Question - Tiger\'s competition vs other greats competition
This is a little off of your topic HDPM, but you reminded me of something I thought of recently.
I've heard people say in the past that what Tiger has done in recent years is more impressive than what past greats like Hogan, Nicklaus, Palmer, etc did because Tiger has so much more competition. The argument goes something like, the average players these days is so much better than just 20 or 30 years ago, and there are so many more players capable of winning any given week now.
While I don't disagree that there are more good players today than when Nicklaus was in his prime, I think more and more that is a dumb argument. The reality is when Nicklaus played something close to his best golf, Palmer (in Jack's early years), Watson, Trevino, Floyd and a number of others could challenge him. When Tiger plays anything close to his best game he wins going away.
Just to be clear, I’m not trying to say past greats were better than Tiger is. I become more convinced of the opposite every week. What I’m trying to say is, Tiger winning despite so much great competition isn’t what makes him great. What makes him great is the fact that he has no competition.
By the way, I agree with you. I’m sure Tiger has 1953 in mind. He seems to always be aware of his place in history.
|