him EVERY time. I know all about May and DiMarco, but this is about multiple major champions. These bums have bent every time. The only one on Tiger's list that had true grit was Payne, and regrettably he is no more. As for the others, they will only win if Tiger isn't on the leaderboard on Sunday. Nicklaus never ever had that luxury of pathetic competition.

BUMS!

BUMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
08/07/06 @ 13:02
Comment from: One-Putt [Visitor]
Booger there is another way to look at comparing players of the past with current players:

It might not have been Jack's era if one Eldrick Woods was in the field back in his day. Drop Tiger's scoring average, GIR and putting into the fifties, sixties and seventies then give me a comparison. The object is still to get the ball in hole with the fewest strokes, that never changed.

Let's be honest here Booger and understand that Tiger hits a five wood or two iron longer than Jack's career driving average. Courses were shorter in Jack's era and not made much longer until Tiger's era. Put the players of the past you listed above on a 7,000 yard or longer course and watch their wins fall away.

You can dismiss Tiger's competition today as weaker players or you can drop their statistics into Jack's era and see how they stacked up. Maybe Chris Dimarco would have dominated Jack and his group of competitors? Unfortunately for Chris he is in Tiger's era.



08/07/06 @ 14:39
Comment from: Ron Mon [Member] Email
I think that, if blogs had existed in Jack's era, Booger would have called Jack a bum.

BOOGERS!!

BOOGERS!!!!!!
08/07/06 @ 15:36
Comment from: derek [Visitor]
Booger. Telling us what Jack would have done had he been playing in this era is silly. No one actually knows. Just because you worship JACK doesn't mean we're just going to accept your arguments.

The very data you put forth could merely be interpreted as Jack Nicklaus not being that great. Perhaps the competition was only tougher for him during his era and not necessarily tougher than what Tiger faces. Jack was better than his competition but maybe not by so much.

Perhaps if he had been the player that Tiger is, his competitors would have looked soft in comparison.

Tiger is just that much better than everyone else. Nobody beats Tiger but himself, except once: possibly Rich Beem a few years back at the PGA, I believe - he held off Tiger despite Tiger birdying the last 4 holes.

Jack even admitted himself that he had never seen anyone (including himself) with such a strong grasp of the fundamentals of golf. Tiger is the best now and ever. That will only change when the next great comes along.
08/07/06 @ 15:40
Comment from: Booger [Visitor]
One Putt: give Jack and his crew today's ball and driver before you talk about distance and such. Go worship your god.

Ron Mon: sounds like you are more retarded than the name Booger. At least try to refute intelligently (albeit incorrectly) as One Putt did. Go worship your god.

derek: you have it backwards. It makes Jack look better that he won all those majors against more accomplished competition. Go worship your god.

By the way, I never rooted for Jack until he was fat and old. I was in Arnold's camp. Historically I am partial to Jones, Hogan and Snead, but have to name Hogan as the greatest of all time. That is what Booger says so you should take it to the bank.

By the way One Putt, who hit the furthest drive in major championship history? Craig Wood, the Greg Norman of the 1930's, at St. Andrew's. On US soil, Weiskopf hit the furthest drive ever at the Masters in the early 70's. Both used persimmon woods. Let's not forget Snead and Arnold turning up the heat and driving par fours when needed. Do you really think these guys would not be a stroke or two better with today's gear? I'll take a 67 carded in the 1940's over any 67 carded today.

I am the lord your Booger, you shall have no other Booger's before me.
08/07/06 @ 15:57
Comment from: derek [Visitor]
booger. not true. it just means Jack had the edge on them. it is no indication of their strength compared to Tiger's competitors today. you can't just wish us into submission.
08/07/06 @ 16:42
Comment from: Ron Mon [Member] Email
booger doesn't know when to use apostrophes, and he has the temerity to call me the "r" word. my role is not to refute, oh inscrutable one, merely to incite. in your case, it has worked.
08/07/06 @ 17:15
Comment from: Booger [Visitor]
Sorry about the apostrophe, I saw it after I posted. Is that still the best you can do on the subject?

By the way, is "Mon" short for "Monkey"?
08/07/06 @ 18:15
Comment from: Ron Mon [Member] Email
No, but a good guess. Actually, it is an abbreviation of 'mongoloid.' Wait, maybe 'monotonous'... or, how about monochromatic?
08/07/06 @ 20:07
Comment from: Booger [Visitor]
I wouldn't go with mongoloid because you don't appear to possess any asiatic blood. You are an annoying little bastard but I wouldn't classify you as monotonous. An argument could be made for monochromatic, whitey, but the different colors present in your eyes and hair don't really allow that to be an apt description. "Monkey" really works for me, but "monologue" is probably reality, as you are certainly not interested in debating a position.

