Very interesting (stupid) therory about golf and sports in general

["Richard"]

These are all the views of a crazy stats professor and not mine...

In my stats class my prof said something that was very interesting. The best golfer in the world... we haven't seen him/her yet. Its safe to say we will NEVER see another player in the NHL as good as wayne gtrezky. In the history of the NHL there has only been one player he could even compare to grtzky and thats Mario and even then its not contest... Its also safe to say that there will never be another Cyclist as good as lance armstrong.

If you take a child, put him into hockey at a really young age, have him play hockey his whole life, he won't be as good as wayne unless its a kid that is physicaly able to pass wanye's ability. Wayne is close to the ceiling of hockey potiental, if you take a kid, put him on a bike he wont be as good as lance, there is something about his lungs or blood (I can't remember which) that only 0.01% of the worlds population has which means physically there are only 700,000 people out of 7 billion that are even on the same playing field as him from birth, now are all 700,000 of them going to realize this? go into cycling? NOPE. How many of these births are going to be in 3rd world countries? Lance may not be at the ceiling for potiential in his sport but he is pretty damn close and if there are only 700,000 in the world that can even reach him what are the chances they will become cyclists? What are the chances they will even be able to afford a bike? what are the chances they won't die...

There are a ton of children out there right now who with the right coaching, right work outs, right technology will be better than tiger or jack but will they win more majors than either? probably not because there will be a tour filled with this post tiger golfers who are amazing.
-------------

OK this part is me now

He is under the impression there is one person in the world who has the potential to be the best in the world at his sport. Is it tiger? Maybe...Is it jack? can't be, tiger is already better than him. Next question, how do you messure this when you are comparing players from different eras? decades? Stayed tuned, he is going to talk about it next class. Funny thing is that this has nothing to do with out class, he is just killing time since we are way ahead of the night time lecture. Needless to say, me and only a handful of students showed up for this lecture on sports... he is a bit
of a sports nut


Anyway, here are my thoughts on it and I mentioned it to my prof as well...

Take lebron james... is there anyone on the PGA tour stronger than him? faster than him? has a higher ratio of fast twitch muscles? Are you telling me that if his mother had put golf clubs in his hands instead of a basketball he would be the best player in the world right now? NO WAY! Because he can pass well and has soft hands that means he is going to have a feel for the game? Maybe he was born with basketball IQ, I dont' know but that doesn't mean he will have golf IQ. Not sure he grew up in the hood but lets assume he did (not trying to offend anyone, its just for arguement sake). Would he have had the same passion about golf as he did about basketball? we've all see the videos of tiger when he was a child. He was obsessed with the game from an early age and I think to find a golfer better than him you would have to start with a child that is passionate about the game at that age or earlier and then PRAY he has a golfers body, golf IQ, and everything else. ANyway, very interesting discussion... that 2 hours went by so fast!

[Kilroy]

Masaging stats to prove a point is an art form. AKA "Spin doctoring"

I look forward to the next instalment.

["Richard"]

I'm sure if he wanted to he could show stats that supported that being 6;4 is better than being 6'8 in the NBA....

Anyway, don't have this class again until next monday so stay tuned.

This is what I told him... (not that I beleive it myself). What is the difference between wayne and tiger? tiger started golf around the same time wayne started hockey. Neither one of them is the biggest player, strongest player but they are both currently the bes players to play their sport (tiger is argueable I know). So, why do you calim that wayne is at the ceiling ot hockey potiential and tiger is not?

What is different about them?

His reply... was that

wayne is playing a sport that has been hugely popular in canada and russia for decades, the sport was at its height in populiarty and in participation and wayne has still managed to be the top player even afte the hockey boom. Golf on the other hand exploded onto the scene in 1996-1997 when tiger turned pro and since then has been growing exponentially. So, tiger would be more the gordie howe of golf... I just looked at him. Was he being serious or just saying stuff to debate?

