Wither Woods?

That's not an entirely bad combination of life activities. Throw in "fuck" and you've hit the Man's Dream Trifecta.

PS -- If anyone sucked it this weekend, it's Charles Howell III.

 

Okay, I know I hate Tiger, and I'll admit that I missed most of today, but all week I heard that "Tiger doesn't give up, he won't give up," and it made me want to hurl.

If the guy never gives up, he would have once -- just once -- coming from behind.

Nothing better than knowing he had to put that jacket on Phil.

 

Superman - not human.
Tiger Woods - human.

 

This is the second thread today ripping Tiger for no come-from-behind major wins.

But as far as ripping him for this tournament, I haven't seen anybody point out that The Masters champ has come from the final pairing for 15 YEARS IN A ROW!

So apparently, it's not just Tiger. If you're behind at Augusta and need to be aggressive to catch up, there are too many holes that will kill you.

 

It's now up to 16 years -- at least according to the graphic CBS put up as Phil started his round.

 

Problem is he does have come-from-behind victories at Augusta. He was down 6-7 strokes against DiMarco going into round three last year and it wasn't like DiMarco faded and flamed out. I don't think he had the lead going into the third round of three out of his four Masters. The field isn't a bunch of clubs pros, at least not most of them.

 

I'm so sick and tired of this argument. It's asinine.

You know why the guy hasn't come from behind to win any majors? Because he's already got a shitload of major victories where he DIDN'T HAVE TO.

Seriously, when this becomes the biggest indictment against a player, his detractors are officially scraping the bottom of the barrel.

 

Dear CitizenTino:

No, what's asinine is continuing to fellate this guy like he's the second coming of Christ himself.

He's the greatest player of his generation. He has chalked up some supremely impressive victories, Majors included. He owns a desire to win that borders on a sickness.

But he is not infallible, and he's sure as shit not this robe-draped oracle that the rest of us should bow down to.

Repeating again and again that "Tiger doesn't give up" doesn't make it so. Fact is, the guy has given up. The guy has choked. The guy has lost. Not always, and not all at once, but sometimes.

He is a really, really good golfer, nothing more, nothing less.

P.S. Tom's Place: I was at my in-laws.

 

In a comparison with Nicklaus... for the claim of Zeus atop Olympus... it's absolutely germane.

Here are other key stats of comparison through the first 44 pro majors for each:

Tiger: 10 wins, 2 2nds (in previous thread I had missed last year's US Open), 22 top 10 finishes, 2 missed cuts, average finish when making cut: 14.8  

Jack: 8 wins, 8 2nds, 26 top 10s, 6 missed cuts, avg. finish: 9.7

But HERE is where it gets a little dicey for the Tiger's-the-greatest-ever crowd:

In Jack's next 44 majors (at the end of which he was 41 years, 7 months old), he had 9 wins, 9 2nds, 38 top 10s, 1 missed cut, avg. finish: 6.4.
Masters: 2 wins, 3 2nds, 10 top 10s, avg. finish: 5.6
US: 2 wins, 1 2nd, 10 top 10s, avg. finish: 6.1
British: 1 win, 4 2nds, 10 top 10s, avg. finish: 4.6
PGA: 4 wins, 1 2nd, 8 top 10s, 1 missed cut, avg. finish: 9.5

He averaged finishing 6th from 31 through 41. That's incomprehensible to me.

Jack's figuratively in the clubhouse. Woods has a lot of holes to play, needing to avoid injury and distraction, or not leading after 54 holes.

Obviously Tiger is far and away the best player of the past 25 years.

Just possibly (a bone to the dolts who shouted me down on the other thread) not the past 50.

No shame there.

 

I know this is harping on a worthless point. And comparing Tiger and Jack has been done ad nauseum (although deservedly so). But I just don't see how Jack is so much better through his first 41 majors.

Here's TPoD's tale of the tape (through 41 because Tiger's only played 41 after today. 44 gives Jack one extra win and two extra top-10s. Let's see what Tiger does the rest of this year, then we'll compare through 44):

Wins
Tiger 10, Jack 7 = Edge: Tiger (who gets a 13-9 edge if you count U.S. Amateurs, like Jack does.)

Runner-ups (Tiger didn't get his third "top-2" because some guy holed out on 18 today. And that's Tiger's fault, how?)
Jack 8, Tiger 2 = Edge: Jack (I guess)

Top-5s
Jack 21, Tiger 18 = Edge: Jack

Top 10s
Jack 24, Tiger 22 = Edge: Jack

MCs
Tiger 1, Jack 6 = Edge: Tiger

Avg. finish
Jack 8.31 (35/41 made-cuts), Tiger 15.3 (40/41 made-cuts) = Edge: Jack

Best stretch of wins
Tiger 7-of-11 (1999-2002), Jack 4-of-10 (1965-67) = Edge: Tiger

Most consecutive top-10s
Tiger 8 (1999 U.S.-2001 Masters), Jack 6 (1967 U.S.-1968 British) = Edge: Tiger

Career grand slams
Tiger 2, Jack 1 (Jack picked up his second in his 48th major, 1972 PGA) = Edge: Tiger

The only category where Jack holds a strong edge over Tiger is in runner-ups. Tiger's three wins are nearly 50% more than Jack's total. (Jack had a few more MCs early in his career than Tiger did, but I think that's a mostly worthless category. However, Tiger's only MC came at the '96 Masters, before he turned pro, while Jack missed the '63 U.S., '67 Masters and '68 PGA in his prime. Tiger's come close, but still hasn't actually missed a major cut in his prime.)

Obviously, much of Jack's legacy is because of what he did in his 30s, and those three major wins after 40. Jack had a 4-of-8 major win stretch in 1970-72 (still not as good as Tiger's 7-of-11), then an astounding 13 straight top-10s in 1973-76 (which blows away Tiger's 8 top-10s). But much of Tiger's hype -- and part of his legacy -- is built on what he did before he turned 20. He won 4 straight Junior Worlds ('88-91), 3 straight U.S. Junior Amateurs ('91-93), 3 straight U.S. Amateurs ('94-96), plus an NCAA individual title ('96) -- that's a tremendously underrated accomplishment for a child-turned-teenager. Tiger has only enhanced his legacy by what he did in his 20s, in his first decade as a pro.

But Jack's still the greatest golfer of all time ... for now.

Jack set the bar VERRRRY high from age 30-40, so we'll see where Tiger's at in 2016. He's certainly put himself in position to make a run for that title over the next decade, but of course, anything can happen.

To say one of them is so much better than the other through their first decade on the tour, however, is absolutely ludicrous.

 

       This argument puzzles me. If the whole point is that we have to wait a decade to see where Tiger shakes out vis a vis Nicklaus, why don't we just do that? Why draw conclusions from one day where Woods lost his putting touch? He had comapny there, too. In fact, I believe Mickelson was the only contender not to have at least one three-putt bogey on Sunday. This is odd, considering that the blown three-foot par putt used to be the trademark of "why Phil will never win a majior" which some idiot I see in the mirror wrote at the 2001 Open.