| |
Main
Date: 21 Aug 2006 21:01:54
From: rowdy rod
Subject: Woods v history same old story
|
Every time Tiger wins another major or tournament, talk invariably
turns to who is the best of all time. Such talk is fruitless. No,
make that dumb. Golf has changed more over the years of its existence
than other major sports. The football field is still 100 yards, still
ten yards for first down. Baseball is still a guy with stick trying to
hit a 95 mph moving object (which despite what Sam Snead told Ted
Williams is still the hardest thing to do in all sport), the bases are
still 90 feet apart. Basketball rims are still ten feet off the
ground. Yeah, there have been some variations in rules, dimensions,
time, etc. But by and large, with changes in equipment, golf has truly
evolved more since the Scots were hitting rocks around pastures with
shepherd's crooks.
During the PGA tournament, they ran a poll asking viewers and cell
phone users (odd since nobody can text message from a PGA tournament
since they confiscate electronic devices) to vote on who was better in
their primes, Nicklaus, Hogan, or Woods. I suspect that the vast
majority of those taking the poll don't even know who Hogan was, never
saw him play, and only know who Nicklaus is because his name is in
front of Tiger as the one with more professional majors. Few people
who claim that Tiger is the best of all time really know, nor care much
about, the history of the game. They claim to, but not really.
We will never know how many wins Bobby Jones would have had if he had
devoted a career to playing golf. Or how Tiger would play with hickory
shafts and featheries. It's always a matter of speculation if Hogan
would have won the Grand Slam if he had been able to get back for the
PGA after the Open Championship in 1953. Can we honestly say Tiger
could recover from the same type of injuries that Hogan did and play
his best golf in constant pain, taped up with a back brace? Will he
have as many Open titles as Tom Morris? Win four PGA's in a row like
Hagen? The simple truth is that we will never know. He is certainly
the best player on the planet right now. Jack Nicklaus was far better
than anybody in his prime. Hogan, Snead, Nelson, Hagen, Jones, and
Morris all were the best of their respective eras. So is Tiger right
now.
It remains to be seen if anyone as capable will come along during his
career. Hogan played against Nelson and Snead. Nicklaus played
against Palmer and Player. Woods has yet to meet his match over a
consistent basis. It might be the likes of Luke Donald or Jeff
Olgilvy, or someone just coming up. Again, we simply do not and cannot
know.
Woods will probably break the records held by the greats of the past.
So what? That is why they are called records, made to be broken and
surpassed. Someday someone will come along and break whatever record
Woods may set, and people in the future will argue then as they do now
about who was the best ever. And the people singing Tiger's praises
today will come up with all kinds of statistics and pointless comments
to try to get people to understand why he always will be.
People still say that Ruth was the greatest ball player ever, though
his record has been surpassed by Aaron and Bonds. Bobby Orr is still
the best defenseman in hockey history. Lou Gehrig is still the iron
horse despite Cal Ripken. Pete Rose and Ty Cobb have the most hits but
they are still jerks. Pele is still revered in soccer. The point is
simply that great players will remain great players regardless of the
sport or the era they play in. Golf is no different and neither is
Woods.
Unless you can invite a time machine and have every player in their
prime hit rocks around a pasture with a shepherd's crook.
|
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 03:04:42
From: GreendistantNOSPAMstar
Subject: Re: Woods v history same old story
|
"rowdy rod" <yougottabekidding@nowhere.com > wrote in message
news:210820061601530686%yougottabekidding@nowhere.com...
clipped
> Unless you can invite a time machine and have every player in their
> prime hit rocks around a pasture with a shepherd's crook.
I quite agree, but it is possible to appreciate the feats of the players of
yesteryear.
I've a collection of clubs, sets of clubs and balls from various eras, and
occasionally I like to get out and see how I score with them. The results
are sobering.
Hitting the old small ball with set of 60s blades is, well...a challenge. I
lose at least 20% in distance and find it much more difficult to get the
ball up, so crafty golf is required. I don't dare hit a gutta percha ball or
a feathery with anything, but I do have a set of 19th century hickories and
play them perhaps once a year with balls of similar vintage. Playing
consistently with clubs and balls such as these is incredibly difficult, and
when you look at the scores that Old Tom Morris made with similar equipment,
you do appreciate how skilled thse guys must have been.
