Tiger Now Etched into History
by Tom Rathkamp
 ardon
the obvious comparison, but they used to say the following about another
dominant professional athlete from the current sports era. "He plays
on a different planet then anybody else." Indeed he does. After
capturing the British Open last weekend, Tiger Woods once again molded
himself into conversions that are beginning with "Maybe the best ever
…"
Golf aficionados might feel slighted when they refer to
Woods as the Michael Jordan of golf. In fact, they might reverse the names
and pay His Airness the compliment instead. However contrite it may seem,
what is legitimate is the emergence of the most dominating golfer since
Jack Nicklaus.
Woods became just the fifth golfer in history to win the
Masters, the US Open, the British Open, and PGA Championship at least
once. He shares this honor with four other legends: the aforementioned
Nicklaus, Gary Player, Gene Sarazen, and Ben Hogan – a veritable
"who’s’ who" of golf history. His score of 269 (19 under
par) last weekend broke a course record by one stroke, that previously
owned by Nick Faldo. Wood’s stated goal in this year’s British was to
shoot under 60 in each of the four rounds, a feat he accomplished with
daily tallies of 67, 66, 67, and 69.
The skills that this still young man (24) possesses on
the links are well documented. He drives the ball the furthest. He makes
par-5 holes seem like par-4’s. His short game has improved every year.
His patience and professionalism are uncanny for a man who, despite his
young age, is already a seasoned veteran of his sport. What next?
While listening to commentary both during and after the
British Open, I was curious by many questions. Will Tiger continue to
dominate the sport? Will such dominance bore fans? Can you put his name
among the best ever? Perhaps some of these queries are a bit premature,
but there’s a basic reason they are all being asked, and that is: He’s
that good!
It’s always interesting, if not nearly impossible, to
compare different players of any sport from different eras. In team
sports, we make such comparisons all the time. Vince Carter to Michael
Jordan. Mark McGwire to Hank Aaron. Walter Payton to Jim Brown. But the
asterisk is always "How many championships has he won?" You can
compare a Carter to Jordan in physical and athletic prowess, but how many
titles has Carter won?
In an individual sport like golf, the comparisons appear
to be easier but they might not be. Is Tiger better than Nicklaus? Most
would say he will be as good, maybe better, but Woods hasn’t played long
enough. What Tiger "is" doing is piling up PGA tour
championships. But until he reaches the obscene totals of a Golden Bear or
Hogan or Nelson or Palmer or Sarazen, the historical comparisons should
probably remain near the back burner.
Most of those guys dominated their eras, and
"that" is the key to Tiger Woods discussions, and any other when
it comes to pitting their careers against people who preceded them. How
dominant have they been in regards to their competition? Some say that the
early pioneers such as Sarazen and Hogan had no competition, therefore,
they can’t be stacked up against a Nicklaus or Woods. But in baseball,
that is precisely one of the reasons Babe Ruth is still so revered today.
In an era where home runs were stuck in dormancy, this big kid from
Baltimore comes along and makes everyone else look like that skinny boy on
the beach who gets sand tossed in his face.
In golf, you don’t have the single statistical
indication (other than score), but you can look at the margin of victory
Woods has amassed in two of his most recent victories, the British and US
Opens. He wiped the course with his competition. If he continues to win
tournaments by 10+ strokes, that engravement in the trophy of golf history
will get deeper and deeper and deeper.
Perhaps what is really important is the way Tiger Woods
has contributed to the popularity of golf. I’ll admit to you. If Woods
had not been chasing history this past weekend, I might not have watched
the final round of the British Open this past weekend.
Being a casual admirer of the sport, I might not be the
right person to ask if the dominance of Woods is good or bad for the
sport. I do know that, if I have marveled at "near perfection"
in one’s craft in the form of a Jordan or Pedro Martinez, or Wayne
Gretsky, then I’m obligated to do the same with Tiger Woods. To lifetime
fans of golf who feel the temptation to say they are bored by what he’s
doing, my only advice to you would be to enjoy him while you can. Athletes
like him don’t come along every day.
Sporting Briefs …
… Egg on the faces of the Chicago Sun Times, who used
their powers of the press to try to "will" free agents to the
Windy City. The latest prospect was Tim Thomas, who expects to return to
the Milwaukee Bucks. What these so-called professionals should be doing is
discussing why this once-storied franchise will never again reach
prominence with Jerry Krause at the helm.
… Barry Larkin decided to opt for loyalty and stay
with the Cincinnati Reds. To Reds fans: "Be careful what you ask
for." Your pleas to Mr. Larkin (and his new lucrative contract) to
remain in Cincy will prompt instant ticket-price hikes, according to Reds
management.
… With the acquisition of Curt Shilling, the Arizona
Diamondbacks now have the best 1-2 punch in starting pitching (with Randy
Johnson). Anything less than a championship will deem this trade a waste.
Any comments, criticisms, or condemnations on this sports column or
previous ones? Feel free to email me at andydan@milwpc.com
Read Last Week's Column
|