I already know what I'm going to say to him next week....

Maybe tigers influence in the game will breed better golfers but unless they start off really young and play as hard as he did I can't imagine someone coming along that will dominate the sport like he has over the past 10 years. How do you determine if someone is better? The only way to do it is via stats. Compare tigers stats to jacks stats. The stats I'm talking about are wins, winning percentages and maybe scoring and putting averages because as the equipment has improved... the course have gotten more difficult so the scoring and putting stats might be valid if the improvments in equipment have been offset by increased difficulty in courses which seems true since scores haven't changed much over the past 30 years. Put jack on these new courses in his prime with his old equipment and he doesn't finnish top ten, maybe doesn't even make the cut (thats being a bit extreme). The only way to compare players from different eras is to see how they played against the people in their own era correct? So yes, there will be a player down the road who is better than tiger is/was in his prime but who cares? All that matters is how does this guys stats compare to tigers when he is done playing. More wins? more majors??

[Golfbum]

Tiger is already better than Jack?

Did I miss watching Tiger win 18 Majors?

Gee I thought golf exploded when Arnie came along and tournaments started to be televised.

Maybe golf exploded for junior golfers when Tiger came along. Anyone I play golf with was not influenced by Tiger. I honestly do not know a single golfer who states "Tiger is the reason I play golf"

[jvincent]

The only way to compare players from different eras is to see how they played against the people in their own era correct?

So tough to find something to quote.

On this particular point, somebody did this comparison for Wayne vs Mario. The conclusion that was reached was that Mario, compared to his peers was better than Wayne was.

So which one was better? They played at the same time, but at different points in their careers.

This is the kind of arguement that sells lots of beers and band-aids.

[dbleber]

This is the kind of arguement that sells lots of beers and band-aids.

So funny because its true !

[davemiddle]

When comparing jack and tiger Remember the equipment Tiger plays the best that there is on tour or at least its very close Jack on the other hand being fiercely loyal to macgregor played there equipment If you read any t of the history in regards to equipment – the macgregor balls that jack used were considered to be a very large handicap against him Its hearsay but golfer in that are have said that jacks record would have beemn much better if he had used the same quality of ball as the rest of the field

[Thimble]

in order for a sport to produce excellence it must be accessible to many. in this regard, golf is far behind the other sports, and i do believe that one day there will be a golfer who will be superior to tiger/jack/etc. in ability.

not only must it be accessible, it must be rewarding - perhaps the two go hand in hand. soccer/football is hugely accessible and has a huge potential reward. in this sense, soccer has produced excellence far surpassing most sports.

it's simple statistics: if 100 people play, then the best player will tend to be of greater excellence than if only 10 people play.

in golf's favour, golf is an individual sport. hockey is a team sport. how good would gretzky have become without kurri, messier, lowe, fuhr, coffey, anderson, etc. etc. he was playing with a pretty stacked deck. in that, lemieux's accomplishments can be seen in a brighter light as he had nowhere near the same kind of support. outside of the oilers, gretzky accomplished only a stanle cup final.

woods accomplishes what he does by himself. nobody is there to catch him if he falters. in this, golf really shines among all sports. golf is not about defeating your opponent. it's about defeating your inner fears. anyone who has putted under pressure knows how difficult something so simple can become. self doubt is the ultimate killer in golf.

so, while golf's inaccessibility means that the greatest is yet to come, it's individualism means that we get to see the greatest of what's available shine. do we have to imagine "what if tiger had better teammates?" like we do with so many other professional athletes? no.

[whatsup]

I have taken many stats courses in my time and I have to say that most stats profs are a bit out there (not saying that is a bad thing). You have to remember one thing that might skew his point of view, these guys/gals are all numbers people, therefore they do not take into account social factors. I'm sure if you spoke to him one on one he would be able to prove most of his theories "statistically", which is quite different from how most of us qualify or quantify anything. The important factor (excuse my geekiness) is that stats can be used for more than just boring math questions. Once you master the concepts, you can apply them to everyday life that gives you a different perspective. If your prof can prove some of his theories "statistically", I would applaud him for being able to take such a difficult and sometimes frusterating subject and make it interesting. Good luck.

