After Young Eldrich's impressive win at the U.S. Open this past weekend, many commentators are asking the obvious question: Does Tiger's win at Torrey Pines make him the greatest golfer to ever play the sport?
Of course the answer to this question is subjective, kinda like asking "which quarterback is the greatest of all time." Answer: Joe Montana - not even a debate......Of course, old geezers will tell you the Johnny Unitas or Otto Graham were the greatest ever. New geezers will say Brett Favre or John Elway were the greatest ever. Those geezers would be wrong (but I digress).
The point is: whether or not someone is the greatest is all subjective. The only comparison we can make is between the records a certain player has set. Even though the records may have been set in a different era, those records provide a somewhat objective comparison between players. Which then begs the question: Who is better, Tiger or Jack?
There are three things I want you to think about, generally:
1. NBC had a stat yesterday that shows Nicklaus' dominance during his time. Nicklaus finished in the top 10 in a major a record 73 times over a 25 year professional playing career. Tiger has finished in the top 10 in a major 28 times, in a 12 year playing career. In order for Tiger to catch Nicklaus, Tiger would have to finished in the top 10 in every major from now until 2019. That is pretty amazing, but consider that would put Tiger at 43 years of age, and only a 23 year playing career. My point is that Tiger's career by this measure is on pace to better the Golden Bear's.
2. Tiger is third on the all-time wins list with 65 wins. He is 8 behind Nicklaus and 17 behind the great Sam Snead. To put Tiger's career into perspective, consider that Tiger has played in 222 events, and won 65 of those events, giving him a "winning percentage" of 29%, roughly.
Nicklaus won 73 times over his 24 year playing career, but played in 480 events, for a "winning percentage" of 15% (I didn't count the PGA events Nicklaus played in after 1986, otherwise Jack's winning percentage would be much lower).
Snead won 82 times over a 29-year playing career in which he played in well over 500 events, which puts Snead's "winning percentage" at best 16%.
And with Tiger, you cannot assume that he is going to slow down. If this past week's performance is any indicator, Tiger at 75% is better than every other golfer on the Tour at 100%. There is no reason to believe that Tiger isn't going to blow past Snead's all-time wins record.
Comparing winning percentages, in my opinion, is a more relevant statistic than merely comparing the number of wins each player has, because it may very well be that there are more events now than there were 50 years ago, which means Tiger has more opportunities to win. Winning percentage, on the other hand, is compares how each player did in relation to the number of events he entered, which I think is more stati
stically relevant.
3. There is no question that Tiger is one of the greats of all-time. But whether he is the greatest -- at least in the world of golf -- depends as much on the records he sets as it does on the legend Tiger creates and the reputation he earns. Sam Snead, Bobby Jones, Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus won on the golf course and won off the golf course by becoming part of social lore. In other words, the greatness of Jack Nicklaus came from his popularity off the course among non-golfers as it came from his popularity on the course.
There can be no question that Tiger has set a new bar by this measure, and Tiger is a part of the non-golfing culture.
I admit it, I probably have a man-crush on Tiger Woods. He is awesome, dominant and whatever other adjective I cannot conjure up right now. If he isn't the greatest ever, it would definitely be safe to say that he is well on his way to being considered the greatest golfer ever.
