Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 21 Aug 2006 08:43:49
From:
Subject: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

.. he's also not a charger. the flip-side of his "12-0 in majors when
leading after the 3rd round" is that he's 0 for 30 or whatever in
majors when he isn't leading after the 3rd round.

when i first started watching golf in the 70s, 'charging' was a common
term. it was used to describe some great, usually nicklaus but
sometimes a watson or a trevino, who was down some strokes but was
making a big run up the leader board on the last day of the tourney and
claiming victory..

tiger doesn't seem to do that. he's either in front, or he's not, and
if he's not, he doesn't charge from behind.

the front-runner thing works when you're clear-cut best and can lead
wire to wire, but an inability to come from behind might hamper him
when he's a little older and not totally dominant.

Date: 21 Aug 2006 10:29:09
From:
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

Tonawanda Kardex wrote:

>
> No, I still don't understand your Queen's English. Perhaps you need to
> go read Lynne Truss ... with a UK email address, you should be able to
> find that book (Eats, Shoots & Leaves) on any corner store. Read it,
> learn it, then come back and try posting again so smart people can
> actually understand your peasant gibberish.
>

Thanks for the tips,maybe i'll find that book IN any corner store but
i'm not sure
if on one.Maybe its different where your from i dunno,but here we put
our books
in the store(keeps em dry:-))

> Oh, and keep in mind that asinine, unsupported statements from people
> who can't spell or punctuate properly carry no weight in the world. HTH.

But can help you become President.strange that........

understand me now?

jeepers,i bet those long winter nights just fly by around your
place.........

Date: 21 Aug 2006 13:03:14
From: Onyx_Hokie
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

[ 21 Aug 2006 08:43:49 -0700 ]
[

Date: 21 Aug 2006 09:58:48
From:
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

The number of times Nicklaus finished second is an argument in Tiger's
favor not Jack's. Can anyone really see Tiger being in 2nd place 20
times at a major and not finding a way to win at least 2/3 of those
times? The original poster claimed that Tiger is not a closer, but
that stat does nothing to affirm Jack's ability to close either. The
issue with some of these guys on RSG is they think to raise up one guy
you have to put down another. That's close-minded and ignorant.

Tonawanda Kardex wrote:
> larryrsf wrote:
> > sjaros3@home.com wrote:
> > > .. he's also not a charger. the flip-side of his "12-0 in majors when
> > > leading after the 3rd round" is that he's 0 for 30 or whatever in
> > > majors when he isn't leading after the 3rd round.
> > >
> > > when i first started watching golf in the 70s, 'charging' was a common
> > > term. it was used to describe some great, usually nicklaus but
> > > sometimes a watson or a trevino, who was down some strokes but was
> > > making a big run up the leader board on the last day of the tourney and
> > > claiming victory..
> > >
> > > tiger doesn't seem to do that. he's either in front, or he's not, and
> > > if he's not, he doesn't charge from behind.
> > >
> > > the front-runner thing works when you're clear-cut best and can lead
> > > wire to wire, but an inability to come from behind might hamper him
> > > when he's a little older and not totally dominant.
> >
> > I suspect that nearly all the classic "charges" of the past were
> > similar to what happens in horse racing-- the charge to the wire is
> > actually a dramatic slowing of the other horses as they tire-- and
> > those who seem to charge are in fact simply holding the pace.
> >
> > In those classic Arnold Palmer "charges" the entire field fell apart--
> > while he just kept making pars-- That was certainly the case in many
> > of Nicklaus' and Tiger's previous wins also. He simply ground out a
> > few stroke lead during the first 3 days-- then with only a few holes to
> > go, the last 9 of a Major, the field knew they must take risks to catch
> > him. As happened yesterday, they did what we do when we swing too
> > hard-- or take poor risks--instead of lagging long putts, they tried to
> > make it-- and then couldn't make the comeback putt. They made bogies
> > or worse and Tiger surged simply by continuing to make pars.
> >
> > It is not rocket science-- everyone knows what happens. Tiger's skill
> > is staying focused for 3 days to grind out a few stroke lead going into
> > the final round. He will win 24 Majors or more.
>
> Yeah, but can you prove that last statement?
>
> I will reserve final judgment until his career is over. Until then ...
> cheers, all.

Date: 21 Aug 2006 09:51:14
From: Tonawanda Kardex
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

larryrsf wrote:
> sjaros3@home.com wrote:
> > .. he's also not a charger. the flip-side of his "12-0 in majors when
> > leading after the 3rd round" is that he's 0 for 30 or whatever in
> > majors when he isn't leading after the 3rd round.
> >
> > when i first started watching golf in the 70s, 'charging' was a common
> > term. it was used to describe some great, usually nicklaus but
> > sometimes a watson or a trevino, who was down some strokes but was
> > making a big run up the leader board on the last day of the tourney and
> > claiming victory..
> >
> > tiger doesn't seem to do that. he's either in front, or he's not, and
> > if he's not, he doesn't charge from behind.
> >
> > the front-runner thing works when you're clear-cut best and can lead
> > wire to wire, but an inability to come from behind might hamper him
> > when he's a little older and not totally dominant.
>
> I suspect that nearly all the classic "charges" of the past were
> similar to what happens in horse racing-- the charge to the wire is
> actually a dramatic slowing of the other horses as they tire-- and
> those who seem to charge are in fact simply holding the pace.
>
> In those classic Arnold Palmer "charges" the entire field fell apart--
> while he just kept making pars-- That was certainly the case in many
> of Nicklaus' and Tiger's previous wins also. He simply ground out a
> few stroke lead during the first 3 days-- then with only a few holes to
> go, the last 9 of a Major, the field knew they must take risks to catch
> him. As happened yesterday, they did what we do when we swing too
> hard-- or take poor risks--instead of lagging long putts, they tried to
> make it-- and then couldn't make the comeback putt. They made bogies
> or worse and Tiger surged simply by continuing to make pars.
>
> It is not rocket science-- everyone knows what happens. Tiger's skill
> is staying focused for 3 days to grind out a few stroke lead going into
> the final round. He will win 24 Majors or more.

Yeah, but can you prove that last statement?

I will reserve final judgment until his career is over. Until then ...
cheers, all.

Date: 21 Aug 2006 09:41:28
From: larryrsf
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

sjaros3@home.com wrote:
> .. he's also not a charger. the flip-side of his "12-0 in majors when
> leading after the 3rd round" is that he's 0 for 30 or whatever in
> majors when he isn't leading after the 3rd round.
>
> when i first started watching golf in the 70s, 'charging' was a common
> term. it was used to describe some great, usually nicklaus but
> sometimes a watson or a trevino, who was down some strokes but was
> making a big run up the leader board on the last day of the tourney and
> claiming victory..
>
> tiger doesn't seem to do that. he's either in front, or he's not, and
> if he's not, he doesn't charge from behind.
>
> the front-runner thing works when you're clear-cut best and can lead
> wire to wire, but an inability to come from behind might hamper him
> when he's a little older and not totally dominant.

I suspect that nearly all the classic "charges" of the past were
similar to what happens in horse racing-- the charge to the wire is
actually a dramatic slowing of the other horses as they tire-- and
those who seem to charge are in fact simply holding the pace.

In those classic Arnold Palmer "charges" the entire field fell apart--
while he just kept making pars-- That was certainly the case in many
of Nicklaus' and Tiger's previous wins also. He simply ground out a
few stroke lead during the first 3 days-- then with only a few holes to
go, the last 9 of a Major, the field knew they must take risks to catch
him. As happened yesterday, they did what we do when we swing too
hard-- or take poor risks--instead of lagging long putts, they tried to
make it-- and then couldn't make the comeback putt. They made bogies
or worse and Tiger surged simply by continuing to make pars.

It is not rocket science-- everyone knows what happens. Tiger's skill
is staying focused for 3 days to grind out a few stroke lead going into
the final round. He will win 24 Majors or more.

Larry

Date: 21 Aug 2006 17:17:52
From: Ernie
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

In article <1156178488.123150.178430@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com >,
"larryrsf" <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> sjaros3@home.com wrote:
> > .. he's also not a charger. the flip-side of his "12-0 in majors when
> > leading after the 3rd round" is that he's 0 for 30 or whatever in
> > majors when he isn't leading after the 3rd round.
> >
> > when i first started watching golf in the 70s, 'charging' was a common
> > term. it was used to describe some great, usually nicklaus but
> > sometimes a watson or a trevino, who was down some strokes but was
> > making a big run up the leader board on the last day of the tourney and
> > claiming victory..
> >
> > tiger doesn't seem to do that. he's either in front, or he's not, and
> > if he's not, he doesn't charge from behind.
> >
> > the front-runner thing works when you're clear-cut best and can lead
> > wire to wire, but an inability to come from behind might hamper him
> > when he's a little older and not totally dominant.
>
> I suspect that nearly all the classic "charges" of the past were
> similar to what happens in horse racing-- the charge to the wire is
> actually a dramatic slowing of the other horses as they tire-- and
> those who seem to charge are in fact simply holding the pace.
>
> In those classic Arnold Palmer "charges" the entire field fell apart--
> while he just kept making pars-- That was certainly the case in many
> of Nicklaus' and Tiger's previous wins also. He simply ground out a
> few stroke lead during the first 3 days-- then with only a few holes to
> go, the last 9 of a Major, the field knew they must take risks to catch
> him. As happened yesterday, they did what we do when we swing too
> hard-- or take poor risks--instead of lagging long putts, they tried to
> make it-- and then couldn't make the comeback putt. They made bogies
> or worse and Tiger surged simply by continuing to make pars.

Sorry, Larry, but once again reality is against you.

Tiger Woods shot 68 on Sunday. Only three players in the field shot
lower.

>
> It is not rocket science-- everyone knows what happens. Tiger's skill
> is staying focused for 3 days to grind out a few stroke lead going into
> the final round. He will win 24 Majors or more.
>
> Larry

Date: 21 Aug 2006 11:01:17
From: larry
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 17:17:52 GMT, Ernie <ernie@pga.org > wrote:

>In article <1156178488.123150.178430@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> "larryrsf" <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
>> sjaros3@home.com wrote:
>> > .. he's also not a charger. the flip-side of his "12-0 in majors when
>> > leading after the 3rd round" is that he's 0 for 30 or whatever in
>> > majors when he isn't leading after the 3rd round.
>> >
>> > when i first started watching golf in the 70s, 'charging' was a common
>> > term. it was used to describe some great, usually nicklaus but
>> > sometimes a watson or a trevino, who was down some strokes but was
>> > making a big run up the leader board on the last day of the tourney and
>> > claiming victory..
>> >
>> > tiger doesn't seem to do that. he's either in front, or he's not, and
>> > if he's not, he doesn't charge from behind.
>> >
>> > the front-runner thing works when you're clear-cut best and can lead
>> > wire to wire, but an inability to come from behind might hamper him
>> > when he's a little older and not totally dominant.
>>
>> I suspect that nearly all the classic "charges" of the past were
>> similar to what happens in horse racing-- the charge to the wire is
>> actually a dramatic slowing of the other horses as they tire-- and
>> those who seem to charge are in fact simply holding the pace.
>>
>> In those classic Arnold Palmer "charges" the entire field fell apart--
>> while he just kept making pars-- That was certainly the case in many
>> of Nicklaus' and Tiger's previous wins also. He simply ground out a
>> few stroke lead during the first 3 days-- then with only a few holes to
>> go, the last 9 of a Major, the field knew they must take risks to catch
>> him. As happened yesterday, they did what we do when we swing too
>> hard-- or take poor risks--instead of lagging long putts, they tried to
>> make it-- and then couldn't make the comeback putt. They made bogies
>> or worse and Tiger surged simply by continuing to make pars.
>
>Sorry, Larry, but once again reality is against you.
>
>Tiger Woods shot 68 on Sunday. Only three players in the field shot
>lower.

And that score is EXACTLY what the entire field and the golf pundits
predicted he would shoot. In the pre-round interviews Wier and
several others actually said Tiger's '68" with his lead going in would
mean that he had to shoot 64/5 or so--they knew they had to shoot the
round of their lives-- and take a lot of risks! Tiger just kept his
head down, stayed incredibly focused, and ground out pars and bogies
on the par 5s. Just workman golf for him.

Larry

Date: 21 Aug 2006 18:26:26
From: Ernie
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

In article <f1tje2dhpkmqdbnk32bs36kce835tbb8pe@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 17:17:52 GMT, Ernie <ernie@pga.org> wrote:
>
> >In article <1156178488.123150.178430@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> > "larryrsf" <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In those classic Arnold Palmer "charges" the entire field fell apart--
> >> while he just kept making pars-- That was certainly the case in many
> >> of Nicklaus' and Tiger's previous wins also. He simply ground out a
> >> few stroke lead during the first 3 days-- then with only a few holes to
> >> go, the last 9 of a Major, the field knew they must take risks to catch
> >> him. As happened yesterday, they did what we do when we swing too
> >> hard-- or take poor risks--instead of lagging long putts, they tried to
> >> make it-- and then couldn't make the comeback putt. They made bogies
> >> or worse and Tiger surged simply by continuing to make pars.
> >
> >Sorry, Larry, but once again reality is against you.
> >
> >Tiger Woods shot 68 on Sunday. Only three players in the field shot
> >lower.
>
> And that score is EXACTLY what the entire field and the golf pundits
> predicted he would shoot. In the pre-round interviews Wier and
> several others actually said Tiger's '68" with his lead going in would
> mean that he had to shoot 64/5 or so--they knew they had to shoot the
> round of their lives-- and take a lot of risks! Tiger just kept his
> head down, stayed incredibly focused, and ground out pars and bogies
> on the par 5s. Just workman golf for him.
>
> Larry

It's just not what *you* said he did. Shooting one of the top 4 scores
of the day is not "surging by making pars".

Shall we look back and see if *any* of his previous major victories
follow the pattern you described?

Date: 21 Aug 2006 09:41:05
From: Tonawanda Kardex
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

multi wrote:
> On 21 Aug 2006 09:04:23 -0700, "Tonawanda Kardex"
> <tonawandakardex@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Theres such a horseshit statement. Theres absolutely NO WAY you can prove
> >> that to be true.
> >
> >Oh yeah? Add up the number of majors won by Nicklaus' primary rivals,
> >and then add them up for Tiger. And then tell me what's "horseshit".
>
> Horseshit is comparing the total majors won by Jack's competition over
> 30 years, to those won by Tiger's over 10 years. Palmer won most of
> his majors before Jack turned pro. Watson won most of his majors
> after 1979. If you are going to count all the majors of everyone Jack
> ever played against, then don't forget to count Tiger's.

Well, I'm willing to wait out the end of Tiger's career, as well as
those of his "rivals" before declaring any thing grandiose. Evidently,
you're not. You want to jumpo to conclusions without a complete set of
facts to look at.

You would declare the Iraq over, just like George Bush did, huh?

> And why are so many people suddenly interested in how many times
> somebody finished second? I never heard this crap when Tiger was
> stuck on 8 majors.

Then you weren't listening. Smart people make this argument all the
time. Microbiologists should know better.

Besides, finishing second in a major means you were there with a chance
to win. In Jack's case, it again illustrates the consistency of his
performance and the quality of his competition. In Tiger's case, it
shows his inconsistency and the weakness of his competition.

Date: 21 Aug 2006 09:36:47
From: Tonawanda Kardex
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

hunnma@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> Tonawanda Kardex wrote:
>
> > >
> > > I never noticed that before
> > > Your right,Tigers rubbish
> > > We've been decieved all along....
> > > Or maybe the answer is,being clear cut best = no need to charge
> > > I dunno,i'm confused
> >
> > And so are we, from your inability to punctuate properly.
> >
> > WTF are you trying to say?
>
>
> I'll keep it simple for you then knob scratch.Try and keep up its real
> easy.......
>
> Tiger Woods
>
> Is the greatest golfer
>
> To walk planet Earth.
>
> Now repeat
>
> And weep
>
> Got that?

No, I still don't understand your Queen's English. Perhaps you need to
go read Lynne Truss ... with a UK email address, you should be able to
find that book (Eats, Shoots & Leaves) on any corner store. Read it,
learn it, then come back and try posting again so smart people can
actually understand your peasant gibberish.

Oh, and keep in mind that asinine, unsupported statements from people
who can't spell or punctuate properly carry no weight in the world. HTH.

Date: 21 Aug 2006 09:34:21
From: Tonawanda Kardex
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

Matt wrote:

> You can compare stats all you want, but its impossible to compare eras of
> sports. This goes for every sport, football, baseball, hockey, etc... The
> game today is a lot different than yesterdays game, who knows how todays
> pros would do 30 years ago or vice versa. Theres no fucking way to prove it
> and there never will be. So sit there and say there was more talent 30
> years ago or whatever, be my guest. But everything you just wrote doesnt
> mean jack shit today. ANd I never said he was the best ever. Why don't we
> compare scoring??? Tiger seems to break all the Major championship scoring
> records...

Oh, this is TOO funny. Let's look at this one, line by line.

1) You just said it's impossible to compare different eras. Okay, so
Tiger's the best of this era ONLY, and he can't be considered "the best
ever". Thanks for clearing that up.

2) We're not talking about football, baseball or hockey. We're talking
about golf. Stay on topic, don't make false analogies, and don't
compare apples to oranges.

3) Of course the game is different today than yesterday. The players
today have better equipment, better training, better comfort, better
travel, better wealth, better everything. They have more advantages
than any era of players before them. Thanks for stating the obvious AND
refuting your own point in the process.

4) Your inability and unwillingness to consider realities different
than your own perceived reality is really enlightening, engaging and
open-minded. If there's no way to prove it, why don't you at least make
a rational, argumentative attempt to prove there's no way to prove it?
Because you can't; after all, there's no way to prove it. Your circular
logic and reasoning just continues to buckle under the pressure, huh?

5) After saying in the opening of your post how you can't compare
different eras, you close your post with the attempt to now compare
scores from different eras? Oh, okay. Thanks for clearing that one up.

Anything other moronic statements you'd like to make a matter of public
record, Matt?

Date: 21 Aug 2006 11:37:59
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On 21 Aug 2006 09:34:21 -0700, "Tonawanda Kardex"
<tonawandakardex@gmail.com > wrote:

>2) We're not talking about football, baseball or hockey. We're talking
>about golf. Stay on topic, don't make false analogies, and don't
>compare apples to oranges.
>
Then why do you continue to cross-post to rec.sport.football.college?
___,
\o

Date: 21 Aug 2006 17:41:43
From: Brad
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

" > Then why do you continue to cross-post to rec.sport.football.college?

Probably something to do with inbreeding.

Date: 21 Aug 2006 09:27:40
From:
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

Tonawanda Kardex wrote:

> >
> > I never noticed that before
> > Your right,Tigers rubbish
> > We've been decieved all along....
> > Or maybe the answer is,being clear cut best = no need to charge
> > I dunno,i'm confused
>
> And so are we, from your inability to punctuate properly.
>
> WTF are you trying to say?

I'll keep it simple for you then knob scratch.Try and keep up its real
easy.......

Tiger Woods

Is the greatest golfer

To walk planet Earth.

Now repeat

And weep

Got that?

Date: 21 Aug 2006 09:26:27
From: Tonawanda Kardex
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

Matt wrote:
> "Tonawanda Kardex" <tonawandakardex@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1156176263.063613.72070@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Matt wrote:
> >
> >> > Tiger is NOWHERE near that, and he plays competition that's nowhere
> >> > near the quality of Nicklaus' competition.
> >>
> >>
> >> Theres such a horseshit statement. Theres absolutely NO WAY you can
> >> prove
> >> that to be true.
> >
> > Oh yeah? Add up the number of majors won by Nicklaus' primary rivals,
> > and then add them up for Tiger. And then tell me what's "horseshit".
> >
> > Tiger is good. Duh. But he's never going to top Jack Nicklaus, for two
> > primary reasons: consistency and competition. In addition to Nicklaus'
> > 18 major wins, he also finished second 19 times. That's 37 Top 2
> > finishes; Tiger has 12 major wins but only two runners-up finishes.
> > Nicklaus was more consistently in the hunt; Tiger's either winning it,
> > or he's out of it. Heck, Nicklaus also finished third in a major nine
> > times, giving him 46 Top 3 finishes in majors. That's more impressive
> > than anything Tiger has done.
> >
> > Furthermore, a quick glance at Nicklaus' primary opponents over the
> > years (Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Lee Trevino, Tom Watson) shows they
> > had much more to offer than Tiger's contemporaries (Phil Mickelson,
> > Ernie Els, Vijay Singh, Retief Goosen). In fact, Jack's opposing
> > quartet netted 29 major wins, while Tiger's opposing
> > quartet has only netted 11 major wins. Seriously -- Sergio Garcia?
> > Tiger's lucky this era of golf is full of pussies and not true legends
> > like Nicklaus' era was -- although you probably don't know this,
> > because you never picked up a golf interest until 1996, huh?
> >
> > So just cool it with the typical, modern hype machine of "the best
> > ever" garbage: Tiger has a very long way to go to catch Jack Nicklaus,
> > and he will probably never match him in consistency and competition.
> > Tiger's good, but isn't as good as Nicklaus was. Period.
> >
>
>
> You can compare stats all you want, but its impossible to compare eras of
> sports. This goes for every sport, football, baseball, hockey, etc... The
> game today is a lot different than yesterdays game, who knows how todays
> pros would do 30 years ago or vice versa. Theres no fucking way to prove it
> and there never will be. So sit there and say there was more talent 30
> years ago or whatever, be my guest. But everything you just wrote doesnt
> mean jack shit today. ANd I never said he was the best ever. Why don't we
> compare scoring??? Tiger seems to break all the Major championship scoring
> records...

Wait, you just said it's impossible to compare different eras, but now
you say it's possible to compare scores from different eras?

Oh, okay. Thanks for clearing that one up.

Date: 21 Aug 2006 11:35:20
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On 21 Aug 2006 09:26:27 -0700, "Tonawanda Kardex"
<tonawandakardex@gmail.com > wrote:
<clip)
>Wait, you just said it's impossible to compare different eras, but now
>you say it's possible to compare scores from different eras?
>
Of course you idiot. The courses, if anything, are more difficult
that even ten years ago. Twenty...? No comparison, and the pros now
are shooting lower scores.
>Oh, okay. Thanks for clearing that one up.
No problem, except that you don't, or won't, understand it.
___,
\o

Date: 21 Aug 2006 09:25:27
From: Tonawanda Kardex
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

multi wrote:

> The problem is, the other players are so much better today. Jack
> didn't have any competition, so whoever was leading would fold when
> they saw him creeping up the leaderboard. And I can prove it; I just
> don't feel like it.

Oh my, the asinine irony of this statement reeks as if it's from
someone who didn't know golf existed before 1996.

And the last line says it all.

Date: 21 Aug 2006 10:04:44
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On 21 Aug 2006 09:25:27 -0700, "Tonawanda Kardex"
<tonawandakardex@gmail.com > wrote:

>multi wrote:
>
>> The problem is, the other players are so much better today. Jack
>> didn't have any competition, so whoever was leading would fold when
>> they saw him creeping up the leaderboard. And I can prove it; I just
>> don't feel like it.
>
>Oh my, the asinine irony of this statement reeks as if it's from
>someone who didn't know golf existed before 1996.
>
>And the last line says it all.

Satire, not irony. Sorry you didn't get it.

Date: 21 Aug 2006 18:10:09
From: jeffc
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

"Tonawanda Kardex" <tonawandakardex@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1156177527.326515.268650@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> multi wrote:
>
>
>> The problem is, the other players are so much better today. Jack
>> didn't have any competition, so whoever was leading would fold when
>> they saw him creeping up the leaderboard. And I can prove it; I just
>> don't feel like it.
>
> Oh my, the asinine irony of this statement reeks as if it's from
> someone who didn't know golf existed before 1996.
>
> And the last line says it all.

You're an idiot.

Date: 21 Aug 2006 09:20:20
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On 21 Aug 2006 08:43:49 -0700, sjaros3@home.com wrote:

>tiger doesn't seem to do that. he's either in front, or he's not

Hard to argue with that.

> and if he's not, he doesn't charge from behind.

Sure he does. He put on a great charge at the 2005 US Open, but
Campbell kept making 30-foot putts. He put on an even better charge
at the 2002 PGA, shooting a 67 in the final round, but Beem played the
best golf of his life that day.

You might also notice that he rarely wins wire to wire. That means he
has put on a charge at some point to take the lead. The fact that it
happens before the fourth round is hardly reason to downgrade his
efforts.

The problem is, the other players are so much better today. Jack
didn't have any competition, so whoever was leading would fold when
they saw him creeping up the leaderboard. And I can prove it; I just
don't feel like it.

Date: 21 Aug 2006 22:24:45
From: David
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:20:20 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:

>On 21 Aug 2006 08:43:49 -0700, sjaros3@home.com wrote:
>
>>tiger doesn't seem to do that. he's either in front, or he's not
>
>Hard to argue with that.
>
>> and if he's not, he doesn't charge from behind.
>
>Sure he does. He put on a great charge at the 2005 US Open, but
>Campbell kept making 30-foot putts. He put on an even better charge
>at the 2002 PGA, shooting a 67 in the final round, but Beem played the
>best golf of his life that day.
>
>You might also notice that he rarely wins wire to wire. That means he
>has put on a charge at some point to take the lead. The fact that it
>happens before the fourth round is hardly reason to downgrade his
>efforts.
>
>The problem is, the other players are so much better today. Jack
>didn't have any competition, so whoever was leading would fold when
>they saw him creeping up the leaderboard. And I can prove it; I just
>don't feel like it.

Jack had no competition? That is pretty funny. Watson, Player,
Palmer (a short time--Palmer did win 4 out of 7 consecutive Master's
and should have had 5 out of those seven), Casper (look how many tour
wins the guy had--highly underrated), Johnny Miller (who played some
of the best golf over a stretch that has ever been played), to name a
few. Total up the tour wins and majors of those names mentioned and
get back to me about Nicklaus having no competition.

Woods competition came from Mickelson, Singh (very late in his
career), and Els. Total their numbers and compare them to the names
mentioned above. Els has had a solid career--not a great one.
Mickelson has the best career of any of them and he is certainly not
through winning (but will his career match those mentioned above?).
Singh is the hardest working pro on the tour, but he hit his stride
too late and his career, in retrospect, will be seen as solid but
nothing outstanding.

David

Date: 21 Aug 2006 09:16:04
From: Tonawanda Kardex
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

Brad wrote:
> "Tonawanda Kardex" <tonawandakardex@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1156176263.063613.72070@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Matt wrote:
> >
> >> > Tiger is NOWHERE near that, and he plays competition that's nowhere
> >> > near the quality of Nicklaus' competition.
> >>
> >>
> >> Theres such a horseshit statement. Theres absolutely NO WAY you can
> >> prove
> >> that to be true.
> >
> > Oh yeah? Add up the number of majors won by Nicklaus' primary rivals,
> > and then add them up for Tiger. And then tell me what's "horseshit".
> >
> > Tiger is good. Duh. But he's never going to top Jack Nicklaus, for two
> > primary reasons: consistency and competition. In addition to Nicklaus'
> > 18 major wins, he also finished second 19 times. That's 37 Top 2
> > finishes; Tiger has 12 major wins but only two runners-up finishes.
> > Nicklaus was more consistently in the hunt; Tiger's either winning it,
> > or he's out of it. Heck, Nicklaus also finished third in a major nine
> > times, giving him 46 Top 3 finishes in majors. That's more impressive
> > than anything Tiger has done.
> >
> > Furthermore, a quick glance at Nicklaus' primary opponents over the
> > years (Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Lee Trevino, Tom Watson) shows they
> > had much more to offer than Tiger's contemporaries (Phil Mickelson,
> > Ernie Els, Vijay Singh, Retief Goosen). In fact, Jack's opposing
> > quartet netted 29 major wins, while Tiger's opposing
> > quartet has only netted 11 major wins. Seriously -- Sergio Garcia?
> > Tiger's lucky this era of golf is full of pussies and not true legends
> > like Nicklaus' era was -- although you probably don't know this,
> > because you never picked up a golf interest until 1996, huh?
> >
> > So just cool it with the typical, modern hype machine of "the best
> > ever" garbage: Tiger has a very long way to go to catch Jack Nicklaus,
> > and he will probably never match him in consistency and competition.
> > Tiger's good, but isn't as good as Nicklaus was. Period.
> >
>
> There's still no way to prove it or to disprove it though. All you can
> look at is statistics. The fact remains that was then and this is now.