["Richard"]

Tiger is already better than Jack?

Did I miss watching Tiger win 18 Majors?

Gee I thought golf exploded when Arnie came along and tournaments started to be televised.

Maybe golf exploded for junior golfers when Tiger came along. Anyone I play golf with was not influenced by Tiger. I honestly do not know a single golfer who states "Tiger is the reason I play golf"

Tiger doesn't need to pass 20 (including us amateur) to be considered better than jack... he has 13 in only 8 years! Jook jack 25 years to get 18... sorry but there is no comparision between the two. Golfbum, when tiger passes Jack is that what will offically make him better than him? That is like saying wayne Gretzsky wasn't better than gordie howe until be broke is total points record. That is just silly.

Here are some interestin stats for you. In the first 24 majors they have played in the first 6 seasons, tigers scoring average is 5.25 strokes less than jacks. Tiger has won 10 of the 24 majors entered I think Jack had 6 or something.

Nicklaus missed two cuts in 24 events; Woods was 24 for 24.

Jack does have a lot of second place finnishes in majors (19) tiger only had 2 - Good for jack

Total wins - Jack 73 - alot more than 8 years
Tiger - 47 - 8 years


ALso, not sure where I read this but Golf exendature (globally), since golf started being televised, has never increased like it has in the past 8 years... (this includes club sales, green fees, balls, aperal, spending by courses and so on) What has happened in the last 8 year? Tiger woods. He is the reason for the large TV PGA/network TV deals. More people have started playing golf since tiger burst onto the scene than in any other 8 year period prior to tiger being a professional. Without tiger prize money wouldn't be where it is, the TV deal wouldn't be as high as it is, product sales wouldn't be this high either..

Is tiger my fav player? after reading all this you might think he is but Vijay singh and els are my fav players



As for Mario being better than gretz, I couldn't agree more. I just didn't want to have my head bitten off. I think if you took mario and put him on the oilers and took wayne and put him in PIT... the single season point record wouldn't be 215 points, it would be 240 points. I think mario would have scored over 3000 points had the stayed healthy and played on a team with as much fire power is wayne but thats just my opinion. If someone tells me gretz is the best player in the world, to me its pretty close between the two. Mario had a bad back, cancer and played on a crap team... to hard to compare so its more personal opinion

PS - Golfbum, I don't know anyone who says any particular golfer is the reason they started playing golf. You start playing golf because you enjoy watching it, or you played it once and fell in love with it.. or because a friend got you into it.

["Richard"]

Also would like to add (so its not completely one sided)

Jack has either one of finnished second (19 TIMES) in a major 37 times....

Tiger? only 15 times (SECOND TWICE)... jack took 26 years and tiger took 8. Maybe that is a better comparison... I don't know. Golf is also a game where you can't only compare wins because 1 guy against a field, the best guy doesn't always win... rarely wins actually.

But even this stat, tiger is on pace to have more wins+second place finnishes

Anyone know how many years jack had already been playing when he won his first major or did he win it in his rookie year?

["Richard"]

in order for a sport to produce excellence it must be accessible to many. in this regard, golf is far behind the other sports

so, while golf's inaccessibility means that the greatest is yet to come, it's individualism means that we get to see the greatest of what's available shine. do we have to imagine "what if tiger had better teammates?" like we do with so many other professional athletes? no.

Golf is also very expensive. If you want to take it seriously you have to take lessons, get a coach, maybe even go to a golf school. Practise and pay for the green fees as well. Its not cheap. Many kids who COULD grow up to be the best player ever might not even try the sport because it is to expensive. I'm going to add this to the things I am going to say to my prof on monday Good one

[Golfpeasant]

The physical development of humans today far exceeds anything of 200 years before: genetic selection; medicine; life span; training; muscle development; etc.