I'd love to see Tiger (or any of today's pros) play 18 holes on a links
course with 19th century gear.
I doubt they'd break par.
GDS
|
| | |
Date: 21 Aug 2006 21:03:12
From: multi
Subject: Re: Woods v history same old story
|
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 03:04:42 GMT, "GreendistantNOSPAMstar"
<Greendistantstar@bigpond.com > wrote:
>I'd love to see Tiger (or any of today's pros) play 18 holes on a links
>course with 19th century gear.
>
>I doubt they'd break par.
You want to know how good Tommy Morris was? He won the 1872 Open by
shooting rounds of 57-56-53!!!
Of course, there were only twelve holes, and there were only eight
guys in the field. But still.
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 04:28:33
From: multi
Subject: Re: Woods v history same old story
|
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:03:12 -0700, multi <multi@asm.org > wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 03:04:42 GMT, "GreendistantNOSPAMstar"
><Greendistantstar@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>I'd love to see Tiger (or any of today's pros) play 18 holes on a links
>>course with 19th century gear.
>>
>>I doubt they'd break par.
>
>You want to know how good Tommy Morris was? He won the 1872 Open by
>shooting rounds of 57-56-53!!!
>
>Of course, there were only twelve holes, and there were only eight
>guys in the field. But still.
The first Open played on an 18-hole course was at St. Andrews in 1873.
They played 36 holes in a single day, and the winner was hometown hero
Tom Kidd, who shot 91-88. 26 players in the field.
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 00:35:15
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Woods v history same old story
|
"rowdy rod" wrote:
<snip >
> People still say that Ruth was the greatest ball player ever, though
> his record has been surpassed by Aaron and Bonds. Bobby Orr is still
> the best defenseman in hockey history. Lou Gehrig is still the iron
> horse despite Cal Ripken. Pete Rose and Ty Cobb have the most hits but
> they are still jerks. Pele is still revered in soccer. The point is
<snip >
Ty Cobb is not a jerk. He's at 6 under, every day
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2006 15:16:26
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Woods v history same old story
|
rowdy rod wrote:
> . Jack Nicklaus was far better than anybody in his prime.
Perhaps, but his prime only lasted a couple of years ('73-'74).
Both Palmer and Casper won more in the 1960's. Then Jack and Trevino
were the two to beat. And then (Johnny Miller and) then Tom Watson,
who owned Jack, BTW.
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2006 14:06:47
From: Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Subject: Re: Woods v history same old story
|
rowdy rod wrote:
> Every time Tiger wins another major or tournament, talk invariably
> turns to who is the best of all time. Such talk is fruitless. No,
> make that dumb. Golf has changed more over the years of its existence
> than other major sports. The football field is still 100 yards, still
> ten yards for first down. Baseball is still a guy with stick trying to
> hit a 95 mph moving object (which despite what Sam Snead told Ted
> Williams is still the hardest thing to do in all sport), the bases are
> still 90 feet apart. Basketball rims are still ten feet off the
> ground. Yeah, there have been some variations in rules, dimensions,
> time, etc. But by and large, with changes in equipment, golf has truly
> evolved more since the Scots were hitting rocks around pastures with
> shepherd's crooks.
>
> During the PGA tournament, they ran a poll asking viewers and cell
> phone users (odd since nobody can text message from a PGA tournament
> since they confiscate electronic devices) to vote on who was better in
> their primes, Nicklaus, Hogan, or Woods.
Amazing that they chose to put hogan on the list instead of snead.
People want to deify hogan because of how he fought back from the
car-crash injuries but that's irrelevant in my book.
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 11:22:36
From: The_Professor
Subject: Re: Woods v history same old story
|
rowdy rod wrote:
snippet:
The only historical figure in golf comparable to Woods is Bobby Jones.
Jones won his first major in 1923 (US Open) and his last in 1930. In
that period he played in 7 US Opens and 3 British Opens (he played on
one other brit open and 3 other us opens prior to this). He won 4 of
the US Opens and all 3 of the British Opens. 7/10. Only Woods has ever
come close to doing anything like this, winning 7/11 majors in his well
publicized streak.