"Ooga Booga" to you, Ron Monkey. You are my favorite blogger amongst the great apes. Keep up the good work.
08/07/06 @ 20:47
Comment from: Ron Mon [Member] Email
ooo, ooo, aah aah.
08/07/06 @ 23:05
Comment from: One-Putt [Visitor]
Ron what happened to your Blog? We used to have intelligent banter on a higher level. We might disagree now and then, but we never say; ooo, ooo aah aah.

08/08/06 @ 04:43
Comment from: David [Visitor]
Guys, don't flame Booger, as some of his opinions are interesting and have at least some validity to them.

I don't see much wrong with arguing that Ben Hogan was the greatest golfer of all time. He had to overcome every imaginable obstacle and still came out with nine majors and a swing that even Tiger can't claim to have bettered. Hogan makes even Jack look like a bum.

Also, some people misunderstand Booger's point: talent is talent. A golfer is a prisoner of his own era, but whatever era we are discussing, the fact remains that there will always be people with immense amounts of talent. Put a golfer such as Peter Thomson into the year 2006 in his prime, and he would be one of the world's best players. Just because he couldn't perform as well in 1965, the improved equipment and courses would ensure that he competes with the very best of today. And put Hogan into the year 2006, and I think I know what would happen.

The same concept applies throughout all of humanity. Ancient mathematicians had trouble doing simple division calculations, but this is mathematics that we expect a seven year old to be able to do today. So, put Euclid and Archimedes in the year 2006, and I have no doubt that they would be as good as any modern mathematicians alive today.

Thus, the moral of the story is: a person, beyond a certain point, cannot transcend the limitations of the society he/she lives in, even though the concept of talent remains the same (i.e. as times passes, by no means are people becoming 'more talented'!).
08/08/06 @ 06:37
Comment from: Booger [Visitor]
David makes great points in the last two paragraphs. This crosses over into other things where we see hype, as in the entertainment industry. I remember when The Police played Shea Stadium, the hype was that they sold it out faster than The Beatles. Did that make them more popular than The Beatles were? Well...in the 1960's there was no such thing as Ticketron, which is how the tickets went so fast.

Look at films - "Pirates Of The Caribbean II" is on its way to being the "biggest blockbuster ever". What the hype machine fails to inform you is that the dollar is utterly useless in purchasing power when compared to the days of "Gone With The Wind". Did more people actually see "Pirates" in the theatres?

And that hype can trasfer over to golf with inflated purses. Great talk is made of how much money Woods has made on the golf course. Last year he made $10,628,024, winning six tournaments including two majors. In 1960 dollars that amount becomes $1,677,203. The leading money leader in 1960 was Arnold Palmer with $75,263, which would be $476,923 in 2005 dollars. However, Arnold won eight times including two majors.

So.........who had the better season?
Do six wins and money inflation trump eight wins?
08/08/06 @ 09:25
Comment from: Ford [Visitor]
You can argue whoever you like is the best player of all-time, but you can't necesarily argue that the great players of the past would be dominant players today. Today's athlete in all sports is bigger, faster and stronger, golf is no exception. You think simply by putting a titanium driver in the Wee ice man's hand he would be dominant again, I seriously doubt it. Would Babe Ruth be the greatest player in today's game of baseball, unlikely. Ruth compiled stats against guys who were part time dock workers, pitched complete games even if their arms were falling off and had fastballs topping out at a non-competitive high school level. Oh yeah and he didn't havre to play against the best African-American, Latino and Asian players of the day. All we can do is compare dominance within one's era, anything else is pure science fiction.
08/08/06 @ 09:39
Comment from: Booger [Visitor]
"Ruth compiled stats against guys who were part time dock workers, pitched complete games even if their arms were falling off and had fastballs topping out at a non-competitive high school level."

They pitched fast enough back then to kill Ray Chapman with a bean ball. Do you have radar gun stats from that era to back you up?

"Oh yeah and he didn't havre to play against the best African-American, Latino and Asian players of the day."

I understand that anti-white hatred is fashionable in America these days, but do you expect me to believe that Ben Hogan's titles are meaningless for that reason?
08/08/06 @ 10:54
Comment from: One-Putt [Visitor]
Ford what is the feedback on the TaylorMades and your round with Dad?
08/08/06 @ 15:00
Comment from: Ford [Visitor]
Booger--Please save the anti-white tirade for you're Arayan Nation meeting later tonight. You're reason for denegrading Tiger is obvious to us all.

Surely you are not contending that they threw as hard then as they do now, when every measure of physical achievement has increased substantially since then. My point was simply that if you are going to use the arguments of technology, weak fields and easy courses to downplay the accomplishments of today's athlete, then you must look at the underlying historical factors of athletes from past eras as well. In the case of golf, short courses, slower greens and smaller, lees athletic players.

