I will jump into this fray. Golf is such an inexact sport that perfection is not something any golfer will ever have. Perfection would imply that every approach shot went in the hole. Every par 3 would be a hole in one. Since perfection isn't a possibility, what actual barometer can we use in golf? Personally, the only one I can think of is wins. However, with wins the argument then becomes competition and there are so many arguments about competition that we must first discuss the reality of competition.
In my humble opinion, our sports universe is evolving, not de evolving. With the popularity of getting physically fit, as well as the technological advances one wonders how we can't be getting better. With computers helping us understand body mechanics and equipment improvements I would have to believe that today's athletes are superior to yesterdays.
Given that hypothesis, I am going to weigh in on the Tiger argument. At his age, his totals surpass Jack's. I don't buy the competition argument because Arnie was not a major factor for most of Jack's career and neither was Tom Watson. One left before Jack was in full bloom and the other arrived as Jack was declining. The only real constant for Jack was Gary.
Tiger has a lot of young talents in the game today, not to mention an international contingent that has never been more talented.
As a betting man, I am putting my money on the gamble that Tiger will retire with most majors, most wins, and greatest winning percentage. Can't argue that if he has that, he isn't the greatest golfer of all time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment