U.S. Open

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by GPK

SO the other 12 majors we can say he stared the whole field in the eye over 72 holes and just simply beat their asses into the ground

Yeah, pretty much 54 hole domination and then no one can catch him from behind on Sunday.

[slotdirt]

Anybody who thinks Tiger doesn't or can't choke never watched any of the like 37 Ryder Cup matches where he's completely come up empty in the clutch.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Anybody who thinks Tiger doesn't or can't choke never watched any of the like 37 Ryder Cup matches where he's completely come up empty in the clutch.

Completely different ballgame John. When you have to rely upon a partner in 4 out of the 5 matches during the Ryder Cup...it's completely different.

I think his singles record in the Ryder Cup speaks for itself though.

[GPK]

I just always think this "never won from behind" in a major is just the stupidest of all arguments.

A win, is a win, is a win. If someone were to ask Jack.."Hey Jack, what would you think about winning all 18 majors from on the lead or tied for the lead after 54 holes?"

I bet he would smile and say "I wish I would have won 19 majors that way"

Anyone that thinks that Tiger not winning a major from behind somehow diminishes his 14 majors or makes him less of a player is simply fooling themselves.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by GPK

Anyone that thinks that Tiger not winning a major from behind somehow diminishes his 14 majors or makes him less of a player is simply fooling themselves.

Ultimately it and a Grand Slam are the only things he has yet to accomplish. Tiger's legacy is stamped already as an all time great and likely the greatest of all time. But winning 16 more majors wouldn't do as much to elevate him to that next level of legendary status as a dramatic come from behind Sunday win would. That is what everyone is waiting for, the day Tiger goes from great to legendary.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Ultimately it and a Grand Slam are the only things he has yet to accomplish. Tiger's legacy is stamped already as an all time great and likely the greatest of all time. But winning 16 more majors wouldn't do as much to elevate him to that next level of legendary status as a dramatic come from behind Sunday win would. That is what everyone is waiting for, the day Tiger goes from great to legendary.

So his body of work isn't complete until he wins one from behind? I don't see why it matters so much.

NT

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

So his body of work isn't complete until he wins one from behind? I don't see why it matters so much.

NT

So far he has been a mere mortal. People want to see him make that dramatic come from behind victory that puts him in demigod territory where currently only Michael Jordan resides.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

So far he has been a mere mortal. People want to see him make that dramatic come from behind victory that puts him in demigod territory where currently only Michael Jordan resides.

LOL... this is funny. Tiger is every bit as good in golf as MJ was in basketball.. if not better... and by the way, just because we werent old enough to really enjoy Jack doesnt mean he's not in the demigod territory.. cause he is, in fact he's the God of the sports gods.


I guess people also dont realize that golfers usually hit their prime on the tour in their 30's... and Tiger is only 33.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

LOL... this is funny. Tiger is every bit as good in golf as MJ was in basketball.. if not better... and by the way, just because we werent old enough to really enjoy Jack doesnt mean he's not in the demigod territory.. cause he is, in fact he's the God of the sports gods.


I guess people also dont realize that golfers usually hit their prime on the tour in their 30's... and Tiger is only 33.

Sorry, Tiger is still just the best golfer ever. He's not in MJ territory until he has that last round comeback. He's had the 60+ point games (1997 Masters, 2000 US and British Opens, 2005 British, 2006 PGA) and he has the championships but he hasn't had that defining comeback game winning shot to win a championship. That's the one thing holding him back from the MJ tier.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Ultimately it and a Grand Slam are the only things he has yet to accomplish. Tiger's legacy is stamped already as an all time great and likely the greatest of all time. But winning 16 more majors wouldn't do as much to elevate him to that next level of legendary status as a dramatic come from behind Sunday win would. That is what everyone is waiting for, the day Tiger goes from great to legendary.

Tiger is beyond legendary. Only player to hold all four modern major trophies at the same time.

[Antitrust32]

Ugh... I just had to look it up

all his wins:

'97 Masters - shoots 3 under in the final round (great golf)

'01 Masters - 4 under in final round (great golf)

'02 Masters- 1 under final round

'05 Masters - 1 under final round


Just want to point out that any score under even par is incredible on a Major Championship course... Tiger just makes it look easy.

Ok on to other ones..

'00 US Open - shot a 67 in final round (insane scoring)

'02 US Open - shot a 72 final round

08' US Open - shot a 73 final round with no ACL and two fractures (if that aint diggen down than nothing is)

PS... didnt put it as how many under par cause the par on each course is different and I dont feel like looking it up.

