Is Tiger Woods the best golfer ever???

[rhet]

I'd go with Roger Federer on that one

 

 

but as far as the best golfer ever he needs to pass 18 Majors first

 

 

Nadal is better.

[ORS]

That's a poorly developed opinion. The elites just below Nicklaus during his era were better, in terms of success, relative to Woods' peers. Playing against a higher level of competition makes winning more difficult. Look at who's careers and peaks coincided with Jack's: Player (9 majors), Watson (8 majors), Palmer (7 majors), Trevino (6 majors), Ballesteros (5 majors), Floyd (4 majors). Woods has 4 guys with 3 (Els, Singh, Harrington, Mickelson), and only two of them look like they might win another.

[rhet]

Seeing no-names win majors certainly weakens the case for the current generation of elite players.

[TheKilo]

That's a poorly developed opinion. The elites just below Nicklaus during his era were better' date=' in terms of success, relative to Woods' peers. Playing against a higher level of competition makes winning more difficult. Look at who's careers and peaks coincided with Jack's: Player (9 majors), Watson (8 majors), Palmer (7 majors), Trevino (6 majors), Ballesteros (5 majors), Floyd (4 majors). Woods has 4 guys with 3 (Els, Singh, Harrington, Mickelson), and only two of them look like they might win another.[/quote']

 

Could you make the case, however, that the talent pool is much richer nowadays than it was back then because more young people are being turned on to golf than ever before? Al lot of that has to do with the popularity of Tiger - guys like Hunter Mahan and Anthony Kim were in their early teens when Tiger broke on to the scene.

 

Add in all of the new international players and you could make the case that the playing fields today are much tougher than they were back then. At the very least it explains why some of Tiger's closest peers don't have the number of majors that Nicklaus's peers did.

[ORS]

Seeing no-names win majors certainly weakens the case for the current generation of elite players.

It does. Also, Jack finished 2nd at majors 17 different times. A weaker field, like Woods' peers, and how many those are wins? How many of Woods' 14 are 2nd place finishes if he's facing a high caliber of competitors? I'm not suggesting I know the answer to these questions, but an objective look at it points to Jack facing tougher competition, and this shouldn't be ignored.

[redsoxrules]

Nadal is better.

 

LOL wut , I'd like to see your argument on that

[ORS]

Could you make the case, however, that the talent pool is much richer nowadays than it was back then because more young people are being turned on to golf than ever before? Al lot of that has to do with the popularity of Tiger - guys like Hunter Mahan and Anthony Kim were in their early teens when Tiger broke on to the scene.

 

Add in all of the new international players and you could make the case that the playing fields today are much tougher than they were back then. At the very least it explains why some of Tiger's closest peers don't have the number of majors that Nicklaus's peers did.

It's a possibility. That said, I think it was clear then and it's clear now who the elite players were/are. The 1960-1980 field elites were just more consistent in the application of their talent. Thus, they won more, and they challenged the king more often.

[TheKilo]

It's a possibility. That said' date=' I think it was clear then and it's clear now who the elite players were/are. The 1960-1980 field elites were just more consistent in the application of their talent. Thus, they won more, and they challenged the king more often.[/quote']

 

I just think there's a lot of other factors that seem to balance everything out. You say Tiger doesn't have elite challengers, I say the depth of the talent makes that the case. You can say the equipment is beefed up, I can say the courses are the same.

[rhet]

LOL wut ' date=' I'd like to see your argument on that[/quote']

 

Nadal leads their overall head-to-head series 13–7.

[a700hitter]

He never has been great coming from behind, but he has been great at finishing when he has been ahead. This weekend he did something he hasn't done previously. He choked.

[ORS]

I just think there's a lot of other factors that seem to balance everything out. You say Tiger doesn't have elite challengers' date=' I say the depth of the talent makes that the case. You can say the equipment is beefed up, I can say the courses are the same.[/quote']

I've never said the equipment was an issue. My comment about wanting to see Jack play in his prime with modern equipment was meant to convey that I'd like to see him at his peak against Tiger now at his peak. That's all.

 

As far as depth of talent, I'm still going to disagree. I can recall several instances of Woods' peers having either the lead or a good shot at it on the final day. They failed to win. Not because of some person from the "depth of talent" pool went off and threw a 66 up in the 4th round, but because they failed to take advantage of the opportunity. In some cases, because they outright crapped all over themselves on Sunday. That's not "depth" of talent. That's a lack of true elites.

[redsoxrules]

Nadal leads their overall head-to-head series 13–7.

 

James blake has a winning H2H VS nadal

 

does that mean he's better than Nadal?

[rhet]

James blake has a winning H2H VS nadal

 

does that mean he's better than Nadal?

 

Is it 13-7?

[redsoxrules]

Is it 13-7?

 

most of those wins are on CLAY

[BoSox21]

Here are the Nadal vs. Federer stats:

 

Clay courts: Nadal 9–2

Hard courts: 3–3

Grass courts: Federer 2–1

[rhet]

Here are the Nadal vs. Federer stats:

 

Clay courts: Nadal 9–2

Hard courts: 3–3

Grass courts: Federer 2–1

 

If Federer can't even beat Nadal, how could he think he could have beaten Laver, Borg, McInroe or Lendl?

[BoSox21]

Sampras never won the French Open yet everyone considers him to be in the conversation for greatest tennis player of all time

[yankees228]

Sampras never won the French Open yet everyone considers him to be in the conversation for greatest tennis player of all time

 

In my opinion it's between Federer and Laver. We all know Federer's resume, but Laver's is probably more impressive. He has eleven grand slam titles. He is one of only two male tennis players to win the single season grand slam, and he did it twice. However, he won the 1962 grand slam as an amateur and the 1969 grand slam as a professional. The reason why this is significant is that he was not allowed to compete in the grand slams during most of the 1960s (his prime) because they only allowed amateurs to compete. Laver turned pro following his 1962 season.

[Mr Crunchy]

Jimmy Connors was awesome,Borg retired in his prime and Ivan Lendl dominated for a long long time but couldnt win on grass.Laver played with a wooden racket and the only time I saw him play Connors demolished him quickly, sort of like Ali vs Holmes or Holmes vs Tyson or Ali vs Patterson ,the changing of the guard of if you would. Mens tennis is just too much different today than it was 45 or even 25 years ago..Too much power in the game, 1st serve success is generally an ace and the volley aspect of the game is minimul.Its like comparing football players from the 60s to todays players, it simply isnt a fair ananolgy due to the size these guys now possess and the rackets they use.

[yankees228]

Jimmy Connors was awesome' date='Borg retired in his prime and Ivan Lendl dominated for a long long time but couldnt win on grass.Laver played with a wooden racket and the only time I saw him play Connors demolished him quickly, sort of like Ali vs Holmes or Holmes vs Tyson or Ali vs Patterson ,the changing of the guard of if you would. Mens tennis is just too much different today than it was 45 or even 25 years ago..Too much power in the game, 1st serve success is generally an ace and the volley aspect of the game is minimul.Its like comparing football players from the 60s to todays players, it simply isnt a fair ananolgy due to the size these guys now possess and the rackets they use.[/quote']

 

So the only choice you're left with is simply comparing their success during their respective eras. Using that logic, I feel that the two best players ever, for reasons already mentioned, are Roger Federer and Rod Laver.