Whos to say that genetic engineering wont be around in about 200 years.

Add advanced technology, enhancements in physiology, and drugs, and who knows...

["Richard"]

^^ agreed but I still say over the course of his career no one will dominate as tiger will/has.

[jonf]

tiger has only been playing for 8 years as you stated. Nobody knows yet whether he's going to be able to last at this level for another 10 or more. He's great now, but even over the last 2 seasons it has become obvious that he is not as far ahead of the field as he once was. There is no guarantee that he will reach Jack's level in wins or majors.

["Richard"]

There are no garantees about anything but even if tiger were to die tomorrow, some (not me) would argue that he is the greatest golfer ever in history. The way he played last year was amazing (2 majors and runner up in one). I think he is tied with bobby jones right now for second most majors... and he has only been playing 8 years. I think its pretty safe to say that tiger will pass jacks total of 18 majors (if you DON'T count the US amateur but even more likely to pass it if you do count since he has one more than jack). He may not blow away the competition like he used to but everyone knew he wouldn't be able to do that forever. The pros practise even harder now than pre-tiger. They workout more now as well. Anytime tiger takes to the course he is even money in vegas against the field. That is amazing. You are betting $100 to win a $100 for tiger to win... you are betting that not a single person from the field will beat him. Sounds like a suckers bet and if it were possible to take the other side of that bet and bet that someone will beat tiger I would take it everytime (unfotunately you can only bet on a player) but this season I would already be 0-2

I don't know as much about golf as most of you on this site since its only my second year but I've been reading a lot, learning about the history of the game and from the sounds of it, the best player of his time was bobby jones.. better than tiger and better than jack compared to his field. The single greatest season was byron nelson in 1945. 18 wins, 11 in a row, finished second seven times, 19 consecutive rounds in the 60s. In a three-year stretch for Nelson in which he won 34 times and finished second 16 times. In that three-year stretch, Nelson finished out of the Top 10 exactly once. (taken from http://golf.about.com/od/golfersmen/...p10years_3.htm).

PS Tiger woods is the only golfer in history to hold the titles in all four professional majors titles (calander grand slam??)

I guess we could argue all day as to who the greatest golfer is/was but until someone passes jacks 18 majors many will think its him for obvious reasons. I am certain tiger will pass the 18 majors mark within the next 8 years and if he plays like he played last year and the start of this year... if could be much much less than that. But here is my question, there are many people out there who don't like the way the game is going. Longer means better. They don't like the new technology and so on, so if/when tiger does pass jack, in your mind will that be enough to call him the greatest golfer ever? If not, what would he need to do to prove to you that he is. Sure he hasn't done it recently but he did win a major by 15 strokes and another by 8...

4 more hours and I can go to sleep, I hate school

[jonf]

In some ways, I'd like to see them shorten the courses, and bring back older equipment - steel shafts, persimmon (sp) woods, older irons etc. I'd love to see what the players these days could do with crappy clubs. Not necessarily anything that will impede your game, but nothing that will improve it either, if that makes any sense. The trouble is, most amateurs would hate playing with such equipment, and it would take a lot of the fun out of the game for us (there are plenty on here who could attest to that). I for one can't really afford any super high end clubs, but am amazed every time a try a friends new driver at how much of a difference it makes. I always outdrove my buddy, significantly (and he had a nicer driver). He got a new TM driver a couple years ago, would make bad contact, and would consistently outdrive me...pissed me off something awful. I can't help but wonder what golf would be like if they forced everyone to use the same set of irons and woods - THAT would be a true test. Will never happen, but It would be sweet

["Richard"]