And the statistics show Jack was better against better competition. If
you choose to ignore that -- like ESPN and most all slobbering media
hypologists -- it's your choice.

By the way, in the decade of the 1970s, Jack finished in the top ten at
Augusta every year. Call me when Tiger does the same.

Date: 21 Aug 2006 17:39:03
From: Brad
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

"Tonawanda Kardex" <tonawandakardex@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1156176964.689955.17330@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Brad wrote:
>> "Tonawanda Kardex" <tonawandakardex@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1156176263.063613.72070@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Matt wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Tiger is NOWHERE near that, and he plays competition that's nowhere
>> >> > near the quality of Nicklaus' competition.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Theres such a horseshit statement. Theres absolutely NO WAY you can
>> >> prove
>> >> that to be true.
>> >
>> > Oh yeah? Add up the number of majors won by Nicklaus' primary rivals,
>> > and then add them up for Tiger. And then tell me what's "horseshit".
>> >
>> > Tiger is good. Duh. But he's never going to top Jack Nicklaus, for two
>> > primary reasons: consistency and competition. In addition to Nicklaus'
>> > 18 major wins, he also finished second 19 times. That's 37 Top 2
>> > finishes; Tiger has 12 major wins but only two runners-up finishes.
>> > Nicklaus was more consistently in the hunt; Tiger's either winning it,
>> > or he's out of it. Heck, Nicklaus also finished third in a major nine
>> > times, giving him 46 Top 3 finishes in majors. That's more impressive
>> > than anything Tiger has done.
>> >
>> > Furthermore, a quick glance at Nicklaus' primary opponents over the
>> > years (Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Lee Trevino, Tom Watson) shows they
>> > had much more to offer than Tiger's contemporaries (Phil Mickelson,
>> > Ernie Els, Vijay Singh, Retief Goosen). In fact, Jack's opposing
>> > quartet netted 29 major wins, while Tiger's opposing
>> > quartet has only netted 11 major wins. Seriously -- Sergio Garcia?
>> > Tiger's lucky this era of golf is full of pussies and not true legends
>> > like Nicklaus' era was -- although you probably don't know this,
>> > because you never picked up a golf interest until 1996, huh?
>> >
>> > So just cool it with the typical, modern hype machine of "the best
>> > ever" garbage: Tiger has a very long way to go to catch Jack Nicklaus,
>> > and he will probably never match him in consistency and competition.
>> > Tiger's good, but isn't as good as Nicklaus was. Period.
>> >
>>
>> There's still no way to prove it or to disprove it though. All you can
>> look at is statistics. The fact remains that was then and this is now.
>
> And the statistics show Jack was better against better competition. If
> you choose to ignore that -- like ESPN and most all slobbering media
> hypologists -- it's your choice.
>
> By the way, in the decade of the 1970s, Jack finished in the top ten at
> Augusta every year. Call me when Tiger does the same.
>

Give us your number.

Date: 21 Aug 2006 12:25:29
From: FredK
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

"Tonawanda Kardex" <tonawandakardex@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1156176964.689955.17330@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>

SNIP

>
> And the statistics show Jack was better against better competition. If
> you choose to ignore that -- like ESPN and most all slobbering media
> hypologists -- it's your choice.
>

All it "proves" is that you can cherry pick swhatever statistics you want to
"prove" your point. In fact, as other threads in here have clearly shown -
at the SAME point in Jack's career his competition was almost identical to
Tigers in terms of number of wins. That those other minor "greats" that
Jack competed with were not "greats" at the time. You are trying to compare
an entire career lifetime of a generation, against a decade of the current
generation.

> By the way, in the decade of the 1970s, Jack finished in the top ten at
> Augusta every year. Call me when Tiger does the same.
>

Why bother? You'll find another obscure statistic - like 1-iron consistency
when the humidity is > 80%.

Date: 21 Aug 2006 19:10:10
From: rich
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

"Tonawanda Kardex" <tonawandakardex@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1156176964.689955.17330@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> By the way, in the decade of the 1970s, Jack finished in the top ten at
> Augusta every year. Call me when Tiger does the same.

By the way, in the last 2 years Tiger won 4 of the 8 majors. Call me when
Jack does the same. Oh wait - he never did.

Rich

Date: 23 Aug 2006 08:12:34
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On 21 Aug 2006 09:16:04 -0700, "Tonawanda Kardex"
<tonawandakardex@gmail.com > wrote:

>And the statistics show Jack was better against better competition. If
>you choose to ignore that -- like ESPN and most all slobbering media
>hypologists -- it's your choice.

Which statistics are those?

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Date: 21 Aug 2006 09:10:15
From: Tonawanda Kardex
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

Harrison Bergeron wrote:
> "Matt" <rebel_144@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > > Tiger is NOWHERE near that, and he plays competition that's nowhere
> > > near the quality of Nicklaus' competition.
> >
> >
> > Theres such a horseshit statement. Theres absolutely NO WAY you can prove
> > that to be true.
>
> Whether there is or is not a way of proving it, I have to yet
> to see any of those who expound that view try to prove it.

Is it our fault you choose to bury your head in the sand next to an
ESPN phone?

Date: 21 Aug 2006 11:30:53
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On 21 Aug 2006 09:10:15 -0700, "Tonawanda Kardex"
<tonawandakardex@gmail.com > wrote:

>
>Is it our fault you choose to bury your head in the sand next to an
>ESPN phone?

Who's fault is it that your head is where the sun don't (sic) shine >
___,
\o

Date: 21 Aug 2006 09:09:11
From: Tonawanda Kardex
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

hun...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> sjar...@home.com wrote:
> > .. he's also not a charger. the flip-side of his "12-0 in majors when
> > leading after the 3rd round" is that he's 0 for 30 or whatever in
> > majors when he isn't leading after the 3rd round.
> >
> > when i first started watching golf in the 70s, 'charging' was a common
> > term. it was used to describe some great, usually nicklaus but
> > sometimes a watson or a trevino, who was down some strokes but was
> > making a big run up the leader board on the last day of the tourney and
> > claiming victory..
> >
> > tiger doesn't seem to do that. he's either in front, or he's not, and
> > if he's not, he doesn't charge from behind.
> >
> > the front-runner thing works when you're clear-cut best and can lead
> > wire to wire, but an inability to come from behind might hamper him
> > when he's a little older and not totally dominant.
>
> I never noticed that before
> Your right,Tigers rubbish
> We've been decieved all along....
> Or maybe the answer is,being clear cut best = no need to charge
> I dunno,i'm confused

And so are we, from your inability to punctuate properly.

WTF are you trying to say?

Date: 21 Aug 2006 09:06:25
From: Tonawanda Kardex
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

Harrison Bergeron wrote:
> "Matt" <rebel_144@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> > > Tiger is NOWHERE near that, and he plays competition that's nowhere
> > > near the quality of Nicklaus' competition.
> >
> >
> > Theres such a horseshit statement. Theres absolutely NO WAY you can prove
> > that to be true.
>
> Whether there is or is not a way of proving it, I have to yet
> to see any of those who expound that view try to prove it.

Sports Illustrated discussed it last summer after Tiger won the British
Open.

They're a little more sane than the blowhards at ESPN.

Date: 21 Aug 2006 09:05:27
From: Tonawanda Kardex
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

Tonawanda Kardex wrote:

> Yeah, Nicklaus had how many Top 3 finishes in majors? 54?

The number is 46, actually -- apologies.

18 wins
19 second-place finishes
9 third-place finishes

Date: 21 Aug 2006 09:04:23
From: Tonawanda Kardex
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

Matt wrote:

> > Tiger is NOWHERE near that, and he plays competition that's nowhere
> > near the quality of Nicklaus' competition.
>
>
> Theres such a horseshit statement. Theres absolutely NO WAY you can prove
> that to be true.

Oh yeah? Add up the number of majors won by Nicklaus' primary rivals,
and then add them up for Tiger. And then tell me what's "horseshit".

Tiger is good. Duh. But he's never going to top Jack Nicklaus, for two
primary reasons: consistency and competition. In addition to Nicklaus'
18 major wins, he also finished second 19 times. That's 37 Top 2
finishes; Tiger has 12 major wins but only two runners-up finishes.
Nicklaus was more consistently in the hunt; Tiger's either winning it,
or he's out of it. Heck, Nicklaus also finished third in a major nine
times, giving him 46 Top 3 finishes in majors. That's more impressive
than anything Tiger has done.

Furthermore, a quick glance at Nicklaus' primary opponents over the
years (Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Lee Trevino, Tom Watson) shows they
had much more to offer than Tiger's contemporaries (Phil Mickelson,
Ernie Els, Vijay Singh, Retief Goosen). In fact, Jack's opposing
quartet netted 29 major wins, while Tiger's opposing
quartet has only netted 11 major wins. Seriously -- Sergio Garcia?
Tiger's lucky this era of golf is full of pussies and not true legends
like Nicklaus' era was -- although you probably don't know this,
because you never picked up a golf interest until 1996, huh?

So just cool it with the typical, modern hype machine of "the best
ever" garbage: Tiger has a very long way to go to catch Jack Nicklaus,
and he will probably never match him in consistency and competition.
Tiger's good, but isn't as good as Nicklaus was. Period.

Date: 21 Aug 2006 12:42:52
From: Ben J Stewart
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On 8/21/06 11:04 AM, in article
1156176263.063613.72070@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "Tonawanda Kardex"
<tonawandakardex@gmail.com > wrote:

>
> Matt wrote:
>
>>> Tiger is NOWHERE near that, and he plays competition that's nowhere
>>> near the quality of Nicklaus' competition.
>>
>>
>> Theres such a horseshit statement. Theres absolutely NO WAY you can prove
>> that to be true.
>
> Oh yeah? Add up the number of majors won by Nicklaus' primary rivals,
> and then add them up for Tiger. And then tell me what's "horseshit".
>
> Tiger is good. Duh. But he's never going to top Jack Nicklaus, for two
> primary reasons: consistency and competition. In addition to Nicklaus'
> 18 major wins, he also finished second 19 times. That's 37 Top 2
> finishes; Tiger has 12 major wins but only two runners-up finishes.
> Nicklaus was more consistently in the hunt; Tiger's either winning it,
> or he's out of it. Heck, Nicklaus also finished third in a major nine
> times, giving him 46 Top 3 finishes in majors. That's more impressive
> than anything Tiger has done.
>
> Furthermore, a quick glance at Nicklaus' primary opponents over the
> years (Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Lee Trevino, Tom Watson) shows they
> had much more to offer than Tiger's contemporaries (Phil Mickelson,
> Ernie Els, Vijay Singh, Retief Goosen). In fact, Jack's opposing
> quartet netted 29 major wins, while Tiger's opposing
> quartet has only netted 11 major wins. Seriously -- Sergio Garcia?
> Tiger's lucky this era of golf is full of pussies and not true legends
> like Nicklaus' era was -- although you probably don't know this,
> because you never picked up a golf interest until 1996, huh?

Let me clarify something. There are four majors per year. If Tiger doesn't
win a major that means one of his contemporaries has. He's not only
competing against the 3 you mentioned.

I think the quality of the golfers -- from top to bottom -- is better then
it was 20 or 40 or 60 years ago. Much deeper. In any tournament, you can
have someone come out of nowhere and string together a couple very low
rounds.

Besides, you are comparing the total number of majors by guys who have
finished their regular PGA careers to guys who still have 10-15 years to
play.

You are right about Sergio though.

Ben

Date: 21 Aug 2006 13:05:54
From: Onyx_Hokie
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

[ 21 Aug 2006 09:04:23 -0700 ]
[ Tonawanda Kardex

Date: 21 Aug 2006 09:31:49
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On 21 Aug 2006 09:04:23 -0700, "Tonawanda Kardex"
<tonawandakardex@gmail.com > wrote:

>> Theres such a horseshit statement. Theres absolutely NO WAY you can prove
>> that to be true.
>
>Oh yeah? Add up the number of majors won by Nicklaus' primary rivals,
>and then add them up for Tiger. And then tell me what's "horseshit".

Horseshit is comparing the total majors won by Jack's competition over
30 years, to those won by Tiger's over 10 years. Palmer won most of
his majors before Jack turned pro. Watson won most of his majors
after 1979. If you are going to count all the majors of everyone Jack
ever played against, then don't forget to count Tiger's.

And why are so many people suddenly interested in how many times
somebody finished second? I never heard this crap when Tiger was
stuck on 8 majors.

Date: 21 Aug 2006 11:29:25
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On 21 Aug 2006 09:04:23 -0700, "Tonawanda Kardex"
<tonawandakardex@gmail.com > wrote:

>So just cool it with the typical, modern hype machine of "the best
>ever" garbage: Tiger has a very long way to go to catch Jack Nicklaus,
>and he will probably never match him in consistency and competition.
>Tiger's good, but isn't as good as Nicklaus was. Period.