IMHO, the streak Woods has that will be hard if not impossible to
duplicate is 6 USGA National Championships in a row. 3 US Junior ams
and 3 US ams in succession.
Also just MHO, but Woods has yet to reach his prime. He could rattle
off several majors in a row, maybe like 10 or so. He doesn't have to
play his best to win, he just has to play smart and no one can beat him.
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 17:59:53
From: DanL
Subject: Re: Woods v history same old story
|
> Baseball is still a guy with stick trying to hit a 95 mph moving object
> (which despite what Sam Snead told Ted
> Williams is still the hardest thing to do in all sport)
Try being a soccer goalkeeper saving a penalty kick from a world-class
player. Harder than hitting a fastball, IMO.
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 09:42:38
From: Loudon Briggs
Subject: Re: Woods v history same old story
|
rowdy rod <yougottabekidding@nowhere.com > wrote:
Hogan, Snead, Nelson, Hagen, Jones, and
>Morris all were the best of their respective eras. So is Tiger right
>now.
One fact that I've not seen mentioned... Hagen had a great career,
apprx. 25 years. Over those 25 years, he had no 4th major to play as
The Masters was not around, so his record can't be compared to the
others. As dominant as he was in his era, given 25 more cracks at a
major he could have added to his record considerably.
--
Loudon R. Briggs larebe@bbz.net Phoenix, AZ
"How Can You Not Like A Game Where It's Okay To
Get Teed Off, Tote A Six-Iron, Shoot Birdies,
and If You're Under Par It's A Great Day!"
(from "Frank & Ernest" by Bob Thaves -- used with permission)
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 14:39:56
From: multi
Subject: Re: Woods v history same old story
|
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 09:42:38 -0700, Loudon Briggs <larebe@bbz.net >
wrote:
>One fact that I've not seen mentioned... Hagen had a great career,
>apprx. 25 years. Over those 25 years, he had no 4th major to play as
>The Masters was not around, so his record can't be compared to the
>others.
You could make a similar case for anyone before Nicklaus. Travel was
so expensive and tiring that few Americans played the British Open,
and vice versa. It was like a Muslim going to Mecca --- something you
wanted to do at least once in your life, but once was enough. Nelson
and Snead only played the Open once in their primes; Hogan only played
it once in his life. Even Palmer skipped several during his prime.
The PGA didn't really get going until 1919, and the Masters not until
1934, and each of the majors were cancelled at least once during WW II
(the Open was cancelled six years in a row). That's why I can never
understand why so many people are willing to take "pro majors won" as
the sole criterion of greatness. If we're going to ignore the fact
that the old-timers didn't have the same opportunity, then it makes
just as much sense to make "most weeks as official WGR number one" as
the sole criterion. So here are the best golfers of all time:
1. Tiger
2. Norman
3. Faldo
4. Seve
5. Ian Woosnam
Jack isn't even on the list. End of discussion. The numbers don't
lie.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 10:13:01
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: Woods v history same old story
|
In article <vsbme29odog76h4a5affg7i5ve54101o79@4ax.com >,
Loudon Briggs <larebe@bbz.net > wrote:
> rowdy rod <yougottabekidding@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hogan, Snead, Nelson, Hagen, Jones, and
> >Morris all were the best of their respective eras. So is Tiger right
> >now.
>
> One fact that I've not seen mentioned... Hagen had a great career,
> apprx. 25 years. Over those 25 years, he had no 4th major to play as
> The Masters was not around, so his record can't be compared to the
> others. As dominant as he was in his era, given 25 more cracks at a
> major he could have added to his record considerably.
You could also argue that the PGA was not a major in Hagen's
time. I'd go even further and argue there were only 2 majors in
that era: the two Opens. The PGA and the two Ams of that time
excluded too many of the world's best golfers by fiat.
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 08:25:51
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Woods v history same old story
|
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:13:01 -0700, The World Wide Wade
<waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net > wrote:
>
>You could also argue that the PGA was not a major in Hagen's
>time. I'd go even further and argue there were only 2 majors in
>that era: the two Opens. The PGA and the two Ams of that time
>excluded too many of the world's best golfers by fiat.