Well they are talking about "shorting courses" by putting more strick limmits on balls. I mean, these guys are just going to get bigger and faster and stronger and then what? 8000 yard courses? Just change the balls so that they don't go as far. My biggest thing with any sport is having it set up so things are comparable between guys past, present and future. If the guys can hit farther now, make the courses longer, they obviously aren't long enough, the scores have come down a lot over the years. More than 3 stroke diff from tigers 67.xx to travinos 70.xx... or make the courses shorter, put restrictions on the balls so they don't go as far so that way the guys who aren't long still have a shot at winning. When did golf become a game that only long hitters can win? but that is where we are headed I think. Make the courses shorter, put restrictions on the balls so they don't fly as far and let the little guys have a shot at some money

2005 - Tiger Woods, 68.66
2004 - Vijay Singh, 68.84
2003 - Tiger Woods, 68.41
2002 - Tiger Woods, 68.56
2001 - Tiger Woods, 68.81
2000 - Tiger Woods, 67.79
1999 - Tiger Woods, 68.43
1998 - David Duval, 69.13
1997 - Nick Price, 68.98
1996 - Tom Lehman, 69.32
1995 - Steve Elkington, 69.92
1994 - Greg Norman, 68.81
1993 - Nick Price, 69.11
1992 - Fred Couples, 69.38
1991 - Fred Couples, 69.59
1990 - Greg Norman, 69.10
1989 - Greg Norman, 69.49
1988 - Chip Beck, 69.46
1987 - Dan Pohl, 70.25
1986 - Scott Hoch, 70.08
1985 - Don Pooley, 70.36
1984 - Calvin Peete, 70.56
1983 - Raymond Floyd, 70.61
1982 - Tom Kite, 70.21
1981 - Tom Kite, 69.80
1980 - Lee Trevino, 69.73
1979 - Tom Watson, 70.27
1978 - Tom Watson, 70.16
1977 - Tom Watson, 70.32
1976 - Don January, 70.56
1975 - Bruce Crampton, 70.51
1974 - Lee Trevino, 70.53
1973 - Bruce Crampton, 70.57
1972 - Lee Trevino, 70.89
1971 - Lee Trevino, 70.27
1970 - Lee Trevino, 70.64
1969 - Dave Hill, 70.34
1968 - Billy Casper, 69.82
1967 - Arnold Palmer, 70.18
1966 - Billy Casper, 70.27
1965 - Billy Casper, 70.85
1964 - Arnold Palmer, 70.01
1963 - Billy Casper, 70.58
1962 - Arnold Palmer, 70.27
1961 - Arnold Palmer, 69.85
1960 - Billy Casper, 69.95
1959 - Art Wall, 70.35
1958 - Bob Rosburg, 70.11
1957 - Dow Finsterwald, 70.30
1956 - Cary Middlecoff, 70.35
1955 - Sam Snead, 69.86

["Richard"]

double post *edit*

although hockey needed the rule changes to make the game better, how to you compare stats from past to present now? If the average scores in golf were the same from year to year then you could compare but you can't cause they are lower, does that mean the players are better or deos it mean even with the courses being longer they don't make up for the advances in technology?

[jonf]

Well, with hockey, they have simply returned the game closer to the way it had been played before the mid-90s.

I think one of the 'problems' with golf, is that you can't simply extend courses to 8000 yards, because all but the pros won't be able to play them. I suppose you could have a few courses particularly for pros, but I think there needs to be some sort of balance between amateur and professional. You can't cater only to pros, or only to amateurs. If you extend courses, you're doing a disservice to amateurs, but if you don't, players will continue to decimate courses. If you start to put to many limits on equipment, although it might be good for the pro game, a lot of amateurs who don't have the time to put into the game, will feel short changed - lets face it, most of us need all the help we can get. And the nature of golf is that professionals and amateurs ALL have to play by the exact same rules - that's the only way that it works.

Personally, as I have stated, I would love for there to be a few standardized, equal sets of clubs to choose from. I'm a competitive person, and don't think I (or anyone else) should be at a disadvantage because they don't have the most up to date equipment. The athlete should win the game, not the equipment.