To answer you're question no I don't think that Hogan's or anybody's elses titles are meaningless, they were simply products of their time. I only use the Babe Ruth comparison to illustrate how difficult it is to compare greats accross eras.
08/08/06 @ 15:27
Comment from: Booger [Visitor]
Up yours, Ford! Some of my best friends are 1/2 asian, 1/4 black, 1/8 american indian and 1/8 white. You're the one who's the racist here - you don't like white people!

I'll ask again: radar gun results for twenties pitchers, and let's not forget Ray Chapman killed in the batter's box.

"In the case of golf, short courses, slower greens and smaller, lees athletic players."

Tiger doesn't play the short courses because he can't win on them. Faster greens are only tougher if the USGA is setting the speed. Less athletic? Like Mickelson...Funk.....Weir? They are capable of posting good scores, no?

Please.


08/08/06 @ 16:51
Comment from: Ford [Visitor]
Booger--You can't even get the "some of my best friends are(insert ethnic group)" defense right. I'm impressed you know half an Asian person and a whole quarter of a black person. Go back to the trailer park, son and leave the word play to people who have completed grade school.
08/08/06 @ 23:54
Comment from: One-Putt [Visitor]
"Comment from: Booger [Visitor]Tiger doesn't play the short courses because he can't win on them. Faster greens are only tougher if the USGA is setting the speed. Less athletic? Like Mickelson...Funk.....Weir? They are capable of posting good scores, no?

Please."

Tiger plays the big events for the purse offered. Most big events are played on longer courses. Rarely Tiger will play a lesser event to tune up for a bigger one, hence the event last week before the PGA. Tiger plays a schedule of around twenty PGA events a year and wins an average of twenty-five percent of them, so obviously other players wins seventy five percent of the time. Yet none of the players you mentioned win twenty-five percent of the time they tee it up.

How do the other players on tour stay up on the money list you might ask? They play 25 to 30 events a year.
08/09/06 @ 03:19
Comment from: David [Visitor]
Tiger is BY FAR the best golfer in the world.

Look at the money list. Tiger has played 11 events and is atop the list; Furyk is in second place and has played 18 events.

Tiger still leads by approximately $500k. It just goes to show how dominant Tiger is over the entire golf world.

08/09/06 @ 05:49
Comment from: Booger [Visitor]
"Tiger is BY FAR the best golfer in the world."

That goes without saying. He is also on the short list that contains names like Jones, Hogan, Nicklaus, et al.

My criticism of his achievements today are only presented as a foil to those who claim he is "the best ever".
That is an absurd argument. He is "ONE of the best ever", and only an idiot would disagree with that.
08/09/06 @ 10:51
Comment from: David [Visitor]
When Tiger exceeds 18 major victories, I will accept that he is the best ever. And I firmly believe he will exceed 18 major victories, probably by a comfortable margin.
08/10/06 @ 11:14
Comment from: Booger [Visitor]
Well, in fairness to Walter Hagen, eliminate the Masters from the 18.

Jack has 12, Walter has 11 and Tiger has 7. That makes for a fair argument. Tiger has a ways to go to truly pass Walter.
08/10/06 @ 13:24
Comment from: One-Putt [Visitor]
It is not really fair to focus on and compare palyers from the past to players of our time. We should just accept the fact they were the best players of their generation and period of history.

Each generation changes the game in one way or another that effects the overall outcome. Changes in the number of events, rules, equipment, course maintenance or setups and the conditioning of top athletes today is far different from the past.

If Tiger passes all the players who ever held a record, he still becomes just the best golfer of his generation.

Throughout history political and international situations have caused events to be cancelled for years at a time and many professional golfers of the day were serving their Nation in a different way. During WWII Augusta National was used as cow pastures to feed the troops.

This doesn't diminish in any way Tiger's, Jack's or Walter's achievements as they were each "The Best of Their Time".
08/12/06 @ 02:16
Comment from: Mike [Visitor]
Now that Tiger has his 12th 'major' the press is stating he is only behind Nicklaus. But in HIS day, Bobby Jones won 13 majors - the designated majors of his era - 1 British Amatuer, 3 British Opens, 4 US Opens, and 5 US Amatuers. He won all of these in a seven year period against the best amatuers AND pros. Some say those Amatuers don't count. That's like saying Henry Aaron's home run record doesn't count because the major leagues played more games in a season than when Ruth played. It's all in context. Those WERE the majors of that era. It's difficult to argue with the accomplishments especially in such a short period of time. They are both great golfers of their respecitve eras.
08/21/06 @ 21:00

This post has 1 feedback awaiting moderation...

Leave a comment


Your email address will not be revealed on this site.
PoorExcellent
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Name, email & website)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will not be revealed.)

Simply select where you want to play, find a tee time deal, and golf now!

Dates: September 2, 2014 - November 13, 2014
Tee it high and let it fly on our renowned Mountain View and Lake View courses! Starting at $124.50 per person, per night.
Price range: $125