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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

come on Scott this is just idiotic! First off, he's not the best golfer ever, he's tied for #1 or just under #1 (will be tied for #1 by the end of his career).

MJ had holes in his game too. He could have been a better defender and passer.

Only in your mind (and probably Scuds) is Tiger not in MJ territory.

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??

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.

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.

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.

We are going to have to agree to strongly disagree on this one. Tiger is not in MJ territory until he gets that dramatic come from behind win.

I think Tiger is superb, but someone want to explain to me how you can possibly say that he didnt choke today and Phil did? Both missed putts all day long, and all of them were in key (clutch) situations. I'm sorry but in the last round of a major, someone want to tell me how missing a short putt on 11 isnt as much of a choke as it is on 16?

Cmmon, the best 2 golfers in the world both blew it today. End of story.
Ones got 14 and the other has 3, but one can easily argue both guys should have won this today.

That crap about A game, B game, C game is so overdone. Why only for Tiger? Does Phil not have an A, B and C game?

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.

i still contend that tiger's greatest win as a pro was the 2000 pga over bob may

bob may was not a top player , but that week in valhalla he played perhaps the greatest 4 rounds of anyone in any major and not win

i think bob may had 3 rounds of 66 in that tournament , he took the lead away from tiger at one point in the back nine , the putt he made on 18 was simply amazing , tiger had to make about an 8 footer to force a playoff - i honestly don't think anyone else in the world would have made that putt with all the pressure on the line , through in the fact that he was trying to tie ben hogan as the only player to win 3 majors in the year and the pressure on the putt is multiplie 100 fold - and he poured it right in

if he didn't make that putt and lost to bob may who knows what would have happened o him after that - but he didn't miss

the analogy that he has to go toe to toe with another top player is ridiculous , any 1 of these guys can string 4 great rounds together

i do agreee with scott that the public would like to see a comeback from behind win from 5/6 back , if he does that he will become a legend, but, that day against bob may was simply un-real , he willed himself to victory there against a guy who played arguably as good for 4 rounds as anyone else ever did in a pga , with the exception of tiger of course

more than one player are allowed to have spectacular rounds on the same day.

Maybe he choked but he putted bad all week... its not like he was lighting it up like Phil all week and missed some easy ones at the end.

Basically it comes down to Phils a proven choker where Tiger is a proven winner. One day of bad putting when he had a whole week of bad putting isnt "choking" to me. Its not like he folded under pressure (thats choking to me) he just didnt bring his putter with him at all this week. Big difference in my mind. Hey I'm sure Tiger things he choked beginning on Thursday. He choked all four rounds and still finished 6th.

But hey you can believe whatever you want!

yes he does

the difference between tiger and phil is simple timmy , if tiger is tied with lucas glover with 4 holes to play in a us open - he ain't losing , no way no how , ever

thats how last year was to me also gales. That 12 footer he made on 18 to force a playoff was as clutch as it gets. I know Rocco isnt some big shot, but he's a pro golfer on the PGA tour and Tiger had ONE leg!

the difference between may and rocco was that tiger played with may in the final round , rocco was ahead of him on sunday

the woods / may show down has yet to be topped in my mind, they matched each other shot for shot on the back 9

Lighting it up? Thats exactly how Phil plays...3,4 birdies, an eagle but a few bogeys and double bogeys as well. Steady is hardly a term that comes to mind when describing Phil's play, which is why he is so popular and enjoyable to watch, and at the same time why he has failed to win so many more majors.

Call it what you want but Tiger completely choked today. Forget what he did the last 3 days. The bottom line is at one point today, he was 3 shots off the lead and he still had 3 holes left to put himself as the leader in the clubhouse. But he hit bad shots and made even worse putts.

Even if he did putt horrible all week long, which by his standards he did...what the hell does that have to do with the last nine holes of a major where the guys in front of you are struggling, given you a window to walk through and make things very close? Its absurd to bring up the way Tiger putted the first 63 holes of this tournament.

As bad as he did, the fact is he knew he still had an excellent chance to win and he didnt.

whatever makes you happy man! but I 100% disagree!

Look, I am a huge fan of Tigers. He probably is my favorite professional athlete in any sport. If you told me growing up that my favorite "athlete" would be a golfer, I would have thought you were crazy.

I'm just being a little objective here. Knowing the personalities of both Tiger and Phil I could pretty much guarntee you that both players feel like they let another major slip away. More obvious to the casual fan was Phil who was tied late in the round, but Tiger would never kid himself...this was one that he let get away.