[Kilroy]

put restrictions on the balls so they don't go as far so that way the guys who aren't long still have a shot at winning.

Not really, they too would be limited by the limited ball and hit it shorter too.

Balls should be limited in distance to a standard. Feel and spin could stiill be fiddled with, but who really wants to see all the hazzards taken out of play? Does it really make sense to have guys who play the game with just a driver and a lob wedge?

The great courses are becoming obsolete. Augusta for example has been lengthened a couple of times over the last few years. They have no more capacity to lengthen it any more, so now what? Making golf course developers deal with the problem is not the way to move forward into the future.

[BC MIST]

How do you determine if someone is better? The only way to do it is via stats. Compare tigers stats to jacks stats. The stats I'm talking about are wins, winning percentages and maybe scoring and putting averages because as the equipment has improved... the course have gotten more difficult so the scoring and putting stats might be valid if the improvments in equipment have been offset by increased difficulty in courses which seems true since scores haven't changed much over the past 30 years. The only way to compare players from different eras is to see how they played against the people in their own era correct? All that matters is how does this guys stats compare to tigers when he is done playing. More wins? more majors??

It is obviously impossible to compare great players of different eras using statistics like wins and scoring averages and come to a conclusion that one was better than the other. Equipment has changed and course conditions have changed and both have affected the statistical results of golfers from many eras. Who cares?

Why not look at the great players and compare what they do/did well, or poorly, and perhaps we can learn something from these that may help our own games. Jack had a poorer swing than Tiger, but perfected the compensations necessary to be the better ball striker of the two, by far. Jack was a weak wedge player, by his own admission. Tiger if a far better putter than Jack was, but also has the benefit of better greens on which to putt.

What sets these players apart from their peers is their golfing minds. The supreme confidence that each has/had in their respective abilities to pull off the required shot when needed. They never developed the FEAR mode of thinking that infects all of us and a lot of the Tour professionals. Neither of these players is/was the best ball striker, putter, wedge player and so on, but their ability to make the shot when the pressure was on sets them apart. From Tour players to Saturday morning golfers, we all play golf with some kind of pressure, but when most become aware of the pressure, "the house of cards crumbles."

[themob]

People have a given % of fast twitch vs slow twitch muscles. There is still debate in the kinesiology/medical world whether you can increase the number of muscle fibers by doing activities.

Noone is born with golfing ability, or driving ability, or basketball abilities. You are born with certain numbers of muscle fibers. How you develop and use them is up to training.

Just like it has been proven that learning a second language at a young age causes children to be much much better at critical thinking and multitasking, so does video game playing. Does it mean that the best video game players know french, and spanish? No. But they could probably learn it faster than most.

Athletes have developed great hand-eye coordination - and in general, speed and agility too - and so can apply these learned traits many ways. If Tiger had decided to play football at 12 instead of golf, could/would he have been a good quarterback? Probably.

Noone is pre-disposed to being a certain type of athlete. If nothing else, the ones that make it are due to pure drive and dedication. The ones that don't make it are due to their own choices.

[Shivas Irons]

The physical development of humans today far exceeds anything of 200 years before: genetic selection; medicine; life span; training; muscle development; etc.

Whos to say that genetic engineering wont be around in about 200 years.

Add advanced technology, enhancements in physiology, and drugs, and who knows...

Not to discount what you are saying but it is the human mind that has made the most advancements. The physical abilities of humans have improved due to medicine, training, and nutrition however animals such as race horses have these same advancements available and haven't improved their performance. The difference is in the mind.

Remember the 4 minute mile? It used to be considered impossible until Roger Bannister did it and then it suddenly became quite possible.

So there WILL be a golfer better than Jack and/or Tiger, there WILL be a hockey player better than Gretz, and there WILL be a cyclist better than Lance. There is no limit to human achievement, except those paradigms that your mind puts in the way. Athletes will continue to improve because of their mind.