'00 British Open - 69 final round (great golf)

'05 British Open - 70 final round

'06 British Open - 67 final round (insane scoring)



'99 PGA - 72 final round

'00 PGA - 67 final round (just great golf right there)

'06 PGA - 68 final round (great golf)

'07 PGA - 69 final round (great golf)


Just wanted to point out again that breaking par in a Major is playing terrific. Also wanted to point out that a -2 on a par 70 course = a 68 and a -2 on a par 72 course = a 70 but they are both the same score.



He hasnt let anyone catch him from behind when he's in the lead because he posts numbers that no one else can even on their greatest round of golf.

Your comment "or shooting in the 70s and still holding on to win" was completely wrong. Unless you want to count last year when he had no ACL and two fractures in what I believe is his greatest golf accomplishment.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Ugh... I just had to look it up

all his wins:

'97 Masters - shoots 3 under in the final round (great golf)

'01 Masters - 4 under in final round (great golf)

'02 Masters- 1 under final round

'05 Masters - 1 under final round


Just want to point out that any score under even par is incredible on a Major Championship course... Tiger just makes it look easy.

Ok on to other ones..

'00 US Open - shot a 67 in final round (insane scoring)

'02 US Open - shot a 72 final round

08' US Open - shot a 73 final round with no ACL and two fractures (if that aint diggen down than nothing is)

PS... didnt put it as how many under par cause the par on each course is different and I dont feel like looking it up.

'00 British Open - 69 final round (great golf)

'05 British Open - 70 final round

'06 British Open - 67 final round (insane scoring)



'99 PGA - 72 final round

'00 PGA - 67 final round (just great golf right there)

'06 PGA - 68 final round (great golf)

'07 PGA - 69 final round (great golf)


Just wanted to point out again that breaking par in a Major is playing terrific. Also wanted to point out that a -2 on a par 70 course = a 68 and a -2 on a par 72 course = a 70 but they are both the same score.



He hasnt let anyone catch him from behind when he's in the lead because he posts numbers that no one else can even on their greatest round of golf.

Your comment "or shooting in the 70s and still holding on to win" was completely wrong. Unless you want to count last year when he had no ACL and two fractures in what I believe is his greatest golf accomplishment.

Please explain to me what I said wrong in my post. Everything I said is 100% true and is backed up by your data.

The shooting in the 70s and holding on to win was part of an 'or' statement which was also 100% true.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Please explain to me what I said wrong in my post. Everything I said is 100% true and is backed up by your data.

The shooting in the 70s and holding on to win was part of an 'or' statement which was also 100% true.

Because you dont realize that shooting a 70 is the same as shooting a 68 on a different course, and he's never "held on to win" except last year when he was injured. that was an incorrect statement from you. He just puts the final nail in the coffin. How can you not grasp the fact that even a even par final round is spectacular? Do you not realize how hard Major Championship courses are?

Glover "held on to win" today by posting a 3 over score on the final round. Tiger doesnt do that and its false. Shooting a 70, or even a 72 (a lot of courses are par 72) is COMPLETLEY different than "holding on to win" and 100% false.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Because you dont realize that shooting a 70 is the same as shooting a 68 on a different course, and he's never "held on to win" except last year when he was injured. that was an incorrect statement from you. He just puts the final nail in the coffin. How can you not grasp the fact that even a even par final round is spectacular? Do you not realize how hard Major Championship courses are?

Glover "held on to win" today by posting a 3 over score on the final round. Tiger doesnt do that and its false. Shooting a 70, or even a 72 (a lot of courses are par 72) is COMPLETLEY different than "holding on to win" and 100% false.

An even par final round is not spectacular for Tiger Woods. Even for most top players it is a very good round but not spectacular. We aren't comparing these guys to what me or you or Kev or Marty can do, we are comparing them to the best of the best. And shooting par is not spectacular for the best of the best even of Sunday of a Major.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

An even par final round is not spectacular for Tiger Woods. Even for most top players it is a very good round but not spectacular. We aren't comparing these guys to what me or you or Kev or Marty can do, we are comparing them to the best of the best. And shooting par is not spectacular for the best of the best even of Sunday of a Major.

now dont prove that you dont know what you are talking about with statements like this cause it will make it not fun to argue.