And whichever Open was on the other side of the pond was expensive to
play.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 06:08:01
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: Woods v history same old story
|
rowdy rod wrote:
> Every time Tiger wins another major or tournament, talk invariably
> turns to who is the best of all time. Such talk is fruitless.
And yet is a staple of sports fans world round. It is the basis
of much sports discussion. And this is a discussion forum so......
> No,
> make that dumb. Golf has changed more over the years of its existence
> than other major sports. The football field is still 100 yards, still
> ten yards for first down. Baseball is still a guy with stick trying to
> hit a 95 mph moving object (which despite what Sam Snead told Ted
> Williams is still the hardest thing to do in all sport), the bases are
> still 90 feet apart. Basketball rims are still ten feet off the
> ground. Yeah, there have been some variations in rules, dimensions,
> time, etc. But by and large, with changes in equipment, golf has truly
> evolved more since the Scots were hitting rocks around pastures with
> shepherd's crooks.
But over the span of comparison, it hasn't changed much more than
American football. It is probably on par with changes in baseball.
Basketball I'll agree hasn't changed as much except for the 24 second
clock which changed scoring patterns drastically.
[snip]
> It remains to be seen if anyone as capable will come along during his
> career. Hogan played against Nelson and Snead. Nicklaus played
> against Palmer and Player. Woods has yet to meet his match over a
> consistent basis. It might be the likes of Luke Donald or Jeff
> Olgilvy, or someone just coming up. Again, we simply do not and cannot
> know.
This is the argument that keeps being made but as Annika keeps
pointing out, it is flawed in many ways. Jack played between many
of the names you list, not "with" them. And the comparisons are made
predominately of Jack in his 30's. Tiger has only begun that phase.
And I'm afraid familiarity breeds contempt here. In the future, Tiger
will be listed as having played "against" Duval, Mickleson, Sighn,
Els, and future young players yet to be named. Many of these
guys are headed for the Hall of Fame.
>
> Woods will probably break the records held by the greats of the past.
> So what? That is why they are called records, made to be broken and
> surpassed. Someday someone will come along and break whatever record
> Woods may set, and people in the future will argue then as they do now
> about who was the best ever. And the people singing Tiger's praises
> today will come up with all kinds of statistics and pointless comments
> to try to get people to understand why he always will be.
We'll see when that comes. I'm sure there will those that will.
However,
much like Tiger faces a few records that seem hard for him to break,
Tiger has a few that will be tough to break. His consequetive cut
streak
is one of them. If he ever does the Grand Slam, that will be another.
Heck, the Tiger slam is going to stand for a long time I suspect.
Tiger has done more than "break some records". Tiger owns a
large number of records all at the same time, and many may not
be broken, even by himself, for many, many years. And quite
possibly not by one person.
> People still say that Ruth was the greatest ball player ever, though
> his record has been surpassed by Aaron and Bonds. Bobby Orr is still
> the best defenseman in hockey history. Lou Gehrig is still the iron
> horse despite Cal Ripken. Pete Rose and Ty Cobb have the most hits but
> they are still jerks. Pele is still revered in soccer. The point is
> simply that great players will remain great players regardless of the
> sport or the era they play in. Golf is no different and neither is
> Woods.
Woods is different in one way. He is dominating golf like no one
ever has. He is winning something like 25% of his tournaments.
It's higher in the majors. It may get higher yet if he doesn't make
more "swing changes". It would be interesting to see what the
best winning percentage of any former "great" was over any 10
year period. Tiger is on track to sustain this over a 20 year period,
if not improve on it.
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2006 23:32:32
From: gpsman
Subject: Re: Woods v history same old story
|
rowdy rod wrote: <brevity snip >
> Pete Rose and Ty Cobb have the most hits but
> they are still jerks.
Careful what you say about "PETE"... unless you know him. :^)
Plenty of fine men do jerkish things in their lifetimes (including me),
I don't think that qualifies them as "jerks".
