FanNation - The Republic of Sport

What I would give to see Tiger play in the 70s instead of today. Different equipment and, more importantly, guys like Nicklaus, Watson, Trevino and a few others in their prime and not afraid of anyone else one bit. Even with all his talent, 90% of the guys fold like deck chairs the minute they see in name on the leaderboard and that helps him a lot. The old pros respected each other. They didn't stand in awe of anyone in particular. Big money has made today's pros too soft.

Man Crush anyone? Tiger is not the most Underrated player on the tour. If it wasn't for him golf wouldn't have the exposure it has now in popular culture

QUOTE:

Originally posted by

(...) and you're wrong.

About what?

Underated to the point of $99.7 Million.......I would love to be so underated.

QUOTE(#2):

Originally posted 07:05 AM ET  07.02 by Domi28

Man Crush anyone? Tiger is not the most Underrated player on the tour. If it wasn't for him golf wouldn't have the exposure it has now in popular culture

I'm not sure that's totally true, Watson, Palmer, Payne Stuart, Nicholas, Chi Chi, etc. were pretty well known and had large followings. The main exposure was from the media driving his following. He brought people that would not normally follow golf, right or wrong they are fair weather fans.
This Pop Culture is racially driven, facts are facts, it is his racial make-up that all the media coverage is about.
Now, I'm taking nothing away from the incredible tallent Tiger has but golf had its faithful following before and will have after Tiger.

QUOTE(#6):

Originally posted 07:45 AM ET  07.02 by iamwhoiam

I'm not sure that's totally true, Watson, Palmer, Payne Stuart, Nicholas, Chi Chi, etc. were pretty well known and had large followings. The main exposure was from the media driving his following. He brought people that would not normally follow golf, right or wrong they are fair weather fans.This Pop Culture is racially driven, facts are facts, it is his racial make-up that all the media coverage is about.Now, I'm taking nothing away from the incredible tallent Tiger has but golf had its faithful following before and will have after Tiger.

You are more then likely right and every generation of sports need their own heros, the current one is Tiger.

I think Mr. Goydos just wants to have a special place in Tiger Woods '11

QUOTE(#7):

Originally posted 08:00 AM ET  07.02 by Domi28

You are more then likely right and every generation of sports need their own heros, the current one is Tiger.

very true, and he's not a "Chip, Hunter, Buffy, etc", people relate.

Tiger Woods is not underrated. He is the greatest golfer of our era maybe ever. That distinction does not make you underrated.

Just talking about this is stupid. Goydos must be bored.

Hey iamwhoiam - racial makeup? What about the makeup of his record from the time he was about eight until today? Man, you're way out on that one. Would he have the same record back in the Nicklaus days? - maybe not, but neither would Nicklaus if Tiger were around on Sunday. Same goes for Palmer and Watson. Chi Chi, Payne Stewart? -- both very good golfers, but are not in Tiger's class at any time. It's always hard to do comparisons across time periods, but this comparison may be one of the easiest--I think in any era, Tiger would still be considered the best.

I completely agree that Tiger, despite all his accomplishments, probably is underrated. Unlike the other poster, I believe it's much less likely that Nicklaus, Palmer, Trevino, et al, would have dominated this error the way Tiger has. Back in the day those legends played, there was really only a handful of guys that could compete with them. Today, the depth of talent on the tour is astounding, with any number of players capable of winning each week.

QUOTE(#12):

Originally posted 08:26 AM ET  07.02 by JustOpinions

Hey iamwhoiam - racial makeup? What about the makeup of his record from the time he was about eight until today? Man, you're way out on that one. Would he have the same record back in the Nicklaus days? - maybe not, but neither would Nicklaus if Tiger were around on Sunday. Same goes for Palmer and Watson. Chi Chi, Payne Stewart? -- both very good golfers, but are not in Tiger's class at any time. It's always hard to do comparisons across time periods, but this comparison may be one of the easiest--I think in any era, Tiger would still be considered the best.

the "racial mack-up" comment means that is why the media coverage blew up, The media is always ready and willing to grab at something that is not concidered the "norm". He didn't need the help and the media has nothing to do with his sucess.
As far as how things would shake out if he were playing with the other greats in their prime....there is no way to GUESS haw it would turn out, you assume he would still be the greatest, I'm not convinced either way. I do know there are some incredible players in history that played the game very well. I think the current talent pool has something to do with the number of wins he enjoys though.
He MAY be the greatest ever, but we will never know. To say he is, is pure speculation.

make-up

QUOTE(#13):

Originally posted 08:33 AM ET  07.02 by Don Carter

I completely agree that Tiger, despite all his accomplishments, probably is underrated. Unlike the other poster, I believe it's much less likely that Nicklaus, Palmer, Trevino, et al, would have dominated this error the way Tiger has. Back in the day those legends played, there was really only a handful of guys that could compete with them. Today, the depth of talent on the tour is astounding, with any number of players capable of winning each week.