You're wrong. Period. Look at scores, not finishes....
___,
\o

Date: 21 Aug 2006 16:23:27
From: Matt
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

"Tonawanda Kardex" <tonawandakardex@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1156176263.063613.72070@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Matt wrote:
>
>> > Tiger is NOWHERE near that, and he plays competition that's nowhere
>> > near the quality of Nicklaus' competition.
>>
>>
>> Theres such a horseshit statement. Theres absolutely NO WAY you can
>> prove
>> that to be true.
>
> Oh yeah? Add up the number of majors won by Nicklaus' primary rivals,
> and then add them up for Tiger. And then tell me what's "horseshit".
>
> Tiger is good. Duh. But he's never going to top Jack Nicklaus, for two
> primary reasons: consistency and competition. In addition to Nicklaus'
> 18 major wins, he also finished second 19 times. That's 37 Top 2
> finishes; Tiger has 12 major wins but only two runners-up finishes.
> Nicklaus was more consistently in the hunt; Tiger's either winning it,
> or he's out of it. Heck, Nicklaus also finished third in a major nine
> times, giving him 46 Top 3 finishes in majors. That's more impressive
> than anything Tiger has done.
>
> Furthermore, a quick glance at Nicklaus' primary opponents over the
> years (Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Lee Trevino, Tom Watson) shows they
> had much more to offer than Tiger's contemporaries (Phil Mickelson,
> Ernie Els, Vijay Singh, Retief Goosen). In fact, Jack's opposing
> quartet netted 29 major wins, while Tiger's opposing
> quartet has only netted 11 major wins. Seriously -- Sergio Garcia?
> Tiger's lucky this era of golf is full of pussies and not true legends
> like Nicklaus' era was -- although you probably don't know this,
> because you never picked up a golf interest until 1996, huh?
>
> So just cool it with the typical, modern hype machine of "the best
> ever" garbage: Tiger has a very long way to go to catch Jack Nicklaus,
> and he will probably never match him in consistency and competition.
> Tiger's good, but isn't as good as Nicklaus was. Period.
>

You can compare stats all you want, but its impossible to compare eras of
sports. This goes for every sport, football, baseball, hockey, etc... The
game today is a lot different than yesterdays game, who knows how todays
pros would do 30 years ago or vice versa. Theres no fucking way to prove it
and there never will be. So sit there and say there was more talent 30
years ago or whatever, be my guest. But everything you just wrote doesnt
mean jack shit today. ANd I never said he was the best ever. Why don't we
compare scoring??? Tiger seems to break all the Major championship scoring
records...

Date: 21 Aug 2006 22:01:56
From: David
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:23:27 GMT, "Matt" <rebel_144@hotmail.com >
wrote:

>
>"Tonawanda Kardex" <tonawandakardex@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1156176263.063613.72070@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Matt wrote:
>>
>>> > Tiger is NOWHERE near that, and he plays competition that's nowhere
>>> > near the quality of Nicklaus' competition.
>>>
>>>
>>> Theres such a horseshit statement. Theres absolutely NO WAY you can
>>> prove
>>> that to be true.
>>
>> Oh yeah? Add up the number of majors won by Nicklaus' primary rivals,
>> and then add them up for Tiger. And then tell me what's "horseshit".
>>
>> Tiger is good. Duh. But he's never going to top Jack Nicklaus, for two
>> primary reasons: consistency and competition. In addition to Nicklaus'
>> 18 major wins, he also finished second 19 times. That's 37 Top 2
>> finishes; Tiger has 12 major wins but only two runners-up finishes.
>> Nicklaus was more consistently in the hunt; Tiger's either winning it,
>> or he's out of it. Heck, Nicklaus also finished third in a major nine
>> times, giving him 46 Top 3 finishes in majors. That's more impressive
>> than anything Tiger has done.
>>
>> Furthermore, a quick glance at Nicklaus' primary opponents over the
>> years (Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Lee Trevino, Tom Watson) shows they
>> had much more to offer than Tiger's contemporaries (Phil Mickelson,
>> Ernie Els, Vijay Singh, Retief Goosen). In fact, Jack's opposing
>> quartet netted 29 major wins, while Tiger's opposing
>> quartet has only netted 11 major wins. Seriously -- Sergio Garcia?
>> Tiger's lucky this era of golf is full of pussies and not true legends
>> like Nicklaus' era was -- although you probably don't know this,
>> because you never picked up a golf interest until 1996, huh?
>>
>> So just cool it with the typical, modern hype machine of "the best
>> ever" garbage: Tiger has a very long way to go to catch Jack Nicklaus,
>> and he will probably never match him in consistency and competition.
>> Tiger's good, but isn't as good as Nicklaus was. Period.
>>
>
>
>You can compare stats all you want, but its impossible to compare eras of
>sports. This goes for every sport, football, baseball, hockey, etc... The
>game today is a lot different than yesterdays game, who knows how todays
>pros would do 30 years ago or vice versa. Theres no fucking way to prove it
>and there never will be. So sit there and say there was more talent 30
>years ago or whatever, be my guest. But everything you just wrote doesnt
>mean jack shit today. ANd I never said he was the best ever. Why don't we
>compare scoring??? Tiger seems to break all the Major championship scoring
>records...

Well, in golf, we can get pretty close to the conditions of 30 years
ago. Why not host a PGA tournament where they have to use the clubs
and balls from back then? Of course, you would have to send them to
courses hovering around the 7000 yard mark, since they would all lose
distance and accuracy.

When I was 16, I was averaging around 280 off the tee with a
persimmon driver and a steel shaft. When I was 42, I was averaging
the same, although my swing was no where near as pure as when I was
16. Equipment has made a huge difference over the years. Of course,
equipment changes worked to Nicklaus' advantage over golfers from
earlier eras than his, as well.

David

PS: I was 16 in 1974.

Date: 21 Aug 2006 17:37:55
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:01:56 +0200, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:
> Well, in golf, we can get pretty close to the conditions of 30 years
>ago. Why not host a PGA tournament where they have to use the clubs
>and balls from back then? Of course, you would have to send them to
>courses hovering around the 7000 yard mark, since they would all lose
>distance and accuracy.

They had a brief segment on TGC a couple of weeks ago about the
exhibition in Canada, where Jack, Sergio, Daly, and others hit some
shots with hickory-shafted clubs. Sergio was knocking them stiff.

Date: 21 Aug 2006 16:13:56
From: Brad
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

"Tonawanda Kardex" <tonawandakardex@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1156176263.063613.72070@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Matt wrote:
>
>> > Tiger is NOWHERE near that, and he plays competition that's nowhere
>> > near the quality of Nicklaus' competition.
>>
>>
>> Theres such a horseshit statement. Theres absolutely NO WAY you can
>> prove
>> that to be true.
>
> Oh yeah? Add up the number of majors won by Nicklaus' primary rivals,
> and then add them up for Tiger. And then tell me what's "horseshit".
>
> Tiger is good. Duh. But he's never going to top Jack Nicklaus, for two
> primary reasons: consistency and competition. In addition to Nicklaus'
> 18 major wins, he also finished second 19 times. That's 37 Top 2
> finishes; Tiger has 12 major wins but only two runners-up finishes.
> Nicklaus was more consistently in the hunt; Tiger's either winning it,
> or he's out of it. Heck, Nicklaus also finished third in a major nine
> times, giving him 46 Top 3 finishes in majors. That's more impressive
> than anything Tiger has done.
>
> Furthermore, a quick glance at Nicklaus' primary opponents over the
> years (Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Lee Trevino, Tom Watson) shows they
> had much more to offer than Tiger's contemporaries (Phil Mickelson,
> Ernie Els, Vijay Singh, Retief Goosen). In fact, Jack's opposing
> quartet netted 29 major wins, while Tiger's opposing
> quartet has only netted 11 major wins. Seriously -- Sergio Garcia?
> Tiger's lucky this era of golf is full of pussies and not true legends
> like Nicklaus' era was -- although you probably don't know this,
> because you never picked up a golf interest until 1996, huh?
>
> So just cool it with the typical, modern hype machine of "the best
> ever" garbage: Tiger has a very long way to go to catch Jack Nicklaus,
> and he will probably never match him in consistency and competition.
> Tiger's good, but isn't as good as Nicklaus was. Period.
>

There's still no way to prove it or to disprove it though. All you can
look at is statistics. The fact remains that was then and this is now.

Date: 21 Aug 2006 23:05:16
From: Colin Wilson
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

Tonawanda Kardex wrote:

> primary rivals

All your "primary" concept shows is that Tiger's got a lot more good
rivals to beat.

--
Cheers
Colin Wilson
------------------------------------------------------------------
Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com
Barnbougle Dunes: http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/barnbougle
------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 2006 19:08:34
From: rich
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

"Tonawanda Kardex" <tonawandakardex@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1156176263.063613.72070@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Oh yeah? Add up the number of majors won by Nicklaus' primary rivals,
> and then add them up for Tiger. And then tell me what's "horseshit".

> Furthermore, a quick glance at Nicklaus' primary opponents over the
> years (Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Lee Trevino, Tom Watson) shows they
> had much more to offer than Tiger's contemporaries (Phil Mickelson,
> Ernie Els, Vijay Singh, Retief Goosen). In fact, Jack's opposing
> quartet netted 29 major wins, while Tiger's opposing
> quartet has only netted 11 major wins.

Here are the statements that prove how foolish you are. During Jack's first
40 majors, Player won 3, Trevino won 3, and Palmer won 2. During Tiger's
first 40 majors Mickelson won 3, Vijay won 3, and Els won 2. No difference.
Except of course that Tiger won 12 and Jack won 10.

Furthermore, it is much harder for the rivals to pile up a bunch of majors
these days because the competition across the board is so much better.

Rich

Date: 21 Aug 2006 18:07:52
From: jeffc
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

Date: 21 Aug 2006 09:02:51
From:
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

sjar...@home.com wrote:
> .. he's also not a charger. the flip-side of his "12-0 in majors when
> leading after the 3rd round" is that he's 0 for 30 or whatever in
> majors when he isn't leading after the 3rd round.
>
> when i first started watching golf in the 70s, 'charging' was a common
> term. it was used to describe some great, usually nicklaus but
> sometimes a watson or a trevino, who was down some strokes but was
> making a big run up the leader board on the last day of the tourney and
> claiming victory..
>
> tiger doesn't seem to do that. he's either in front, or he's not, and
> if he's not, he doesn't charge from behind.
>
> the front-runner thing works when you're clear-cut best and can lead
> wire to wire, but an inability to come from behind might hamper him
> when he's a little older and not totally dominant.

I never noticed that before
Your right,Tigers rubbish
We've been decieved all along....
Or maybe the answer is,being clear cut best = no need to charge
I dunno,i'm confused

Date: 21 Aug 2006 18:09:27
From: jeffc
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

<hunnma@hotmail.co.uk > wrote in message
news:1156176171.615320.326020@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> I never noticed that before
> Your right,Tigers rubbish
> We've been decieved all along....
> Or maybe the answer is,being clear cut best = no need to charge
> I dunno,i'm confused

That is clear. You're confused.

Date: 21 Aug 2006 08:54:18
From: Tonawanda Kardex
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

Date: 21 Aug 2006 11:27:42
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On 21 Aug 2006 08:54:18 -0700, "Tonawanda Kardex"
<tonawandakardex@gmail.com > wrote:

<clip >
>
>Yeah, Nicklaus had how many Top 3 finishes in majors? 54?
>
>Tiger is NOWHERE near that, and he plays competition that's nowhere
>near the quality of Nicklaus' competition.

Bullshit. You might want to check to see who holds records in each
major for aggregate under par. That's playing against the course, not
against a specific field.
___,
\o

Date: 21 Aug 2006 15:55:38
From: Matt
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

> Tiger is NOWHERE near that, and he plays competition that's nowhere
> near the quality of Nicklaus' competition.

Theres such a horseshit statement. Theres absolutely NO WAY you can prove
that to be true.

Date: 21 Aug 2006 11:03:05
From: Harrison Bergeron
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

"Matt" <rebel_144@hotmail.com > writes:

> > Tiger is NOWHERE near that, and he plays competition that's nowhere
> > near the quality of Nicklaus' competition.
>
>
> Theres such a horseshit statement. Theres absolutely NO WAY you can prove
> that to be true.

Whether there is or is not a way of proving it, I have to yet
to see any of those who expound that view try to prove it.

--

<-- Harry -- >

Date: 21 Aug 2006 21:24:49
From: Charles Beauchamp
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

Date: 21 Aug 2006 18:07:14
From: jeffc
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

"Tonawanda Kardex" <tonawandakardex@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1156175658.624071.6350@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Yeah, Nicklaus had how many Top 3 finishes in majors? 54?
>
> Tiger is NOWHERE near that, and he plays competition that's nowhere
> near the quality of Nicklaus' competition.

Nonsense.

Date: 26 Aug 2006 05:24:06
From: greenkeeper
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

Sorry folks here is what was missing.

Last year we were talking with our nieces and nephews, who are into
swimming at school, about the old records and they couldn't believe how
slow the old times were, compared to today.

http://www.pbase.com/alancampbell/image/65212739
--
--
alan

Date: 26 Aug 2006 05:09:41
From: greenkeeper
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

In message <m7pue2dcv69k109i7ajpu92h3b9ve1l9mc@4ax.com >, multi
<multi@asm.org > writes
>On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 20:44:58 +0100, greenkeeper
><greenkeeper@xxxalancampbell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <iqiue25u6ahskev01a93gj1clq4hs0g6fv@4ax.com>, multi
>><multi@asm.org> writes
>>>On 25 Aug 2006 06:02:44 -0700, "Thor" <thorpub@rsgohio.com> wrote:
>>>>multi wrote:
>>>>> On 22 Aug 2006 18:25:53 -0700, "McMahone" <mmcmahone@umhb.edu> wrote:
>>>>> >The thing to me is that there isn't any sport where the people haven't
>>>>> >gotten better. It's kind of hard for me to believe that golf is the
>>>>> >exception.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly. Johnny Weissmuller became the Tarzan of the Movies because
>>>>> he dominated Olympic swimming competition, setting dozens of world
>>>>> records. He was the first person to ever swim 100 meters in less than
>>>>> a minute. Today, high school girls do the 100 in under 50 seconds.
>>>>
>>>>FYI, the women's world record for 100 meters is 51.70 (short course)
>>>>and 53.42 (long course - set by Lisbeth Lenton earlier this year).
>>>
>>>Source, please? Here's mine:
>>

Date: 21 Aug 2006 08:52:52
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

sjaros3@home.com wrote:
> .. he's also not a charger. the flip-side of his "12-0 in majors when
> leading after the 3rd round" is that he's 0 for 30 or whatever in
> majors when he isn't leading after the 3rd round.

I think both stats are due to the way they set up the courses in majors
for the 4th round these days. Except for this past week, which was
unusual because of the soft conditions, pin locations just aren't
accessible, therefore NOBODY makes a charge on Sunday anymore. It
makes most Sundays anti-climatic.