[dH]

I agree on all counts; we will advance but I also see Thotho's point in regards to probability for a Tiger, Jack, Wayne lots of variables have to be in place and work out just the way they did or any one of thsoe greats could of been an accountant or something else... Will there be a greater; probably just because tehre are SOO MANY people but the probability of anyone being that is extremely low .

I love stats!

[mberube]

The single greatest season was byron nelson in 1945. 18 wins, 11 in a row, finished second seven times, 19 consecutive rounds in the 60s. In a three-year stretch for Nelson in which he won 34 times and finished second 16 times. In that three-year stretch, Nelson finished out of the Top 10 exactly once. (taken from http://golf.about.com/od/golfersmen/...p10years_3.htm).

Amazing but they always forget to mention that this happened at the end of a long war. The fields were not very strong.

Mike

[BC MIST]

Noone is born with golfing ability, or driving ability, or basketball abilities. You are born with certain numbers of muscle fibers. How you develop and use them is up to training.
Noone is pre-disposed to being a certain type of athlete. If nothing else, the ones that make it are due to pure drive and dedication. The ones that don't make it are due to their own choices.

Are you suggesting here that "all men are created equal," athletically, and that the only reason that some become highly successful athletes and some don't, is based on drive, training and dedication?

[themob]

Not all men. Some people have more muscle fibers than others. More is obviously better, and more conducive to that person being a physically superior athlete.

Given the same genetic base of abilities, the separation of two people with identical muscle fiber makeups is the development of skills as per training and determination.

Then there is the mental aspect. I was not considering it at all in my original statement and still make no statement as to its importance in high performance athletes.

[Andru]

It is obviously impossible to compare great players of different eras using statistics like wins and scoring averages and come to a conclusion that one was better than the other. Equipment has changed and course conditions have changed and both have affected the statistical results of golfers from many eras. Who cares?

Why not look at the great players and compare what they do/did well, or poorly, and perhaps we can learn something from these that may help our own games. Jack had a poorer swing than Tiger, but perfected the compensations necessary to be the better ball striker of the two, by far. Jack was a weak wedge player, by his own admission. Tiger if a far better putter than Jack was, but also has the benefit of better greens on which to putt.

What sets these players apart from their peers is their golfing minds. The supreme confidence that each has/had in their respective abilities to pull off the required shot when needed. They never developed the FEAR mode of thinking that infects all of us and a lot of the Tour professionals. Neither of these players is/was the best ball striker, putter, wedge player and so on, but their ability to make the shot when the pressure was on sets them apart. From Tour players to Saturday morning golfers, we all play golf with some kind of pressure, but when most become aware of the pressure, "the house of cards crumbles."

I have to disagree. Many including some of the legends have said Tiger is by far one of the best ball strikers the world has every seen. He's on par with Hogan from people who have seen both. Only Gary PLayer has said Hogan would eat Tiger for lunch. That I have a hard time believing. Seeing that Tiger holds a scoring record in all 4 majors.

I do agree however that since Jack has 18 majors he has an edge in the intangible you mentioned. The ability to make the shot when it matters the most. He did it right until the end when he drained a birdie putt at St. Andrews to end his playing career. Just amazing.

[Andru]

For everyone
There's two questions here.

You have to define 'the best'. Jack is the best tournament golfer right now. That's not disputable. He has 18 majors and playied at a high level for a very long time.

If you define the best as The one who has the most golf game. That's different. I suppose you'd have to compare ability and statistics. In other words. Break down golf into categories and compare. Driving the ball, fariway woods, long irons. mid irons short irons wedges, sand play, scrambling, putting etc etc etc. That's a debate now.

If you simple define the best golfer as the one who wins the most. Then I suppose the answer is clear for now. Though holding all 4 professional majors at once would suggest, for a year at least, that Tiger was the best of all time.