I agree Don. Just like in any other sport the talent pool has increased exponentially from past years due to training, performance enhancing drugs and other variables. The ability to outreach your opponents as much as he has is crazy talk.

QUOTE:

Originally posted by

I don't agree that "big money" has made "today's pros too soft."

Did you see the look on Ricky Barnes face after his $559,000 2nd place finish at the Open and his comments "I'm in the British and Masters", he was competely satisfied and although dejected he couldn't hide his excitement.

I agree with Stranger, when the 110th guy on the money list makes over a million/year there is no pressure to win. Look at Brett Quigley, the guys never won on tour and this year he's already at $970,000 in earnings. Yes he would like to win but in the mean time he'll just keep cashing $150,000 check every other week and be just fine.....these guys are all fattened by wealth!

.....If the criteria to stay on tour was you had to win once a year then I think you'd see a lot more guys with a different approach, including Mr. Goydos himself who plods around the course as if he;s not good enough to win and his "I'm just happy to be out here approach" would get thrown right out the window if he "HAD" to win.

QUOTE:

Originally posted by

That's right, and I believe "era" is the appropriate word."Big money" didn't start a few years ago."Big money" over the years has brought us Olazabal, Els, Ballesteros, Faldo, Langer, Norman, etc., making any given tourney field more competetive.

Well said Helen!

How can you be the #1 golfer in the world and be underrated? It defies logic, it defies reason and it defies the English language.

Forget the money. . .they all had money. Tiger is winning now because his competition is realtively non-existant. There are some young guys coming on, but for the most part, Tiger doesn't have near the competition that Nicholas had.

It angers me when Tiger measure himself to Nicholas by counting the number of major victories. Nobody playing now has more than a handful. Tiger is the best right now. . .absolutely no question about that (which makes this article stupid) but to say he's the best ever is a much much more difficult question to answer. If you factor in today's equipment and Tiger's competition vs Jack's competition, I personally think Nicholas is the better golfer.

QUOTE:

Originally posted by

That's right, and I believe "era" is the appropriate word."Big money" didn't start a few years ago."Big money" over the years has brought us Olazabal, Els, Ballesteros, Faldo, Langer, Norman, etc., making any given tourney field more competetive.

1995, the year before Tiger joined the tour, Greg Norman finished at the top of the money list with $1,654,959. Four years later, Tiger lead with $6,616,585. What Norman made in 1995 would have put him 50th on the money list last year. Then you have a guy like Mike Weir who made over $3 million last year without winning a tournament. Bill Haas made over $1 million with two top-ten finishes. I don't think Tiger has to worry about him. Lucas Glover won the US Open because he got the breaks weatherwise and made some putts.

By the way, the guys you mentioned all hit their prime before Tiger came along. They still just made a little bit more than what today's journeymen do these days. Guys like Goydos, who made $1.6 million last year with three top-ten finishes, have every reason to treat Tiger they way they do. He's made a lot guys who just want to make cuts rich

Underrated? Whatever. Tiger is the poster child for absolute excellence in his given sport - is he not? There are only a handful of these type of athletes ever - Ruth, Ali, Gretzky, Jordan, How would Tiger do in the 70's? I believe he would be just as successful. The greater the talent the less you need to rely on advanced equipment to succeed. There was a larger gap bewteen Tiger and the rest of the PGA Tour in his first 5-years on tour - before the huge leaps in equipment came about - namely the big hot drivers and hybrids. This is why I think getting rid of of square grooves is only going to benefit Tiger since he already plays the highest spinning ball on Tour and doesn't use or rely on those grooves to help him. 2010 is going to be a huge year for Tiger!

Golf did have a "faithful" following pre-Tiger but golf DID NOT have the excitement nor the global following since he burst on to the scene. Tiger was really the first true athlete to play on the PGA - add in exanded media and the firery fist pumps and next thing you know people are tuning in on Sunday afternoons just to see what how he's doing. He's really the first golfer that 's actually been able to "move the meter" as far as TV ratings go not too mention PGA tour prize money increased 10-fold since Tiger has been around.

That said, I believe all that prize money has made the average PGA Tour pro soft. There are too many PGA golfers that are content with top-10 finishes knowing they'll easily earn over million dollars for the season and retain their card. Finish 2nd or 3rd and you're easily banking $350K - $500K which is way more than Nicklaus earned in several seasons on Tour. Back in the early days and even in the 70's and 80's you HAD to finish in the top-10 or even win if you wanted to make a lot of money.