-----
- gpsman
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2006 23:19:03
From: gp
Subject: Re: Woods v history same old story
|
I agree that most who formulate these polls don't know about golf
history. As far as Hogan, he deserves to be "deified" mainly because
he not only came back and played one of the best stretches of golf in
history, from a life-threatening car accident, but he was no doubt, in
his prime the best friggin' ball-striker in history. Nobody - past or
present - can equal what Hogan did in his long game. If a poll were
held amongst tour players and so-called "golf historians", they'd
probably vote Hogan as the best ball-striker in history. Please read
some of Hogan's biographies (I did), to grasp what I'm saying here.
Prior to his 1st major, Hogan lost both the US Open and Masters due to
poor putting, and after his last major victory in '53, still contended
in the majors, but putting was his undoing in the final rounds of each.
Hogan got to this level not on talent - he was no "child prodigy" by
any means like Tiger - but from sheer determination and work ethic.
What he did in his career would be equal to say, a Billy Andrade, a
tour journeyman, going from a guy with just a couple of wins, to a 9
time major champion.
I do agree that Snead should be on that "list" as well due mainly to
his longevity in the game - I believe he had victories in his '60's as
well, but "the experts" probably feel his lack of a grand slam on his
resume probably exclude him.
Furthermore, with regards to putting, which I feel is one aspect of the
game that's gotten more difficult (faster greens, etc), the fact that
Tiger is not only the best ball striker of HIS ERA, but the best
pressure putter as well. No disputing this..... Imagine if Hogan were
known as much for his putting (ala TW and Jack), as his ball-striking.
Hogan probably would've had 12 to 15 majors on his resume (and not 9).
ps- after his accident, Hogan would follow a ritual of wrapping both
knees (in addition to his back), and still swung the club with great
velocity despite being in constant pain.
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> rowdy rod wrote:
> > Every time Tiger wins another major or tournament, talk invariably
> > turns to who is the best of all time. Such talk is fruitless. No,
> > make that dumb. Golf has changed more over the years of its existence
> > than other major sports. The football field is still 100 yards, still
> > ten yards for first down. Baseball is still a guy with stick trying to
> > hit a 95 mph moving object (which despite what Sam Snead told Ted
> > Williams is still the hardest thing to do in all sport), the bases are
> > still 90 feet apart. Basketball rims are still ten feet off the
> > ground. Yeah, there have been some variations in rules, dimensions,
> > time, etc. But by and large, with changes in equipment, golf has truly
> > evolved more since the Scots were hitting rocks around pastures with
> > shepherd's crooks.
> >
> > During the PGA tournament, they ran a poll asking viewers and cell
> > phone users (odd since nobody can text message from a PGA tournament
> > since they confiscate electronic devices) to vote on who was better in
> > their primes, Nicklaus, Hogan, or Woods.
>
> Amazing that they chose to put hogan on the list instead of snead.
> People want to deify hogan because of how he fought back from the
> car-crash injuries but that's irrelevant in my book.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2006 12:02:24
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Woods v history same old story
|
On 21 Aug 2006 23:19:03 -0700, "gp" <gopher70@sbcglobal.net > wrote:
>As far as Hogan, he deserves to be "deified" mainly because
>he not only came back and played one of the best stretches of golf in
>history, from a life-threatening car accident, but he was no doubt, in
>his prime the best friggin' ball-striker in history. Nobody - past or
>present - can equal what Hogan did in his long game. If a poll were
>held amongst tour players and so-called "golf historians", they'd
>probably vote Hogan as the best ball-striker in history. Please read
>some of Hogan's biographies (I did), to grasp what I'm saying here.
I wonder who would get the most votes if Moe Norman was on the ballot.
The game right now doesn't reward the best ball-striking as much as it
does reasonable ball-striking combined with greater length. Maybe it
didn't back then either, but nowadays players work on length more,
giving up some accuracy. With this in mind, it could well be that
players with the potential to be better ball-strikers than Hogan will
choose a different game.
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2006 23:18:38
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: Woods v history same old story
|
In article <210820061601530686%yougottabekidding@nowhere.com >,
rowdy rod <yougottabekidding@nowhere.com > wrote:
> Hogan, Snead, Nelson, Hagen, Jones, and
> Morris all were the best of their respective eras.
No they weren't. Hagen was not better than Jones in Hagen's era.
Lots of other lapses in your article.
|
|
