[quote=“NLP, post:6, topic:25392”][quote=“Normmm, post:4, topic:25392”]Honestly I don’t know what to predict. Is he using the injuries as an excuse for poor play? Who knows. If the injuries are true, then it could be easy to mark this up to injuries. But who knows how true or relevant the injuries are.
Vijay Singh, Fred Funk, Kenny Perry and others played the best golf of their career in their 40s. While other top players faded away, like Nick Faldo, Davis Love, Colin Montgomerie and Tom Lehman.
Certainly some of the Tiger Woods mystique is gone. But he didn’t just win off of intimidation. He won because he was the best putter when it mattered of all time.
If I had to predict I’d say he’ll win 2 more majors. Even if Tiger catches Jack in majors won, it’d still be be difficult to say who was better. Nicklaus won 18 majors, but also finished 2nd 19 times. He was that close to 30 or so majors! I believe Tiger has about 5 runner up finishes in the Majors.[/quote]
Who would you say had the biggest challenge from the field? Jack or Tiger? That’s a huge part of the debate and most seem to side with Jack.[/quote]
That’s a tough call too. I’d say Nicklaus had the better top tier players. He had 3 or 4 of the top 15 players of all time to compete against during his prime. Palmer, Player, Trevino and Watson. Tiger’s had maybe 3 in Singh, Els and Mickelson. But I don’t think you can even put any of those 3 ahead of the 4 for Nicklaus.
However, the fields are much deeper for Tiger than they were for Nicklaus. A lot of the Americans wouldn’t travel to the British Open in Nicklaus’ time. Conversely the best Europeans didn’t travel to the States as much as they do today.
According to Nicklaus in his autobiography, there were about 10 guys who could beat Bobby Jones in the 1930s. In his prime(1970s) he guessed there were about 30 guys who could beat him. In Tiger’s prime, Nicklaus estimates there are about 90 guys who could beat him.