Date: 28 Aug 2006 04:41:11
From: Douglas Siebert
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > writes:

>sjaros3@home.com wrote:
>> .. he's also not a charger. the flip-side of his "12-0 in majors when
>> leading after the 3rd round" is that he's 0 for 30 or whatever in
>> majors when he isn't leading after the 3rd round.

>I think both stats are due to the way they set up the courses in majors
>for the 4th round these days. Except for this past week, which was
>unusual because of the soft conditions, pin locations just aren't
>accessible, therefore NOBODY makes a charge on Sunday anymore. It
>makes most Sundays anti-climatic.

That's obviously crap. If the course setup really is significantly harder
on Sunday so everyone is shooting several strokes higher, you can still
mount a charge. It might consist of shooting a 69 instead of a 65, but
its still doable. If the course setup and the conditions are brutal so
that every par is hard-fought, finding a way to grind out pars like that
year that Faldo made 18 straight pars to win the Open could be considered
a charge when everyone else is making bogies. I don't think that charge
necessarily means birdies, it just means gaining ground on everyone else.

--
Douglas Siebert dsiebert@excisethis.khamsin.net

You're only young once, but you can be immature forever.

Date: 21 Aug 2006 22:44:55
From: Simon
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

Tonawanda Kardex wrote:
> Tonawanda Kardex wrote:
>
> > Yeah, Nicklaus had how many Top 3 finishes in majors? 54?
>
> The number is 46, actually -- apologies.
>
> 18 wins
> 19 second-place finishes
> 9 third-place finishes

If you are using 2nd & 3rd place finishes as a measure of a player's
ability you need to know a bit more detail. A second place finish like
Turnberry in 77 where Jack played really well, but was beaten by a
better player (Watson) is one thing. Charging up the leaderboard from
10th to 3rd and finishing 5 off the lead doesn't really show us
anything & perhaps Tiger isn't really interested if he can't win. How
many of Jack's 2nd & 3rd places was he really in contention?

Date: 21 Aug 2006 22:17:39
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

multi wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:01:56 +0200, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
> > Well, in golf, we can get pretty close to the conditions of 30 years
> >ago. Why not host a PGA tournament where they have to use the clubs
> >and balls from back then? Of course, you would have to send them to
> >courses hovering around the 7000 yard mark, since they would all lose
> >distance and accuracy.
>
> They had a brief segment on TGC a couple of weeks ago about the
> exhibition in Canada, where Jack, Sergio, Daly, and others hit some
> shots with hickory-shafted clubs. Sergio was knocking them stiff.

How did the others do? How much did it affect distance? Did Sergio
swing the same?

Just curious....

Date: 24 Aug 2006 22:07:18
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On 21 Aug 2006 22:17:39 -0700, "Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com > wrote:
>multi wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:01:56 +0200, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
>> > Well, in golf, we can get pretty close to the conditions of 30 years
>> >ago. Why not host a PGA tournament where they have to use the clubs
>> >and balls from back then? Of course, you would have to send them to
>> >courses hovering around the 7000 yard mark, since they would all lose
>> >distance and accuracy.
>>
>> They had a brief segment on TGC a couple of weeks ago about the
>> exhibition in Canada, where Jack, Sergio, Daly, and others hit some
>> shots with hickory-shafted clubs. Sergio was knocking them stiff.
>
>How did the others do? How much did it affect distance? Did Sergio
>swing the same?

Sorry, they didn't say much more than what I said above. The whole
story was less than a minute.

Date: 25 Aug 2006 01:16:12
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 22:07:18 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:

>On 21 Aug 2006 22:17:39 -0700, "Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com> wrote:
>>multi wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:01:56 +0200, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>> > Well, in golf, we can get pretty close to the conditions of 30 years
>>> >ago. Why not host a PGA tournament where they have to use the clubs
>>> >and balls from back then? Of course, you would have to send them to
>>> >courses hovering around the 7000 yard mark, since they would all lose
>>> >distance and accuracy.
>>>
>>> They had a brief segment on TGC a couple of weeks ago about the
>>> exhibition in Canada, where Jack, Sergio, Daly, and others hit some
>>> shots with hickory-shafted clubs. Sergio was knocking them stiff.
>>
>>How did the others do? How much did it affect distance? Did Sergio
>>swing the same?
>
>Sorry, they didn't say much more than what I said above. The whole
>story was less than a minute.

I think I may have read that this (Telus Skins Game) will be televised
in a few weeks.

Date: 22 Aug 2006 05:31:01
From: greenkeeper
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

In message <1156217429.994426.269070@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com >, JJVP
<jjvp10@gmail.com > writes
>
>David wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:20:20 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>Those guys you mention, all have completed their careers on the PGA
>Tour. Those you mention against Tiger are still on the tour. Their
>careers are not over.
>
>> Woods competition came from Mickelson, Singh (very late in his
>> career), and Els. Total their numbers and compare them to the names
>> mentioned above. Els has had a solid career--not a great one.
>> Mickelson has the best career of any of them and he is certainly not
>> through winning (but will his career match those mentioned above?).
>
>Why don't you wait and see.

Els 59 wins, Singh 50 wins, Mickelson 30 wins.
>
>
>> Singh is the hardest working pro on the tour, but he hit his stride
>> too late and his career, in retrospect, will be seen as solid but
>> nothing outstanding.
>>
>> David
>>

>>http://www.pbase.com/alancampbell/image/65212738
>

--
alan

Date: 21 Aug 2006 20:30:30
From: JJVP
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

David wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:20:20 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>
> >On 21 Aug 2006 08:43:49 -0700, sjaros3@home.com wrote:
> >
> >>tiger doesn't seem to do that. he's either in front, or he's not
> >
> >Hard to argue with that.
> >
> >> and if he's not, he doesn't charge from behind.
> >
> >Sure he does. He put on a great charge at the 2005 US Open, but
> >Campbell kept making 30-foot putts. He put on an even better charge
> >at the 2002 PGA, shooting a 67 in the final round, but Beem played the
> >best golf of his life that day.
> >
> >You might also notice that he rarely wins wire to wire. That means he
> >has put on a charge at some point to take the lead. The fact that it
> >happens before the fourth round is hardly reason to downgrade his
> >efforts.
> >
> >The problem is, the other players are so much better today. Jack
> >didn't have any competition, so whoever was leading would fold when
> >they saw him creeping up the leaderboard. And I can prove it; I just
> >don't feel like it.
>
> Jack had no competition? That is pretty funny. Watson, Player,
> Palmer (a short time--Palmer did win 4 out of 7 consecutive Master's
> and should have had 5 out of those seven), Casper (look how many tour
> wins the guy had--highly underrated), Johnny Miller (who played some
> of the best golf over a stretch that has ever been played), to name a
> few. Total up the tour wins and majors of those names mentioned and
> get back to me about Nicklaus having no competition.
>

Those guys you mention, all have completed their careers on the PGA
Tour. Those you mention against Tiger are still on the tour. Their
careers are not over.

> Woods competition came from Mickelson, Singh (very late in his
> career), and Els. Total their numbers and compare them to the names
> mentioned above. Els has had a solid career--not a great one.
> Mickelson has the best career of any of them and he is certainly not
> through winning (but will his career match those mentioned above?).

Why don't you wait and see.

> Singh is the hardest working pro on the tour, but he hit his stride
> too late and his career, in retrospect, will be seen as solid but
> nothing outstanding.
>
> David

Date: 21 Aug 2006 17:00:04
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

Tonawanda Kardex wrote:
>
> Yeah, Nicklaus had how many Top 3 finishes in majors? 54?
>
> Tiger is NOWHERE near that,

Maybe because he's only played in 40 of them. Won 30%, BTW. Jack is
nowhere near that.

Or maybe you were trying to make the point that Jack is much older than
Tiger?

Date: 21 Aug 2006 15:28:21
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

Date: 21 Aug 2006 15:23:56
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

Larry Bud wrote:
> sjaros3@home.com wrote:
> > .. he's also not a charger. the flip-side of his "12-0 in majors when
> > leading after the 3rd round" is that he's 0 for 30 or whatever in
> > majors when he isn't leading after the 3rd round.
>
> I think both stats are due to the way they set up the courses in majors
> for the 4th round these days. Except for this past week, which was
> unusual because of the soft conditions, pin locations just aren't
> accessible, therefore NOBODY makes a charge on Sunday anymore. It
> makes most Sundays anti-climatic.

EGGS-ACTLY!!!
Even Tiger has problems when he is forced to attack the Sunday pins.
Personally, I think he plays too cautious in those situations.

Date: 22 Aug 2006 09:31:33
From: Ezran
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On 21 Aug 2006 15:23:56 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>Larry Bud wrote:
>> sjaros3@home.com wrote:
>> > .. he's also not a charger. the flip-side of his "12-0 in majors when
>> > leading after the 3rd round" is that he's 0 for 30 or whatever in
>> > majors when he isn't leading after the 3rd round.
>>
>> I think both stats are due to the way they set up the courses in majors
>> for the 4th round these days. Except for this past week, which was
>> unusual because of the soft conditions, pin locations just aren't
>> accessible, therefore NOBODY makes a charge on Sunday anymore. It
>> makes most Sundays anti-climatic.
>
>EGGS-ACTLY!!!
>Even Tiger has problems when he is forced to attack the Sunday pins.
>Personally, I think he plays too cautious in those situations.

Tiger was hitting his irons very close to the pins when they are
located on the right of the greens. I noticed this Sunday and I
believe one of the announcers mentioned this on Saturday. He seems to
prefer the cut shots in his approaches and this tends to favour greens
with the flag on the right.

Date: 22 Aug 2006 02:20:22
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 09:31:33 +0800, Ezran <ezran6006@hotmail.com >
wrote:

>Tiger was hitting his irons very close to the pins when they are
>located on the right of the greens. I noticed this Sunday and I
>believe one of the announcers mentioned this on Saturday. He seems to
>prefer the cut shots in his approaches and this tends to favour greens
>with the flag on the right.

Interesting. I assumed he was hitting to the middle of the green on
Sunday because he got a lead and was putting well.

Date: 22 Aug 2006 13:01:29
From: Ezran
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 02:20:22 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 09:31:33 +0800, Ezran <ezran6006@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Tiger was hitting his irons very close to the pins when they are
>>located on the right of the greens. I noticed this Sunday and I
>>believe one of the announcers mentioned this on Saturday. He seems to
>>prefer the cut shots in his approaches and this tends to favour greens
>>with the flag on the right.
>
>Interesting. I assumed he was hitting to the middle of the green on
>Sunday because he got a lead and was putting well.

Yes I believe he was aiming for the middle but the ball ends up to the
right of the middle. When the pin is on the left, he can be seen
having to putt all the way across the green, as his ball is on the
right. I recall his first hole on Sunday, pin on the right, approach
shot lands on the right, birdie. There was one hole (a long par 4)
where pin was on the left, but he went to school on Luke's identical
across-the-green putt and rolled it in. On 18 he landed on the right
side and short. I believe there were a few others. I think he played
cut shots on all approaches.

Date: 21 Aug 2006 19:32:30
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

Date: 21 Aug 2006 13:32:06
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

rich wrote:
> "Tonawanda Kardex" <tonawandakardex@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1156176964.689955.17330@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > By the way, in the decade of the 1970s, Jack finished in the top ten at
> > Augusta every year. Call me when Tiger does the same.
>
> By the way, in the last 2 years Tiger won 4 of the 8 majors. Call me when
> Jack does the same. Oh wait - he never did.

Partially because of the competition he faced that could step up (on
occasion) and beat him. I don't think there is any question that Tiger
is better than the rest of today's field by a larger margin that Jack
was in his day. I guess the question is... why?

Date: 21 Aug 2006 13:26:38
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

Matt wrote:
> > Tiger is NOWHERE near that, and he plays competition that's nowhere
> > near the quality of Nicklaus' competition.
>
>
> Theres such a horseshit statement. Theres absolutely NO WAY you can prove
> that to be true.

You're right, we can't prove it... but that alone doesn't mean it isn't
true. Other than
Tiger, today's golfers just don't seem to have the same grit as
Nicklaus, Trevio, Player, Watson, etc. In the year that Jack won the
first 2 majors, I think it was Trevio that basically swelled up and
said he's not going to win the next one... then went out and did what
it took to beat him. There are no Trevio's today (although DeMarco has
given it a valient shot a couple of times now). They just don't exist.
Tiger's got 2 in a row again... not one of the pansies that play out
there today has the balls to stop him come April. If he doesn't win the
Masters by several strokes, it will be of his own doing... not his
competitior's. :)

Date: 21 Aug 2006 12:07:47
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

Date: 21 Aug 2006 15:27:54
From: Edward M. Kennedy
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote

> Now, let's use a little logic. Golf today is much more popular than it
> was in the Nicklaus era. Because of that, the professional group has a
> MUCH larger talent pool to choose from. Therefore, it would reason,
> that because you have more players to choose from, the top players are
> better.

And by that logic so is the top player. If the question is relative
to his peers, it looks like a wash.

--Tedward

Date: 21 Aug 2006 17:40:36
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:27:54 -0400, "Edward M. Kennedy"
<nospam@baconburger.com > wrote:

>"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>> Now, let's use a little logic. Golf today is much more popular than it
>> was in the Nicklaus era. Because of that, the professional group has a
>> MUCH larger talent pool to choose from. Therefore, it would reason,
>> that because you have more players to choose from, the top players are
>> better.
>
>And by that logic so is the top player. If the question is relative
>to his peers, it looks like a wash.

If the question is relative to his peers, you look at the margins of
victory. Looks like a wash, rinse, and set.

Date: 21 Aug 2006 12:03:57
From: PackerBronco
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

Date: 21 Aug 2006 11:42:52
From: Looking for 80
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

larry wrote:
IF Tiger continues he will certainly
> surpass nearly every golf record-- including Nicklaus' Major
> record--which could fall in the next couple of years.

You're an idiot. Tiger will clearly surpass Jack's major record before
this year is over. Just wait and see. Tiger is crushing you and all
your pansy golf heroes.

Date: 21 Aug 2006 13:50:57
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On 21 Aug 2006 11:42:52 -0700, "Looking for 80"
<sparkydarlin@hotmail.com > wrote:

>You're an idiot. Tiger will clearly surpass Jack's major record before
>this year is over. Just wait and see. Tiger is crushing you and all
>your pansy golf heroes.