Ever hear of things like "course conditions"? Sometimes a +1 or +2 score is a spectacular round, even for a guy like Tiger. You cant just look at a number. Last time they played at Bethpage Tiger was the only player to finish under par for the tourney. Now a guy like Ricky Barnes shoots 8 under after two rounds. Can you see where I'm going with this??

[slotdirt]

Tiger's obviously great, but his Ryder Cup record still stinks, and that includes his singles matches. Other than that though, it's hard to complain with the overall body of work. He's still incredibly annoying though.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

now dont prove that you dont know what you are talking about with statements like this cause it will make it not fun to argue.

Ever hear of things like "course conditions"? Sometimes a +1 or +2 score is a spectacular round, even for a guy like Tiger. You cant just look at a number. Last time they played at Bethpage Tiger was the only player to finish under par for the tourney. Now a guy like Ricky Barnes shoots 8 under after two rounds. Can you see where I'm going with this??

You are completely off on your definition of spectacular. At the very least spectacular should be the best round of the day and even then it should be a rare occurrence. For a +1 or +2 to be spectacular the next best score would have to be +5 or +6.

[Antitrust32]

Okay I'll give you one of those.. 2002 US Open at Bethpage he shot 2 over on the final round "to hold on to win" which was really bullshit anyway because 2 over was still a good score to post that day... only 3 players the whole day posted an under par score that day... so nevermind it really wasnt "holding on to win" a 72 was a good score.



The 99' PGA when he shot "72" at Medinah Country Club.. well that was even par score (par 72) so it was not at all "holding on to win"


not really going to address the "70" at the Andrews in 2005 because that is a great golf score. no way was it a "holding on to win"


So basically, if you look at the facts instead of just taking numbers as numbers when you dont know what they mean, the ONLY time Tiger "held on to win" was with no ACL and two fractures.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Okay I'll give you one of those.. 2002 US Open at Bethpage he shot 2 over on the final round "to hold on to win" which was really bullshit anyway because 2 over was still a good score to post that day... only 3 players the whole day posted an under par score that day... so nevermind it really wasnt "holding on to win" a 72 was a good score.


The 99' PGA when he shot "72" at Medinah Country Club.. well that was even par score (par 72) so it was not at all "holding on to win"


not really going to address the "70" at the Andrews in 2005 because that is a great golf score. no way was it a "holding on to win"


So basically, if you look at the facts instead of just taking numbers as numbers when you dont know what they mean, the ONLY time Tiger "held on to win" was with no ACL and two fractures.

The 2002 US Open he had a 4 stroke lead going into the final round. He was never looked in the eye and Phil actually was one of the 3 that went under par that day. Certainly a 72 was a good score on that day but it doesn't fit in Gales analogy that he was looked in the eye.

1999 is a pretty terrible choice, of the 15 people that were tied for 10th or higher only two of them shot worse than Tiger's 72 that day. So yes, that was one he held on to win.

You are correct on the 70 being a pretty good score at St Andrews that day. I excluded that one cause he had two strokes going in on Olazabal and three strokes on Montgomerie and Goosen. After further review that one warrants more consideration as that wasn't that many strokes on some pretty good players.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

The 2002 US Open he had a 4 stroke lead going into the final round. He was never looked in the eye and Phil actually was one of the 3 that went under par that day. Certainly a 72 was a good score on that day but it doesn't fit in Gales analogy that he was looked in the eye.

1999 is a pretty terrible choice, of the 15 people that were tied for 10th or higher only two of them shot worse than Tiger's 72 that day. So yes, that was one he held on to win.

You are correct on the 70 being a pretty good score at St Andrews that day. I excluded that one cause he had two strokes going in on Olazabal and three strokes on Montgomerie and Goosen. After further review that one warrants more consideration as that wasn't that many strokes on some pretty good players.

I disagree about 1999. to me "holding on to win" is something that Glover did today. shot 3 over par. I can never believe that shooting even par on a Sunday in a major is "holding on to win".

I mean, I guess we can look at his incredible match play record as being "looked in the eye" and 3 US Amatures and 3 US Junior Amatures as being "looked in the eye" as the are all match play events.

Back in the good old days players would count US Amatures as Majors because there wasnt enough money in golf to go pro. A lot of people say Jack has 20 majors because he won two US Amatures.

Unfortunatly, unlike Jack's years where some of his competitors actually had/have a pair of balls under their dick, when Tiger "looks someone in the eye" the guys pisses/shits his pants and cries. Its kinda sad.