View Full Version : tiger woods..he the man....

03-01-2003, 01:19 PM
/forums/images/icons/smile.gif just amazing how controlled and excellent tiger is on a consistent basis...he is a phenomenon to marvel at....lol..gl /forums/images/icons/diamond.gif

03-01-2003, 02:07 PM
Yeah, not too bad this morning. Still some matches left though. He's the clear favorite though.

Bill Murphy
03-01-2003, 08:52 PM
Boy, Butch Harmon & Curtis Strange are right; Adam Scott IS a pretty pitiful short putter for a 22 year old pro. Yipped three shorties agin TW. Kid's a great long putter, tho, and has a carbon coby swing of HIM. Kid showed a lot of nad when he birdied 17 after HE stiffed his tee shot.

Toms nearly let it get away, but showed his experience. He looks like he's aged ten years after the food poisoning. Tiger should roll tomorrow, but who knows?

BTW you were right about Mrs Cink, I caught their commercial during the match. /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif I've tried to find a pic of Mrs Mayfair, but the only one I saw was lousy. Ken Venturi couldn't stop drooling during Mayfair's playoff win over Tiger at the '98 Nissan. /forums/images/icons/blush.gif

Of course, Billy Mayfair'd be a babe magnet, wealthy pro golfer or not. /forums/images/icons/cool.gif BTW I love Mayfair, always root for him. Didja see the picture of him working out next to that hottie college or LPGA pro in USA Today last week? /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif

03-01-2003, 10:26 PM
Nope missed it. Billy Mayfair a babe magnet???????? Amazing what a Tour card and mansion in a warm climate will get you. Elin looking very good in jeans next to Kultida this morning. /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif

03-02-2003, 03:34 AM
If Tiger wins tomorrow, he will have 36 tour wins, which would put him tied with Lloyd Mangrum for 11th all-time.

Just ahead of him:
11 Lloyd Mangrum 36 wins
9t Tom Watson 39 wins
9t Gene Sarazen 39 wins
7t Walter Hagen 40 wins
7t Cary Middlecoff 40 wins

After next year, only Billy Casper, Byron Nelson, Arnold Palmer, Ben Hogan, Jack Nicklaus, and Sam Snead will be ahead of Tiger. And he'll be only 28 years old.

03-02-2003, 03:41 AM
And its far harder to win now than it was then. That makes it all the more impressive.

03-02-2003, 05:39 AM
/forums/images/icons/wink.gif city girls just seem to find out early...hey watch the match..lol..gl /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

03-02-2003, 11:32 AM
2 observations about this post.
1. Tiger plays so well that many of his opponents play like they are intimidated by him, they say they are not but, while they are very good themselves, it is like playing with only 9 fingers to tigers 10.

2. When the PGA Tour added additional money a few years ago(we call it the Tiger fallout) because of increased ratings by the viewers for the new #1 player in the world, all of the regulars on tour make so much money now, not just on the course, but in endorsments, they really are right behind baseball and basketball players for pay at the end of the year, and these guys can't get released from the team because the coach doesn't like them. They do have to maintain their playing privledges based on the money list.
Back to the girls, have you ever seen a professional athlete have a so so looking girlfriend or wife? don't think so, I am sure it happens, but not very often.

Roy Munson
03-02-2003, 08:53 PM

03-03-2003, 01:52 AM
Why do you think it's far harder to win now? More foreign players on the tour?

Jack's competition was guys like Palmer, Casper, Boros, Player, Littler, Floyd, Trevino, Miller, Watson, Kite and Wadkins. I've lumped a couple of different eras in there, but I don't see that quality of competition on the tour now.

Having said that, I think Tiger is certainly the best player ever. Not yet the greatest, because that's also a function of overall wins, major wins, and longevity.

03-03-2003, 07:45 AM
/forums/images/icons/cool.gif you're right, andy, tiger still has to pass the major test..."the test of time"...but i bet he does...gl /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

03-03-2003, 11:15 AM

I'm having flashbacks to our baseball discussions, only more so.

Golf pre-1950 was essentially a joke IMO. At least relative to today. Lets talk 50's-70's.

The talent pool has increased both domestically and abroad. The money has increased dramatically. These two things alone essentially guarantee that todays players are better. The fields also have more entrants, the courses are tougher, the greens are faster, the rough is longer. They do video breakdown of their swings, have swing coaches and have extra time to practice before they take their private jets to the next event. If they need to work on something, they just skip the next event because they don't need the paycheck to put food on their families tables.

I think some of these "average" players today would absolutely kick ass back then. Take a mediocre guy like Furyk. I'd be very surprised if he didn't kick the snot out of anyone not named Nicklaus, and IMO he'd certainly do very similar to guys named Palmer and Player (maybe better). Yes, with the same equipment as they were using.

I think it would be overly generous to suggest that the fields they were beating in 1960 were similar to todays Nationwide Tour.

Ray Zee
03-03-2003, 11:28 AM
yea clark, but back then as you say they didnt have all the technology to get their game in shape. or the good equipment. its the same in all sports. nowadays players are so much more athletes than back then. why palmer, nicklaus even smoked on the course and were way overweight. you can never really compare past generations to present as all the conditions change. the greens were real slow and bumby. would the new players be able to handle them who knows. maybe nowadays only those that can put on fast greens get to be top pros. still the new athletic athletes are hands down better at competing at any game.

03-03-2003, 12:46 PM
There are a lot of reasons why it is harder to win. But a major factor in the average Tour event is the depth of field combined with the all-exempt format. Up until the all exempt top 125 in the '80's, only 60 players were exempt. A lot of these guys kept their exemption just because they were in the top 60. It was much much easier to stay in the top 60 than to get there. Now 125 guys are exempt and more than that can play the events through various exemptions without Monday qualifying. Who'd more of a threat to contend on Sunday - a guy who was 85 on the money list and has won on Tour who flies first class to a tournament, plays a practice round and a pro-am round, stays in a good hotel, has a courtesy car etc... OR a non exempt rabbit who drove 14 hours to the tournament, had a 7:00 tee time in the monday qualifier, made it by a shot, and is staying in a motel 6 with two other guys? Back in the day, 30 or 40 guys showed up who might win, and fewer had a really good shot. Now 100 guys can win every week. If Tiger only played in limited-field events like the Tour Championship or WGC events, do you think his winning % would be lower or even higher? I say higher. Kind of like playing poker hands multi-way or heads-up. Just the fact there are more players out there does damage. And when they have relative financial security and a desire to win, they become very dangerous players who are tough to beat. The foreign players are really starting to have an impact too, especially the ones playing here full time. The average is way better on the Tour.

03-03-2003, 10:38 PM
My 2 cents. The best at every era would always be competitive. They are winners. But the number of people capable of winning increases every year.
Also, Furyk could only be considered "mediocre" when compared to the top 5 in the world. He is a very strong golfer. ( I know you were actually complimenting him).
And the Nationwide Tour today is MUCH deeper than the PGA Tour in the mid'60s. I'm not criticizing the top golfers of that era. But for many reasons, there was NO depth.

Roy Munson
03-03-2003, 11:15 PM
I would beg to differ that a multiple tour winner such as Jim Furyk could be described as mediocre. Especially when he plays in LV.