Fool.
___,
\o

Date: 21 Aug 2006 11:37:57
From: JJVP
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

Tonawanda Kardex wrote:
> Matt wrote:
>
> > > Tiger is NOWHERE near that, and he plays competition that's nowhere
> > > near the quality of Nicklaus' competition.
> >
> >
> > Theres such a horseshit statement. Theres absolutely NO WAY you can prove
> > that to be true.
>
> Oh yeah? Add up the number of majors won by Nicklaus' primary rivals,
> and then add them up for Tiger. And then tell me what's "horseshit".

During Jack's first 40 majors he won 9, and:

Players winning 3 majors: 2 Player & Trevino
Players winning 2 majors: 4 Palmer, Casper, Boros, & Jacklin
Players winning 1 major: 16 various

During Tiger's first 40 majors he won 12, and:

Players winning 3 majors: 2 Phil & Vijay
Players winning 2 majors: 3 Els, O'Meara, & Goosen
Players winning 1 major: 16 various

>
> Tiger is good. Duh. But he's never going to top Jack Nicklaus, for two
> primary reasons: consistency and competition. In addition to Nicklaus'
> 18 major wins, he also finished second 19 times. That's 37 Top 2
> finishes; Tiger has 12 major wins but only two runners-up finishes.

Tiger has played 40 majors, versus 100+ for Jack. Maybe you should wait
until Tiger career is over to make such comparison. You are comparing
career stats to one career that is not 1/2 over.

> Nicklaus was more consistently in the hunt; Tiger's either winning it,
> or he's out of it. Heck, Nicklaus also finished third in a major nine
> times, giving him 46 Top 3 finishes in majors. That's more impressive
> than anything Tiger has done.
>
> Furthermore, a quick glance at Nicklaus' primary opponents over the
> years (Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Lee Trevino, Tom Watson) shows they
> had much more to offer than Tiger's contemporaries (Phil Mickelson,
> Ernie Els, Vijay Singh, Retief Goosen). In fact, Jack's opposing
> quartet netted 29 major wins, while Tiger's opposing
> quartet has only netted 11 major wins. Seriously -- Sergio Garcia?
> Tiger's lucky this era of golf is full of pussies and not true legends
> like Nicklaus' era was -- although you probably don't know this,
> because you never picked up a golf interest until 1996, huh?
>
> So just cool it with the typical, modern hype machine of "the best
> ever" garbage: Tiger has a very long way to go to catch Jack Nicklaus,
> and he will probably never match him in consistency and competition.
> Tiger's good, but isn't as good as Nicklaus was. Period.

Tiger will win more majors and more tournaments than Jack. Period.

JJVP

Date: 21 Aug 2006 18:06:46
From: jeffc
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

<sjaros3@home.com > wrote in message
news:1156175029.453268.91860@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> .. he's also not a charger. the flip-side of his "12-0 in majors when
> leading after the 3rd round" is that he's 0 for 30 or whatever in
> majors when he isn't leading after the 3rd round.
>
> when i first started watching golf in the 70s, 'charging' was a common
> term. it was used to describe some great, usually nicklaus but
> sometimes a watson or a trevino, who was down some strokes but was
> making a big run up the leader board on the last day of the tourney and
> claiming victory..
>
> tiger doesn't seem to do that. he's either in front, or he's not, and
> if he's not, he doesn't charge from behind.

Kind of an interesting point. He seems to be very risk/reward oriented, and
he doesn't take too many risks outside of what he knows he has a very high
probability of pulling off. Or, it could simply be that when he's behind,
he DOES try to charge and so far it's only gotten him in more trouble.
Maybe he's a great golfer only when he can play the percentages. That means
it will pay off a large percentage of the time, but when it can't, he just
can't do the golf equivalent of "pulling the goalie".

Date: 22 Aug 2006 01:26:58
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:06:46 GMT, "jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo.com > wrote:

>Kind of an interesting point. He seems to be very risk/reward oriented, and
>he doesn't take too many risks outside of what he knows he has a very high
>probability of pulling off. Or, it could simply be that when he's behind,
>he DOES try to charge and so far it's only gotten him in more trouble.
>Maybe he's a great golfer only when he can play the percentages. That means
>it will pay off a large percentage of the time, but when it can't, he just
>can't do the golf equivalent of "pulling the goalie".

Does anybody have statistics - how many times has Tiger been within
charging distance of the lead, compared to how many times Jack has
been within charging distance of the lead? Make that, say 5 strokes
on Sunday morning.

And what were the results of these charge opportunities?

Date: 21 Aug 2006 11:02:02
From:
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

Tonawanda Kardex wrote:
> sjaros3@home.com wrote:
> > .. he's also not a charger. the flip-side of his "12-0 in majors when
> > leading after the 3rd round" is that he's 0 for 30 or whatever in
> > majors when he isn't leading after the 3rd round.
> >
> > when i first started watching golf in the 70s, 'charging' was a common
> > term. it was used to describe some great, usually nicklaus but
> > sometimes a watson or a trevino, who was down some strokes but was
> > making a big run up the leader board on the last day of the tourney and
> > claiming victory..
> >
> > tiger doesn't seem to do that. he's either in front, or he's not, and
> > if he's not, he doesn't charge from behind.
> >
> > the front-runner thing works when you're clear-cut best and can lead
> > wire to wire, but an inability to come from behind might hamper him
> > when he's a little older and not totally dominant.
>
> Yeah, Nicklaus had how many Top 3 finishes in majors? 54?
>
> Tiger is NOWHERE near that, and he plays competition that's nowhere
> near the quality of Nicklaus' competition.

Reality check:

In Nicklaus's first 40 majors, he was first, second, or third 8, 8, and
3 times respectively.
In Tiger's first 40 majors: 12, 2, 3.

Top 3 finishes through first 40 majors:

Nicklaus: 19/40
Tiger: 17/40

Would you really claim Nicklaus's numbers are better by age 30 or so?
I'd take the 12 wins over the 8 2nds.

Majors 41-80 Top 3 finishes:
Nicklaus: 21/40
Woods: 0/0

See the problem? For you to claim Woods isn't as good as Nicklaus is
ignores the fact that he hasn't finished his career. But the numbers
are clear: through age 30, most would give the edge to Woods. I'll
agree with you on one thing: it's too early to say that Tiger is the
best ever, given the 0/0 above. At age 40, the statement could be
substantially supported or denied. Right now, neither side has any
business making ultimate conclusions.

Regards

Date: 21 Aug 2006 11:11:38
From: larry
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On 21 Aug 2006 11:02:02 -0700, rastafarians2002@yahoo.com wrote:

>Tonawanda Kardex wrote:
>> sjaros3@home.com wrote:
>> > .. he's also not a charger. the flip-side of his "12-0 in majors when
>> > leading after the 3rd round" is that he's 0 for 30 or whatever in
>> > majors when he isn't leading after the 3rd round.
>> >
>> > when i first started watching golf in the 70s, 'charging' was a common
>> > term. it was used to describe some great, usually nicklaus but
>> > sometimes a watson or a trevino, who was down some strokes but was
>> > making a big run up the leader board on the last day of the tourney and
>> > claiming victory..
>> >
>> > tiger doesn't seem to do that. he's either in front, or he's not, and
>> > if he's not, he doesn't charge from behind.
>> >
>> > the front-runner thing works when you're clear-cut best and can lead
>> > wire to wire, but an inability to come from behind might hamper him
>> > when he's a little older and not totally dominant.
>>
>> Yeah, Nicklaus had how many Top 3 finishes in majors? 54?
>>
>> Tiger is NOWHERE near that, and he plays competition that's nowhere
>> near the quality of Nicklaus' competition.
>
>Reality check:
>
>In Nicklaus's first 40 majors, he was first, second, or third 8, 8, and
>3 times respectively.
>In Tiger's first 40 majors: 12, 2, 3.
>
>Top 3 finishes through first 40 majors:
>
>Nicklaus: 19/40
>Tiger: 17/40
>
>Would you really claim Nicklaus's numbers are better by age 30 or so?
>I'd take the 12 wins over the 8 2nds.
>
>Majors 41-80 Top 3 finishes:
>Nicklaus: 21/40
>Woods: 0/0
>
>See the problem? For you to claim Woods isn't as good as Nicklaus is
>ignores the fact that he hasn't finished his career. But the numbers
>are clear: through age 30, most would give the edge to Woods. I'll
>agree with you on one thing: it's too early to say that Tiger is the
>best ever, given the 0/0 above. At age 40, the statement could be
>substantially supported or denied. Right now, neither side has any
>business making ultimate conclusions.
>
>Regards

AND, Nicklaus himself has said many times that Tiger is FAR better
than he ever was. Tiger routinely pulls off shots that Nicklaus
simply would not have attempted. IF Tiger continues he will certainly
surpass nearly every golf record-- including Nicklaus' Major
record--which could fall in the next couple of years.

larry

Date: 21 Aug 2006 22:17:17
From: David
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 11:11:38 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

<snipped >

>AND, Nicklaus himself has said many times that Tiger is FAR better
>than he ever was. Tiger routinely pulls off shots that Nicklaus
>simply would not have attempted. IF Tiger continues he will certainly
>surpass nearly every golf record-- including Nicklaus' Major
>record--which could fall in the next couple of years.

Woods is not far better than Nicklaus--regardless of who says it.
Nicklaus pulled off shots that other players of his era could not pull
off. Woods has infintely better equipment and is for that reason
alone able to pull off the shots that he does. I saw a lot of pros
over the four days pulling off one amazing shot after another. The
one thing that Woods did better than anyone on Sunday was putt. He
holed putts that couldhave just as easily not gone in and would have
been having to battle his way to a victory--had the other leaders not
folded like paper airplanes.

I will even go so far as to say that the most incredible shots I saw
over the four days did not come from Woods, but from Mike Weir.
Unfortunately for Weir, his putts grazed the cups (as did Garcia's on
day 3). If his putts had fallen, he would have walked away with the
whole thing.

On Saturday, on the 17th hole, Woods stuck his tee shot. All I
heard from the announcers was how great and courageous the shot was.
Donald comes up to 17 and hits it even closer. Donald's shot barely
got the same acclaim that Woods' shot did.

Another thing I heard from the announcers was that Woods played a
flawless round of golf. Well, I think I was watching a different
tournament. He drove the ball in to the rough on a few occasions. He
drove the ball in to bunkers on the two par threes coming down the
stretch. Was this flawless golf?

In the end, the guy that made the most putts won--as is usually the
case. So, Woods is definitely the best putter under pressure, but to
say that he pulled off shots that no other golfer could possibly pull
off is way off the mark.

>larry

David

Date: 21 Aug 2006 17:29:58
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:17:17 +0200, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de > wrote:

<clip >
> In the end, the guy that made the most putts won--as is usually the
>case. So, Woods is definitely the best putter under pressure, but to
>say that he pulled off shots that no other golfer could possibly pull
>off is way off the mark.
>
>>larry
>
>David

Not in this one tournament...but over the last 10 years? There's no
comparison to his abilitities to pull off great shots.
___,
\o

Date: 22 Aug 2006 17:10:00
From: David
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 17:29:58 -0500, Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net >
wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:17:17 +0200, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
><clip>
>> In the end, the guy that made the most putts won--as is usually the
>>case. So, Woods is definitely the best putter under pressure, but to
>>say that he pulled off shots that no other golfer could possibly pull
>>off is way off the mark.
>>
>>>larry
>>
>>David
>
>Not in this one tournament...but over the last 10 years? There's no
>comparison to his abilitities to pull off great shots.

Bobby, I see amazing shots hit week-in, week-out on the PGA tour.
Woods gets a lot of airtime when he hits a great shot. The shots that
really stood out for me over the last 10 years came from Mickelson and
DLIII, as a matter of fact.

DLII had 265 yards to the hole and absolutely stiffed a 3-wood that
carried to about 5 yards short of the flag. He needed to make that
shot to get in to the Master's. Oh, yeah, the pin was tucked back
right and DLIII had to carry the bunkers guarding that side of the
green.

Mickelson asking his playing partner to mark his ball (they were out
in the fairway) and then landing his shot almost directly on the mark
and drawing the ball back to a couple of inches was spectacular. It
reminded me of the Babe Ruth homerun where he supposedly called the
shot.

In my opinion, those two shots alone were better than Woods' famous
bunker shot.

What I have seen Woods do consistently the best over the last 10
years is putt under pressure. All of the pros are capable of hitting
the shots that Woods hits.

>bk

David

Date: 21 Aug 2006 10:45:54
From:
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

Tonawanda Kardex wrote:
> Brad wrote:
> > "Tonawanda Kardex" <tonawandakardex@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1156176263.063613.72070@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > > Matt wrote:
> > >
> > >> > Tiger is NOWHERE near that, and he plays competition that's nowhere
> > >> > near the quality of Nicklaus' competition.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Theres such a horseshit statement. Theres absolutely NO WAY you can
> > >> prove
> > >> that to be true.
> > >
> > > Oh yeah? Add up the number of majors won by Nicklaus' primary rivals,
> > > and then add them up for Tiger. And then tell me what's "horseshit".
> > >
> > > Tiger is good. Duh. But he's never going to top Jack Nicklaus, for two
> > > primary reasons: consistency and competition. In addition to Nicklaus'
> > > 18 major wins, he also finished second 19 times. That's 37 Top 2
> > > finishes; Tiger has 12 major wins but only two runners-up finishes.
> > > Nicklaus was more consistently in the hunt; Tiger's either winning it,
> > > or he's out of it. Heck, Nicklaus also finished third in a major nine
> > > times, giving him 46 Top 3 finishes in majors. That's more impressive
> > > than anything Tiger has done.
> > >
> > > Furthermore, a quick glance at Nicklaus' primary opponents over the
> > > years (Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Lee Trevino, Tom Watson) shows they
> > > had much more to offer than Tiger's contemporaries (Phil Mickelson,
> > > Ernie Els, Vijay Singh, Retief Goosen). In fact, Jack's opposing
> > > quartet netted 29 major wins, while Tiger's opposing
> > > quartet has only netted 11 major wins. Seriously -- Sergio Garcia?
> > > Tiger's lucky this era of golf is full of pussies and not true legends
> > > like Nicklaus' era was -- although you probably don't know this,
> > > because you never picked up a golf interest until 1996, huh?
> > >
> > > So just cool it with the typical, modern hype machine of "the best
> > > ever" garbage: Tiger has a very long way to go to catch Jack Nicklaus,
> > > and he will probably never match him in consistency and competition.
> > > Tiger's good, but isn't as good as Nicklaus was. Period.
> > >
> >
> > There's still no way to prove it or to disprove it though. All you can
> > look at is statistics. The fact remains that was then and this is now.
>
> And the statistics show Jack was better against better competition. If
> you choose to ignore that -- like ESPN and most all slobbering media
> hypologists -- it's your choice.
>
> By the way, in the decade of the 1970s, Jack finished in the top ten at
> Augusta every year. Call me when Tiger does the same.