As GPK said earlier, as bad as he putted, the fact is he was still (in his mind) very much in contention and one of the more likelier winners as late as the
16th-17th holes.

Without Tiger and Phil, the PGA Tour would be the equivalent of Harness Racing.

Tim, I love ya like a brother, you know that...but Tiger only hit 1 bad shot in his last 6 holes (the chip shot on 15). Other than that he hit it just about perfect coming down the stretch today..he just choked it on the greens.

now this I 100% agree with! I'm sure Tiger knows he let this slip away. I've never seen him miss so many makeable birdie putts. If this was a regular US Open where a -1 or E par wins its okay to make par after par... but you had to score to win this tourney. Tiger should have won and he should have putted better, & its crazy that he was even in contention while averaging 30 putts per round. But I just dont think he choked. Choking is folding under pressure, and he didnt do that... he just didnt have it.

you know lori there are people in ohio that still think that Tom Weiskopf had more talent than Jack Nicklaus

they are not necessiarly wrong , he had a better swing than jack , hit the ball as good if not better, but, when history was on the line (see the '75 masters) Tom terrific looked like a sunday hack next to Jack - he couldn't do 1 thing that jack always did on sunday ........get the ball into the hole in big spots time after time

Tom wasn't the only player that had more talent than Jack.

if the guy on NBC could putt , who knows how many he wins , his iron play was light years ahead of jack , probably the straighest iron player in the history of the game

if you could design a golfer that hit a driver like greg norman , hit the irons like johnnie miller , improvise with the wedge like trevino , putt like crenshaw and have jack's head - that would be the perfect player , the only possibile player that could even beat tiger

That sure is a lot of ifs. Are you going to build this golfer in your garage?
Adam Scott has more talent than any of them except for Tiger, but he cant seem to play well in majors.

timmy

greg norman was the longest / straightest driver of the golf ball in history of golf

johnnie miller - was the straighest iron player ever in the game

Lee Trevino would make mince meat of adam scott with a wedge

Ben Crenshaw - best stroke

Now give that combo Jack's head and you have the golfer that can take down tiger woods

none of them on theoir own could beat tiger , but their best part of their game could beat him

Adam Scott - geez next your going to tell me that George Scott was a better 1b man than Don Mattingly!

lol.. says the man who says he has more shots in his bag than Kev!

so go ahead and tell me about Adam Scott - where is the talent ??? where are the shots - all the guys i mentioned above have won major cahmpionships and have been right on the cusp of major champioships wins only not to have the mental game to hold up on sunday as well as tiger and jack

please tell me where what part of the game adam scott is better at than each of the players listed below

greg norman with the driver - not even a vote , he can't drive it as straight as the great white shark and they boh hit it a ton


johnnie miller - scott never has shown an ability to throw dart like irons at pins over extended weeks in events whether the pga tour or the aust tour

lee trevino - you really think adam scott can make a wedge dance like trevino ?

ben crenshaw - putting - no chance , he 's too mechanical on the greens to compete with crenshaw over the long haul

jack nicklaus - mental game - no way no how

Scott has sensational long irons and his short game rivals that of Phils. He just cant seem to putt when it matters and makes too many mistakes. Nobody on tour can hit long irons like Adam Scott. He should have 3-4 majors under his belt by now, maybe even more.

i'm not saying that he doesn't hit them very well , but , does he really hit them as well as johnnie miller did? do you really believe that

Johnnie Miller could go months literally without missing the green from the middle of the fariway - in fact he could go a few tournaments without not getting withing 15 ft every time when he was in the middle of the fairway - it's not even up for discussion

I never watched Johnny Miller play golf, but I dont need you telling me how great a ball striker and shotmaker he was....I am reminded of it at least 7 times every time I watch a golf telecast that he is on! Man, that guy's ego is something else. Hes really corny too. Golf may be the only sport on TV covered worse than horse racing.

I dont really have a good knowlege of Scotts game... I just wanted to crack a joke on you!

ok , but don't forget mind that bird can still get 3 yr old of the year even though borel f**ked up in the belmont

agreed... Miller is horrible. every single major you get to here about his final round score of 63. I mean jezus! I hope someone posts a final round 59 in a major so we never have to hear about Miller again.

i personally like Johnnie Miller , i got to meet Bob Wright (miller's boss) a few years ago , and i personally told him he was a great asset for NBC sports because he tells it like it is , a lot of golf commentators don't have a pulse