Rule #1: How to lies with statistics: Compare apples to oranges.

Nicklaus was age 30-40 during the 70's. This 10 year span is generally
the most productive for golfers. Tom Watson, for example, was 31-41 in
the 80's and had 5 majors (along with 4 2nd place finishes), by far his
best decade. In the same span, he finished out of the top 10 at
Augusta only twice(T12, T14) and was T7 and T3 in 1990 and 1991.

The apples to apples comparison would be by age or by years
professional. Tiger is 30 now.

Also, to base your claim on the fact that Jack's competition had more
majors is nonsensical. So if player A has 5 majors out of 40, but his
rivals B, C, and D have a combined 32, then he must be great by your
criteria. Likewise, if A has 27 wins, but B, C, and D have only 4,
then this would not be "the best ever" because Player A played in a
watered-down decade. IOW, your criteria sucks.

Regards

Date: 23 Aug 2006 09:35:17
From: Shintaro
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

rastafarians2002@yahoo.com wrote:
> Tonawanda Kardex wrote:
>
>>Brad wrote:
>>
>>>"Tonawanda Kardex" <tonawandakardex@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1156176263.063613.72070@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>Matt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Tiger is NOWHERE near that, and he plays competition that's nowhere
>>>>>>near the quality of Nicklaus' competition.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Theres such a horseshit statement. Theres absolutely NO WAY you can
>>>>>prove
>>>>>that to be true.
>>>>
>>>>Oh yeah? Add up the number of majors won by Nicklaus' primary rivals,
>>>>and then add them up for Tiger. And then tell me what's "horseshit".
>>>>
>>>>Tiger is good. Duh. But he's never going to top Jack Nicklaus, for two
>>>>primary reasons: consistency and competition. In addition to Nicklaus'
>>>>18 major wins, he also finished second 19 times. That's 37 Top 2
>>>>finishes; Tiger has 12 major wins but only two runners-up finishes.
>>>>Nicklaus was more consistently in the hunt; Tiger's either winning it,
>>>>or he's out of it. Heck, Nicklaus also finished third in a major nine
>>>>times, giving him 46 Top 3 finishes in majors. That's more impressive
>>>>than anything Tiger has done.
>>>>
>>>>Furthermore, a quick glance at Nicklaus' primary opponents over the
>>>>years (Arnold Palmer, Gary Player, Lee Trevino, Tom Watson) shows they
>>>>had much more to offer than Tiger's contemporaries (Phil Mickelson,
>>>>Ernie Els, Vijay Singh, Retief Goosen). In fact, Jack's opposing
>>>>quartet netted 29 major wins, while Tiger's opposing
>>>>quartet has only netted 11 major wins. Seriously -- Sergio Garcia?
>>>>Tiger's lucky this era of golf is full of pussies and not true legends
>>>>like Nicklaus' era was -- although you probably don't know this,
>>>>because you never picked up a golf interest until 1996, huh?
>>>>
>>>>So just cool it with the typical, modern hype machine of "the best
>>>>ever" garbage: Tiger has a very long way to go to catch Jack Nicklaus,
>>>>and he will probably never match him in consistency and competition.
>>>>Tiger's good, but isn't as good as Nicklaus was. Period.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There's still no way to prove it or to disprove it though. All you can
>>>look at is statistics. The fact remains that was then and this is now.
>>
>>And the statistics show Jack was better against better competition. If
>>you choose to ignore that -- like ESPN and most all slobbering media
>>hypologists -- it's your choice.
>>
>>By the way, in the decade of the 1970s, Jack finished in the top ten at
>>Augusta every year. Call me when Tiger does the same.
>
>
> Rule #1: How to lies with statistics: Compare apples to oranges.
>
> Nicklaus was age 30-40 during the 70's. This 10 year span is generally
> the most productive for golfers. Tom Watson, for example, was 31-41 in
> the 80's and had 5 majors (along with 4 2nd place finishes), by far his
> best decade. In the same span, he finished out of the top 10 at
> Augusta only twice(T12, T14) and was T7 and T3 in 1990 and 1991.
>
> The apples to apples comparison would be by age or by years
> professional. Tiger is 30 now.
>
> Also, to base your claim on the fact that Jack's competition had more
> majors is nonsensical. So if player A has 5 majors out of 40, but his
> rivals B, C, and D have a combined 32, then he must be great by your
> criteria. Likewise, if A has 27 wins, but B, C, and D have only 4,
> then this would not be "the best ever" because Player A played in a
> watered-down decade. IOW, your criteria sucks.
>
> Regards
>

Golf is popular around the world and the PGA and majors are both full of
international players, which Nicklaus did not have to play against.
Wouldn't that make competition tougher now than in the 60s, 70s?

Date: 22 Aug 2006 19:17:39
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 09:35:17 +0800, Shintaro <not_necessary@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>Golf is popular around the world and the PGA and majors are both full of
>international players, which Nicklaus did not have to play against.
>Wouldn't that make competition tougher now than in the 60s, 70s?

Of course. There were only a handful of non-Americans who played the
PGA tour in Jack's day. As of this week, 34 of the top 50 golfers in
the world, and seven of the top ten, are non-USA.

Date: 22 Aug 2006 18:25:53
From: McMahone
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

Onyx_Hokie wrote:
> [ 21 Aug 2006 09:04:23 -0700 ]
> [ Tonawanda Kardex

Date: 23 Aug 2006 03:39:48
From: rowdy rod
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

>
> The thing to me is that there isn't any sport where the people haven't
> gotten better. It's kind of hard for me to believe that golf is the
> exception.
>
> Marty
>
Golf has other factors, like equipment and course condition. Augusta,
I think, didn't go to bent grass until 1980 or so, as an example. I'm
hitting the ball farther now in my second half century than twenty
years ago when I thought I was still immortal. Graphite and titanium
clubs do that. Unless I run across it with a band saw, I can't cut the
cover on a golf ball. Yet, for all those changes, in the past twenty
years or so, average golf scores of the pros and average players has
stayed relatively the same. (this from a nytimes article last year).

Sure baseball players are hitting more homeruns on the roids it seems,
but Ted Williams is still the last .400 hitter. Nobody is stealing a
hundred bases. The top pitchers are still a far cry from Bob Gibson's
season low ERA. There are fewer 20 games winners, too.

I think it's just the ebb and flow of different sports and all kinds of
things factor into the equations. Occasionally, a great player steps
to the fore, like Tiger, but the rest stay relatively the same.

Date: 23 Aug 2006 08:18:00
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:39:48 GMT, rowdy rod <poetryrocksnow@yahoo.com >
wrote:

>Sure baseball players are hitting more homeruns on the roids it seems,
>but Ted Williams is still the last .400 hitter. Nobody is stealing a
>hundred bases. The top pitchers are still a far cry from Bob Gibson's
>season low ERA. There are fewer 20 games winners, too.

It's kind of hard to compare baseball players, as players succeed by
being better than their opponents. If both pitchers and batters take
steroids, then who becomes more dominant?

There are more teams nowadays, but a smaller percentage of kids choose
baseball as their first choice.

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Date: 23 Aug 2006 18:35:05
From: rowdy rod
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

In article <2nooe2d63f27dbvf5fsrqok4vh0h0quclb@4ax.com >, Howard Brazee
<howard@brazee.net > wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:39:48 GMT, rowdy rod <poetryrocksnow@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Sure baseball players are hitting more homeruns on the roids it seems,
> >but Ted Williams is still the last .400 hitter. Nobody is stealing a
> >hundred bases. The top pitchers are still a far cry from Bob Gibson's
> >season low ERA. There are fewer 20 games winners, too.
>
> It's kind of hard to compare baseball players, as players succeed by
> being better than their opponents. If both pitchers and batters take
> steroids, then who becomes more dominant?

Then why are batting averages relatively the same for the past fifty
years even as ERA continue to rise?
>
> There are more teams nowadays, but a smaller percentage of kids choose
> baseball as their first choice.

If you're saying that the better athletes go into other sports, you're
probably right as it concerns American youth.
>

Date: 22 Aug 2006 19:13:22
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On 22 Aug 2006 18:25:53 -0700, "McMahone" <mmcmahone@umhb.edu > wrote:
>The thing to me is that there isn't any sport where the people haven't
>gotten better. It's kind of hard for me to believe that golf is the
>exception.

Exactly. Johnny Weissmuller became the Tarzan of the Movies because
he dominated Olympic swimming competition, setting dozens of world
records. He was the first person to ever swim 100 meters in less than
a minute. Today, high school girls do the 100 in under 50 seconds.
Jack Dempsey and Bob Fitzsimmons are immortal heavyweight champs.
Today, they wouldn't even be heavyweights.

Date: 22 Aug 2006 15:38:54
From:
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

rastafarians2002@yahoo.com wrote:

> Also, to base your claim on the fact that Jack's competition had more
> majors is nonsensical. So if player A has 5 majors out of 40, but his
> rivals B, C, and D have a combined 32, then he must be great by your
> criteria. Likewise, if A has 27 wins, but B, C, and D have only 4,
> then this would not be "the best ever" because Player A played in a
> watered-down decade. IOW, your criteria sucks.

Exactly. I would think that the competition now is stiffer since many
more people play golf and the prizes are much, much higher. Also in
golf half the field has a realistic chance to win. Tiger's competition
is not just the top players.

I hope Tiger can break the record. It's cool watching history. But I
think it's way too early to be assuming he's going to do it. Only a
handful of players in history have 7 major wins which is what he has
left.

Date: 22 Aug 2006 15:52:11
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On 22 Aug 2006 15:38:54 -0700, cr113@hotmail.com wrote:
>rastafarians2002@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Also, to base your claim on the fact that Jack's competition had more
>> majors is nonsensical. So if player A has 5 majors out of 40, but his
>> rivals B, C, and D have a combined 32, then he must be great by your
>> criteria. Likewise, if A has 27 wins, but B, C, and D have only 4,
>> then this would not be "the best ever" because Player A played in a
>> watered-down decade. IOW, your criteria sucks.
>
>Exactly. I would think that the competition now is stiffer since many
>more people play golf and the prizes are much, much higher. Also in
>golf half the field has a realistic chance to win. Tiger's competition
>is not just the top players.

Actually, modern fields are so deep that just about everybody has a
realistic chance to win. About the only ones who don't are the
special categories, e.g. amateurs, old guys with lifetime exemptions,
and club pros at the PGA. Daly was the last alternate when he won the
PGA, as was this year's 36-hole co-leader, Billy Andrade. Ben Curtis
was ranked about 400th in the world when he won the Open.

Date: 22 Aug 2006 14:41:13
From: Tonawanda Kardex
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

Date: 22 Aug 2006 16:56:18
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On 22 Aug 2006 14:41:13 -0700, "Tonawanda Kardex"
<tonawandakardex@gmail.com > wrote:

>When do we get to talk about Tiger's weak Ryder Cup showings?

How about when you stop crossposting to rec.sport.football.college?
___,
\o

Date: 22 Aug 2006 13:36:54
From: Ken Oliver
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

<sjaros3@home.com > wrote in message
news:1156175029.453268.91860@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> .. he's also not a charger. the flip-side of his "12-0 in majors when
> leading after the 3rd round" is that he's 0 for 30 or whatever in
> majors when he isn't leading after the 3rd round.
>
> when i first started watching golf in the 70s, 'charging' was a common
> term. it was used to describe some great, usually nicklaus but
> sometimes a watson or a trevino, who was down some strokes but was
> making a big run up the leader board on the last day of the tourney and
> claiming victory..

Arnie and his army. The ultimate charger!!!!

>
> tiger doesn't seem to do that. he's either in front, or he's not, and
> if he's not, he doesn't charge from behind.
>
> the front-runner thing works when you're clear-cut best and can lead
> wire to wire, but an inability to come from behind might hamper him
> when he's a little older and not totally dominant.
>

Date: 22 Aug 2006 08:49:31
From: Harrison Bergeron
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

"Ken Oliver" <ksterling@mindspring.com > writes:

> <sjaros3@home.com> wrote in message
> news:1156175029.453268.91860@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > .. he's also not a charger. the flip-side of his "12-0 in majors when
> > leading after the 3rd round" is that he's 0 for 30 or whatever in
> > majors when he isn't leading after the 3rd round.
> >
> > when i first started watching golf in the 70s, 'charging' was a common
> > term. it was used to describe some great, usually nicklaus but
> > sometimes a watson or a trevino, who was down some strokes but was
> > making a big run up the leader board on the last day of the tourney and
> > claiming victory..
>
> Arnie and his army. The ultimate charger!!!!

In both directions!

--

<-- Harry -- >

Date: 21 Aug 2006 23:04:24
From: OrangeDood
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

PackerBronco wrote:
> sjaros3@home.com wrote:
> > .. he's also not a charger. the flip-side of his "12-0 in majors when
> > leading after the 3rd round" is that he's 0 for 30 or whatever in
> > majors when he isn't leading after the 3rd round.
>
> Of course Tiger's a charger. The difference is that he charges on
> Saturday rather than waiting for Sunday ...

Exactly right. The key with Tiger is, if he's within three shots of the
lead after Friday's play, you can pretty much take it to the bank.

Cheers,
--Jeff

Date: 23 Aug 2006 06:48:43
From:
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

multi wrote:
> On 22 Aug 2006 15:38:54 -0700, cr113@hotmail.com wrote:
> >rastafarians2002@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >> Also, to base your claim on the fact that Jack's competition had more
> >> majors is nonsensical. So if player A has 5 majors out of 40, but his
> >> rivals B, C, and D have a combined 32, then he must be great by your
> >> criteria. Likewise, if A has 27 wins, but B, C, and D have only 4,
> >> then this would not be "the best ever" because Player A played in a
> >> watered-down decade. IOW, your criteria sucks.
> >
> >Exactly. I would think that the competition now is stiffer since many
> >more people play golf and the prizes are much, much higher. Also in
> >golf half the field has a realistic chance to win. Tiger's competition
> >is not just the top players.
>
> Actually, modern fields are so deep that just about everybody has a
> realistic chance to win. About the only ones who don't are the
> special categories, e.g. amateurs, old guys with lifetime exemptions,
> and club pros at the PGA. Daly was the last alternate when he won the
> PGA, as was this year's 36-hole co-leader, Billy Andrade. Ben Curtis
> was ranked about 400th in the world when he won the Open.

You're right. When you have 100+ pros playing there's a really good
chance statistically that at least one of them is going to play well
above their average for four days. That's what makes it so amazing what
Woods and Nicklaus have done.

Date: 23 Aug 2006 05:08:09
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

rowdy rod wrote:
> >
> > The thing to me is that there isn't any sport where the people haven't
> > gotten better. It's kind of hard for me to believe that golf is the
> > exception.
> >
> > Marty
> >
> Golf has other factors, like equipment and course condition. Augusta,
> I think, didn't go to bent grass until 1980 or so, as an example. I'm
> hitting the ball farther now in my second half century than twenty
> years ago when I thought I was still immortal. Graphite and titanium
> clubs do that. Unless I run across it with a band saw, I can't cut the
> cover on a golf ball. Yet, for all those changes, in the past twenty
> years or so, average golf scores of the pros and average players has
> stayed relatively the same. (this from a nytimes article last year).

Well, for the pros, it could be because they lengthened the courses by
750+ yards... to help offset the advances in equipment. For the rest of
us that went from hitting it in the trees 250 yards off the tee to
hitting it further into the trees at 275 yards off the tee... did you
really expect that to help? :)

>
> Sure baseball players are hitting more homeruns on the roids it seems,

I think their ball is juiced too... :)

Date: 23 Aug 2006 17:48:27
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

<sjaros3@home.com > wrote
>
> tiger doesn't seem to do that. he's either in front, or he's not, and
> if he's not, he doesn't charge from behind.

In majors, that has been true...for the most part.

But he did birdie the last four holes at the '02 PGA to close to within one
of Rich Beem, who rolled in a couple of cross-country putts to win.

Then there was that non-major at the '00 AT&T Pebble Beach where Tiger did
charge from 6 shots behind to win on Sunday.

So it's not like he isn't capable.

Randy

Date: 25 Aug 2006 06:02:44
From: Thor
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

multi wrote:
> On 22 Aug 2006 18:25:53 -0700, "McMahone" <mmcmahone@umhb.edu> wrote:
> >The thing to me is that there isn't any sport where the people haven't
> >gotten better. It's kind of hard for me to believe that golf is the
> >exception.
>
> Exactly. Johnny Weissmuller became the Tarzan of the Movies because
> he dominated Olympic swimming competition, setting dozens of world
> records. He was the first person to ever swim 100 meters in less than
> a minute. Today, high school girls do the 100 in under 50 seconds.

FYI, the women's world record for 100 meters is 51.70 (short course)
and 53.42 (long course - set by Lisbeth Lenton earlier this year).

--
-- David "Thor" Collard
-- My It is golf.
-- 11th annual RSG-Ohio Sept 15-17 2006

Date: 25 Aug 2006 12:26:27
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On 25 Aug 2006 06:02:44 -0700, "Thor" <thorpub@rsgohio.com > wrote:
>multi wrote:
>> On 22 Aug 2006 18:25:53 -0700, "McMahone" <mmcmahone@umhb.edu> wrote:
>> >The thing to me is that there isn't any sport where the people haven't
>> >gotten better. It's kind of hard for me to believe that golf is the
>> >exception.
>>
>> Exactly. Johnny Weissmuller became the Tarzan of the Movies because
>> he dominated Olympic swimming competition, setting dozens of world
>> records. He was the first person to ever swim 100 meters in less than
>> a minute. Today, high school girls do the 100 in under 50 seconds.
>
>FYI, the women's world record for 100 meters is 51.70 (short course)
>and 53.42 (long course - set by Lisbeth Lenton earlier this year).

Source, please? Here's mine:

http://www.ohsaa.org/Sports/records/sdrecord.htm
"...The following records are the Official State of Ohio
Interscholastic Swimming and Diving State records, as properly
reported to the OHSAA. Any other listing is unofficial for high school
swimming and diving and should be so recognized by those interested in
the sport...

100 Yard Freestyle :49.97 Beth Washut, Ashtabula St. John"

Note that this just happened to be the first hit with "record" in the
headline of my Google search on "girl's 100 meters high school
swimming records" which returned over 1.3 million hits. I'm sure
there are lower times from states with warmer climates. Poking around
other hits on the first page, I saw this
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3883/is_200311/ai_n9337083
which has a girl in the 11-12 year old group doing 1:01.69, which
would have won the men's Olympic gold medal any time before 1920.

Date: 25 Aug 2006 04:49:25
From: Big_Fan
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

multi wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 22:07:18 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org> wrote:
>
> >On 21 Aug 2006 22:17:39 -0700, "Big_Fan" <bigpufan@aol.com> wrote:
> >>multi wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:01:56 +0200, David <dgold1958@yahoo.de> wrote:
> >>> > Well, in golf, we can get pretty close to the conditions of 30 years
> >>> >ago. Why not host a PGA tournament where they have to use the clubs
> >>> >and balls from back then? Of course, you would have to send them to
> >>> >courses hovering around the 7000 yard mark, since they would all lose
> >>> >distance and accuracy.
> >>>
> >>> They had a brief segment on TGC a couple of weeks ago about the
> >>> exhibition in Canada, where Jack, Sergio, Daly, and others hit some
> >>> shots with hickory-shafted clubs. Sergio was knocking them stiff.
> >>
> >>How did the others do? How much did it affect distance? Did Sergio
> >>swing the same?
> >
> >Sorry, they didn't say much more than what I said above. The whole
> >story was less than a minute.
>
> I think I may have read that this (Telus Skins Game) will be televised
> in a few weeks.

True. I looked it up and they actually have some video on their
website. I think they only played a par-3 with the hickories though.

Date: 25 Aug 2006 13:09:47
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

> EGGS-ACTLY!!!
> Even Tiger has problems when he is forced to attack the Sunday pins.
> Personally, I think he plays too cautious in those situations.

This has me thinking that the whole concept of "Sunday Pins" should be
abandoned. Set the course up fair (if difficult) all for days with no
emphasis on any particular day.
Have a good mix of normal diffficulty pins, slightly easier than normal
and a bit more difficult than normal and then simply get out of the way
and see what happens.

Date: 25 Aug 2006 20:44:58
From: greenkeeper
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

In message <iqiue25u6ahskev01a93gj1clq4hs0g6fv@4ax.com >, multi
<multi@asm.org > writes
>On 25 Aug 2006 06:02:44 -0700, "Thor" <thorpub@rsgohio.com> wrote:
>>multi wrote:
>>> On 22 Aug 2006 18:25:53 -0700, "McMahone" <mmcmahone@umhb.edu> wrote:
>>> >The thing to me is that there isn't any sport where the people haven't
>>> >gotten better. It's kind of hard for me to believe that golf is the
>>> >exception.
>>>
>>> Exactly. Johnny Weissmuller became the Tarzan of the Movies because
>>> he dominated Olympic swimming competition, setting dozens of world
>>> records. He was the first person to ever swim 100 meters in less than
>>> a minute. Today, high school girls do the 100 in under 50 seconds.
>>
>>FYI, the women's world record for 100 meters is 51.70 (short course)
>>and 53.42 (long course - set by Lisbeth Lenton earlier this year).
>
>Source, please? Here's mine:
>
>http://www.ohsaa.org/Sports/records/sdrecord.htm
>"...The following records are the Official State of Ohio
>Interscholastic Swimming and Diving State records, as properly
>reported to the OHSAA. Any other listing is unofficial for high school
>swimming and diving and should be so recognized by those interested in
>the sport...
>
>100 Yard Freestyle :49.97 Beth Washut, Ashtabula St. John"
>
>Note that this just happened to be the first hit with "record" in the
>headline of my Google search on "girl's 100 meters high school
>swimming records" which returned over 1.3 million hits. I'm sure
>there are lower times from states with warmer climates. Poking around
>other hits on the first page, I saw this
>http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3883/is_200311/ai_n9337083
>which has a girl in the 11-12 year old group doing 1:01.69, which
>would have won the men's Olympic gold medal any time before 1920.
>

100 metres is about 10% farther than 100 yards.
--
alan

Date: 25 Aug 2006 14:08:56
From: multi
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 20:44:58 +0100, greenkeeper
<greenkeeper@xxxalancampbell.demon.co.uk > wrote:

>In message <iqiue25u6ahskev01a93gj1clq4hs0g6fv@4ax.com>, multi
><multi@asm.org> writes
>>On 25 Aug 2006 06:02:44 -0700, "Thor" <thorpub@rsgohio.com> wrote:
>>>multi wrote:
>>>> On 22 Aug 2006 18:25:53 -0700, "McMahone" <mmcmahone@umhb.edu> wrote:
>>>> >The thing to me is that there isn't any sport where the people haven't
>>>> >gotten better. It's kind of hard for me to believe that golf is the
>>>> >exception.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. Johnny Weissmuller became the Tarzan of the Movies because
>>>> he dominated Olympic swimming competition, setting dozens of world
>>>> records. He was the first person to ever swim 100 meters in less than
>>>> a minute. Today, high school girls do the 100 in under 50 seconds.
>>>
>>>FYI, the women's world record for 100 meters is 51.70 (short course)
>>>and 53.42 (long course - set by Lisbeth Lenton earlier this year).
>>
>>Source, please? Here's mine:
>>
>>http://www.ohsaa.org/Sports/records/sdrecord.htm
>>"...The following records are the Official State of Ohio
>>Interscholastic Swimming and Diving State records, as properly
>>reported to the OHSAA. Any other listing is unofficial for high school
>>swimming and diving and should be so recognized by those interested in
>>the sport...
>>
>>100 Yard Freestyle :49.97 Beth Washut, Ashtabula St. John"
>>
>>Note that this just happened to be the first hit with "record" in the
>>headline of my Google search on "girl's 100 meters high school
>>swimming records" which returned over 1.3 million hits. I'm sure
>>there are lower times from states with warmer climates. Poking around
>>other hits on the first page, I saw this
>>http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3883/is_200311/ai_n9337083
>>which has a girl in the 11-12 year old group doing 1:01.69, which
>>would have won the men's Olympic gold medal any time before 1920.
>>
>
>100 metres is about 10% farther than 100 yards.

Doh! I guess that makes me qualified to work for NASA; the story is
that one of our Mars probes crashed because some rocket scientist made
the same stupid mistake. Still, the point is that HS girls today can
easily beat Weissmuller's times.

Date: 26 Aug 2006 14:06:23
From: Thor
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

multi wrote:
> On 25 Aug 2006 06:02:44 -0700, "Thor" <thorpub@rsgohio.com> wrote:
> >multi wrote:
> >> On 22 Aug 2006 18:25:53 -0700, "McMahone" <mmcmahone@umhb.edu> wrote:
> >> >The thing to me is that there isn't any sport where the people haven't
> >> >gotten better. It's kind of hard for me to believe that golf is the
> >> >exception.
> >>
> >> Exactly. Johnny Weissmuller became the Tarzan of the Movies because
> >> he dominated Olympic swimming competition, setting dozens of world
> >> records. He was the first person to ever swim 100 meters in less than
> >> a minute. Today, high school girls do the 100 in under 50 seconds.
> >
> >FYI, the women's world record for 100 meters is 51.70 (short course)
> >and 53.42 (long course - set by Lisbeth Lenton earlier this year).
>
> Source, please? Here's mine:
>
> http://www.ohsaa.org/Sports/records/sdrecord.htm
> "...The following records are the Official State of Ohio
> Interscholastic Swimming and Diving State records, as properly
> reported to the OHSAA. Any other listing is unofficial for high school
> swimming and diving and should be so recognized by those interested in
> the sport...
>
> 100 Yard Freestyle :49.97 Beth Washut, Ashtabula St. John"
>
> Note that this just happened to be the first hit with "record" in the
> headline of my Google search on "girl's 100 meters high school
> swimming records" which returned over 1.3 million hits. I'm sure
> there are lower times from states with warmer climates. Poking around
> other hits on the first page, I saw this
> http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3883/is_200311/ai_n9337083
> which has a girl in the 11-12 year old group doing 1:01.69, which
> would have won the men's Olympic gold medal any time before 1920.

Those are RSG meters :-)

[other post already pointed out the mistake that yards != meters]

[Also, Johnny's record was long course (50 meter pool) which is
slower since you don't have the extra two turns.]

[I know this had nothing to do with your point, just correcting the
fact]

-- Thor

Date: 27 Aug 2006 16:14:30
From: Tonawanda Kardex
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 27 Aug 2006 16:02:58
From: Perkeno
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

Date: 27 Aug 2006 23:14:12
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

On 27 Aug 2006 16:02:58 -0700, "Perkeno" <per_keno@videotron.ca >
wrote:

>There's much ballyhoo about his "genius", but IMO he just plays safe
>and makes fewer mistakes than the other guys.

A lot of people who qualify for Mensa aren't that smart on the golf
course.

Date: 27 Aug 2006 14:05:31
From: yudever
Subject: Re: Tiger's not a choker, BUT ...

sjaros3@home.com wrote:

--== Nonsense snipped ==--

Tiger had those bogies on Saturday so that he could 'chase' on Sunday
and win; and totally piss you off! (-:

Sanjiv